{"cached_at":"2026-10-25T10:49:26.243260+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68068242","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","id":68068242,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9890301/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10323686/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9890095/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/11019714/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1136/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2023-12-06T15:11:14.228898-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T06:53:11.947961-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jesse M. Furman","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-11-27T10:07:26.765691-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-12-06","date_terminated":"2025-10-10","date_last_filing":"2026-09-14","case_name_short":"","case_name":"IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC SECURITIES LITIGATION","case_name_full":"","slug":"in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation","docket_number":"1:23-cv-10645","docket_number_core":"2310645","docket_number_raw":"1:23-cv-10645","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JMF","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"611579","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2023-12-06T15:11:14.222837-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14067128/","id":14067128,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.324897-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.324908-07:00","name":"Thomas Liu","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14067127/","id":14067127,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.316456-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.316473-07:00","name":"Binghe Guo","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14067126/","id":14067126,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497640/","attorney_id":9497640,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038493/","attorney_id":9038493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.308343-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.308356-07:00","name":"Zhiwu Chen","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14067125/","id":14067125,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497640/","attorney_id":9497640,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038493/","attorney_id":9038493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2024-07-01","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 07/01/2024","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.284847-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-13T12:13:21.284860-07:00","name":"Iman Schrock","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439084/","id":13439084,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9478929/","attorney_id":9478929,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9478929/","attorney_id":9478929,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9043799/","attorney_id":9043799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9043799/","attorney_id":9043799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9043800/","attorney_id":9043800,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.879680-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.879688-07:00","name":"Aegis Capital Corp","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439083/","id":13439083,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.870958-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.870965-07:00","name":"Xing Huang","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439082/","id":13439082,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.859005-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.859012-07:00","name":"Frank Lin","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439081/","id":13439081,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497640/","attorney_id":9497640,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038493/","attorney_id":9038493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.808105-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.808114-07:00","name":"Xin Wan","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439080/","id":13439080,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497640/","attorney_id":9497640,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038493/","attorney_id":9038493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.798637-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.798645-07:00","name":"Kwok Hei David Lau","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439079/","id":13439079,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497640/","attorney_id":9497640,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038493/","attorney_id":9038493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.749122-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.749130-07:00","name":"Larry Lei Wu","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439078/","id":13439078,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038491/","attorney_id":9038491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038492/","attorney_id":9038492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497640/","attorney_id":9497640,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038493/","attorney_id":9038493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038494/","attorney_id":9038494,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.568317-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:12.568327-07:00","name":"GigaCloud Technology Inc","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439077/","id":13439077,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038487/","attorney_id":9038487,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038487/","attorney_id":9038487,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038488/","attorney_id":9038488,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038488/","attorney_id":9038488,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038489/","attorney_id":9038489,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038489/","attorney_id":9038489,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038489/","attorney_id":9038489,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038490/","attorney_id":9038490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Consolidated Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:11.969890-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:11.969898-07:00","name":"Thomas J. Kinnally","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439076/","id":13439076,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038484/","attorney_id":9038484,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038484/","attorney_id":9038484,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038485/","attorney_id":9038485,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038481/","attorney_id":9038481,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038486/","attorney_id":9038486,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:11.305007-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:11.305016-07:00","name":"Rock Villanueva","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439075/","id":13439075,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038481/","attorney_id":9038481,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038481/","attorney_id":9038481,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038480/","attorney_id":9038480,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038483/","attorney_id":9038483,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Lead Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:11.249363-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:11.249372-07:00","name":"Sashi Rajan","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13439074/","id":13439074,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038480/","attorney_id":9038480,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038481/","attorney_id":9038481,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038482/","attorney_id":9038482,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9038483/","attorney_id":9038483,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","docket_id":68068242,"name":"Lead Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-11T15:05:10.338514-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-11T15:05:10.338523-07:00","name":"Meir Spear","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477895989/","id":477895989,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493506623/","id":493506623,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-14T12:10:39.346367-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T12:10:39.346380-07:00","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":"Notice to Court Regarding Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T12:10:39.326314-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T12:10:39.326338-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"13:31:56","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477895943/","id":477895943,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493506577/","id":493506577,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/154/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-09-14T12:10:29.520898-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T02:16:06.871362-07:00","sha1":"f8abbf3112fe249c53007ed7e57a077ef11babbe","page_count":3,"file_size":1562102,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.154.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.154.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 154 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION\n FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FUNDS\n\n WHEREAS, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Sashi Rajan and Meir Spear\n\n(collectively, \u201cCo-Lead Plaintiffs\u201d or \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) moved this Court for an order approving\n\ndistribution of the Net Settlement Fund (\u201cMotion\u201d), and having reviewed and considered the\n\nmaterials and arguments submitted in support of the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:\n\n 1. The Court approves the administrative determinations of Strategic Claims Services\n\n(\u201cSCS\u201d), the Court-appointed Claims Administrator, in accepting and rejecting Claim Forms\n\n(\u201cClaims\u201d).1\n\n 2. The Net Settlement Fund (less any necessary amounts to be withheld for payment\n\nof potential tax liabilities and related fees and expenses) shall be distributed to Authorized\n\nClaimants identified in Exhibits B-1 and B-2 to the Declaration of Josephine Bravata Concerning\n\nthe Results of the Claims Administration Process (\u201cBravata Declaration\u201d or \u201cBravata Decl.\u201d), at\n\nthe direction of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cCo-Lead Counsel\u201d or \u201cClass\n\nCounsel\u201d). The Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan\n\n\n\n1\n All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to\nthem in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 16, 2025 (ECF No. 137, the\n\u201cStipulation\u201d).\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 154 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nof Allocation set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (ECF\n\nNos. 146-1 at 16-17 of 17, 146-2 at 2-4 of 18), pursuant to this Court\u2019s Order Granting Preliminary\n\nApproval of Class Action Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date\n\nfor Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 139 (the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d)).\n\n 3. SCS\u2019s administrative determinations rejecting the inadequate and ineligible\n\nClaims, set forth in Exhibits D and E to the Bravata Declaration, are approved. Such Claims may\n\nnot receive distributions from the Settlement Fund.\n\n 4. Any Claims received after received after May 11, 2026 and any responses to\n\ninadequacy and/or ineligibility notices received after May 21, 2026 are hereby rejected as\n\nuntimely.\n\n 5. All distribution checks shall bear the notation \u201cCASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND\n\nSUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE.\u201d Class Counsel and SCS\n\nare authorized to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has not cashed his, her, or\n\nits check within said time.\n\n 6. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed distribution\n\nchecks, or otherwise, then, after the Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts\n\nto have Settlement Class Members who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the Net\n\nSettlement Fund cash their distributions, any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after\n\nat least six (6) months after the initial distribution of such funds shall be used in the following\n\nfashion: (a) first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the initial disbursement; (b) second,\n\nto pay any additional settlement administration fees, costs, and expenses, including those of Co-\n\nLead Counsel as may be approved by the Court; and (c) finally, to make a second distribution to\n\nclaimants who cashed their checks from the initial distribution and who would receive at least\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 154 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n$10.00, after payment of the estimated costs, expenses, or fees to be incurred in administering the\n\nNet Settlement Fund and in making this second distribution, if such second distribution is\n\neconomically feasible.\n\n 7. These redistributions shall be repeated, if economically feasible, until the balance\n\nremaining in the Net Settlement Fund is de minimis and such remaining balance will then be\n\ndistributed to Howard University Law School Investor Justice and Education Clinic or any of its\n\nnot-for-profit successors. That said, Plaintiffs shall seek and obtain the leave of Court before making\n any distribution pursuant to this paragraph.\n 8. SCS is hereby ordered to discard paper or hard copies of Claim Forms and\n\nsupporting documents not less than one (1) year after the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,\n\nand electronic copies of the same not less than one (1) year after all funds have been distributed.\n\n 9. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications concerning the\n\nadministration of the Settlement, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n\nDated:September 14, 2026\n HON. JESSE M. FURMAN\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 150.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-23T19:10:44.854082-07:00","document_number":"154","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040338618","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T12:10:29.491320-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T06:53:12.229273-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"13:48:56","entry_number":154,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":518,"description":"ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FUNDS granting (150) Motion in case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF. WHEREAS, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Sashi Rajan and Meir Spear (collectively, \"Co-Lead Plaintiffs\" or \"Plaintiffs\") moved this Court for an order approving distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (\"Motion\"), and having reviewed and considered the materials and arguments submitted in support of the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court approves the administrative determinations of Strategic Claims Services (\"SCS\"), the Court-appointed Claims Administrator, in accepting and rejecting Claim Forms (\"Claims\") As further set forth herein, These redistributions shall be repeated, if economically feasible, until the balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is de minimis and such remaining balance will then be distributed to Howard University Law School Investor Justice and Education Clinic or any of its not-for-profit successors. That said, Plaintiffs shall seek and obtain the leave of Court before making any distribution pursuant to this paragraph. SCS is hereby ordered to discard paper or hard copies of Claim Forms and supporting documents not less than one (1) year after the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, and electronic copies of the same not less than one (1) year after all funds have been distributed. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications concerning the administration of the Settlement, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 150. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/14/2026) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-10645-JMF, 1:23-cv-10684-JMF (ar) (Entered: 09/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477726692/","id":477726692,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493330288/","id":493330288,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/150/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-09-11T14:10:04.734596-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T14:10:04.747878-07:00","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":"150","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040329542","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T14:10:04.713998-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T06:53:12.167328-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"15:48:11","entry_number":150,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":505,"description":"MOTION - Notice of Motion and Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds . Document filed by Sashi Rajan, Meir Spear..(Park, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477726679/","id":477726679,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493330273/","id":493330273,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/151/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-09-11T14:10:01.820861-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T14:10:01.841390-07:00","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":"151","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040329592","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T14:10:01.775727-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T06:53:12.193598-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"15:50:18","entry_number":151,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.002","pacer_sequence_number":507,"description":"PROPOSED ORDER. Document filed by Sashi Rajan, Meir Spear. Related Document Number: 150 ..(Park, Jonathan) Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477726664/","id":477726664,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493330258/","id":493330258,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/152/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-09-11T14:09:58.888650-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T14:09:58.904115-07:00","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":"152","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040329646","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T14:09:58.856422-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T06:53:12.204232-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"15:53:18","entry_number":152,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.003","pacer_sequence_number":509,"description":"MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 150 MOTION - Notice of Motion and Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds . Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds. Document filed by Sashi Rajan, Meir Spear..(Park, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477726628/","id":477726628,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493330218/","id":493330218,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/153/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-09-11T14:09:52.072664-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T14:09:52.087310-07:00","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":"153","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040329738","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T14:09:52.047626-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T06:53:12.215993-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"15:58:38","entry_number":153,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.004","pacer_sequence_number":512,"description":"DECLARATION of Josephine Bravata Concerning the Results of the Claims Administration Process - in Support re: 150 MOTION - Notice of Motion and Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds .. Document filed by Sashi Rajan, Meir Spear. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B-1, # 3 Exhibit B-2, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F).(Park, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448540877/","id":448540877,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/463317014/","id":463317014,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.656250-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.664323-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.635378-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.635391-08:00","date_filed":"2025-10-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Case Stay Lifted. (yv)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448540876/","id":448540876,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/463317013/","id":463317013,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.544163-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.552104-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.522845-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.522856-08:00","date_filed":"2025-10-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jesse M. Furman: Settlement Conference held via teleconference on 10/9/2025. Brian Alexander and Jonathan Park present for Plaintiff. Iris Xie, Larry Hong, and John Elliott present for Defendants. Court reporter present. (ab)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440632173/","id":440632173,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455192949/","id":455192949,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-10-10T14:12:12.722093-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-10T14:12:12.736006-07:00","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":"Settlement Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-10T14:12:12.687609-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-10T14:12:12.687624-07:00","date_filed":"2025-10-10","time_filed":"15:45:56","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440589568/","id":440589568,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455149580/","id":455149580,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/149/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-10-10T10:11:25.744338-07:00","date_modified":"2026-01-02T02:12:08.507712-08:00","sha1":"9bec2c43e8936ea20b4b633c6d13efc647a59670","page_count":12,"file_size":172476,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.149.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.149.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\n\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT\n\n WHEREAS:\n\n A. As of June 16, 2025, Co-Lead Plaintiffs Sashi Rajan (\u201cRajan\u201d) and Meir Spear\n\n(\u201cSpear\u201d, and collectively with Rajan, \u201cCo-Lead Plaintiffs\u201d or \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), on behalf of\n\nthemselves and all other members of the Settlement Class (defined below), on the one hand, and\n\nGigaCloud Technology Inc (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), Larry Lei Wu (\u201cWu\u201d), Xin Wan\n\n(\u201cWan\u201d), Kwok Hei David Lau (\u201cLau\u201d), Zhiwu Chen (\u201cChen\u201d), Thomas Liu (\u201cLiu\u201d), and Aegis\n\nCapital Corp. (\u201cAegis\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cSettling Defendants\u201d), on the other, entered into a\n\nStipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the \u201cStipulation\u201d) in the above-titled litigation (the\n\n\u201cAction\u201d);\n\n B. Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,\n\nApproving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Hearing on Final Approval of\n\nSettlement, entered June 20, 2025 (the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d), the Court scheduled a\n\nhearing for October 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d) to, among other things: (i)\n\ndetermine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 2 of 12\n\n\n\n\nin the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court;\n\n(ii) determine whether a judgment as provided for in the Stipulation should be entered; and\n\n(iii) rule on Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application;\n\n C. The Court ordered that the Postcard Notice, substantially in the forms attached to\n\nthe Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit 4, be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on or\n\nbefore ten (10) business days after the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (\u201cNotice\n\nDate\u201d) to all potential Settlement Class Members who could be identified through reasonable\n\neffort, that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for\n\nAttorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses (the \u201cNotice\u201d) and a Proof of Claim and Release form (\u201cClaim\n\nForm\u201d) be posted on the Settlement website, and that the Summary Notice of Pendency and\n\nProposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses (the \u201cSummary\n\nNotice\u201d), substantially in the form attached to the Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit 3, be\n\npublished in Investor\u2019s Business Daily and once over a national newswire service within fourteen\n\n(14) calendar days of the Notice Date;\n\n D. The Notice and the Summary Notice advised potential Settlement Class Members\n\nof the date, time, place, and purpose of the Settlement Hearing. The Notice further advised that\n\nany objections to the Settlement were required to be filed with the Court and served on counsel for\n\nthe Parties such that they were received by September 18, 2025;\n\n E. The provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order as to notice were complied with;\n\n F. On September 4, 2025, Co-Lead Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the\n\nSettlement, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Hearing was duly held\n\nbefore this Court on October 9, 2025, at which time all interested Persons were afforded the\n\nopportunity to be heard; and\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 3 of 12\n\n\n\n\n G. This Court has duly considered Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for final approval of the\n\nSettlement, the affidavits, declarations, and memoranda of law submitted in support thereof, the\n\nStipulation, and all of the submissions and arguments presented with respect to the proposed\n\nSettlement;\n\n NOW, THEREFORE, after due deliberation, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND\n\nDECREED that:\n\n 1. Incorporation of Settlement Documents. This Judgment incorporates and makes\n\na part hereof: (i) the Stipulation filed with the Court on June 16, 2025; and (ii) the Notice, which\n\nwas filed with the Court on September 4, 2025. Capitalized terms not defined in this Judgment\n\nshall have the meaning set forth in the Stipulation.\n\n 2. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and\n\nall matters relating to the Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over all the Parties, including\n\nall Settlement Class Members.\n\n 3. Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement. The Court hereby affirms its\n\ndeterminations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the\n\nSettlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the\n\nSettlement Class of: all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired\n\nGigaCloud Stock during the period from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive,\n\nand were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and any\n\naffiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and former officers and directors of GigaCloud and\n\nmembers of their Immediate Families; (iii) Defendants\u2019 liability insurance carriers, and any\n\naffiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a\n\ncontrolling interest; (v) GigaCloud\u2019s employee retirement and benefit plan(s); and (vi) the legal\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 4 of 12\n\n\n\n\nrepresentatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity\n\nin (i)-(v).\n\n 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of the\n\nSettlement only, the Court hereby re-affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order\n\nand finally certifies Rajan and Spear as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and finally\n\nappoints the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel for the\n\nSettlement Class.\n\n 5. Notice. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice, Summary Notice,\n\nPostcard Notice, and Proof of Claim: (i) complied with the Preliminary Approval Order; (ii)\n\nconstituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (iii) constituted notice that was\n\nreasonably calculated to apprise Settlement Class Members of the effect of the Settlement, of the\n\nproposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement, of Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s request for\n\npayment of attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of\n\nthe Action, of Settlement Class Members\u2019 rights to object thereto or seek exclusion from the\n\nSettlement Class, and of their right to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (iv) constituted due,\n\nadequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to receive notice of the proposed Settlement;\n\nand (v) satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the\n\nUnited States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and Section 21D(a)(7) of the\n\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private Securities\n\nLitigation Reform Act of 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d).\n\n 6. Objections. There have been no objections to the Settlement.\n\n 7. Final Settlement Approval and Dismissal of Claims. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2)\n\nof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby approves the Settlement and finds that\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 5 of 12\n\n\n\n\nin light of the benefits to the Settlement Class, the complexity and expense of further litigation,\n\nthe risks of establishing liability and damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement\n\nis, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, having considered and found that: (a) Co-Lead\n\nPlaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class; (b) the proposal\n\nwas negotiated at arm\u2019s-length between experienced counsel; (c) the relief provided for the\n\nSettlement Class is adequate, having taken into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and\n\nappeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the Settlement Class,\n\nincluding the method of processing Settlement Class Member claims; (iii) the terms of any\n\nproposed award of attorneys\u2019 fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required\n\nto be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (d) the proposed Plan of Allocation treats Settlement\n\nClass Members equitably relative to each other. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby approved\n\nin all respects (including, without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the releases provided\n\nfor in the Stipulation; and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defendants)\n\nand shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation. The\n\nParties are hereby directed to consummate the Stipulation and to perform its terms.\n\n 8. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the \u201cSecond Amended\n\nComplaint\u201d), filed on June 28, 2024, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs\n\nto any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.\n\n 9. Rule 11 Findings. The Court finds that during the course of the Action, the Parties\n\nand their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal\n\nRules of Civil Procedure.\n\n 10. Releases. The releases set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Stipulation, together\n\nwith the definitions contained in Paragraph 1 of the Stipulation relating thereto, are expressly\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 6 of 12\n\n\n\n\nincorporated herein in all respects. Without further action by anyone, and subject to Paragraph 12\n\nbelow, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and each and every other\n\nSettlement Class Member, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors,\n\ntrustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, shall be\n\ndeemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever\n\ncompromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed with\n\nprejudice each and every one of the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims against each and every one of the\n\nReleased Defendant Parties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing,\n\ninstituting, prosecuting, or maintaining any and all of the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims against any\n\nand all of the Released Defendant Parties, whether or not such Settlement Class Member executes\n\nand delivers a Proof of Claim form or shares in the Net Settlement Fund.\n\n 11. Without further action by anyone, and subject to Paragraph 12 below, upon the\n\nEffective Date of the Settlement, each of the Settling Defendants, on behalf of themselves and\n\neach of their respective heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and\n\nassigns, in their capacities as such, shall have fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled,\n\nreleased, resolved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice each and every\n\none of the Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against each and every one of the Released Plaintiff\n\nParties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or\n\nmaintaining any and all of the Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against any and all of the Released\n\nPlaintiff Parties.\n\n 12. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 10 to 11 above, nothing in this Judgment shall bar any\n\naction by any of the Parties to enforce or effectuate the terms of the Stipulation or this Judgment.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 7 of 12\n\n\n\n\n 13. Binding Effect. The terms of the Stipulation and this Judgment shall be forever\n\nbinding on Settling Defendants, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and each Settlement Class Member (whether\n\nor not such Settlement Class Member executes and delivers a Claim Form), as well as their\n\nrespective successors and assigns.\n\n 14. No Admissions. This Judgment and the Stipulation (including any exhibits thereto,\n\nthe Supplemental Agreement, and any Plan of Allocation), whether or not consummated, and\n\nwhether or not approved by the Court, and any discussion, negotiation, proceeding, or agreement\n\nrelating to the Stipulation, the Settlement, and any matter arising in connection with settlement\n\ndiscussions or negotiations, proceedings, or agreements, shall not be offered or received against or\n\nto the prejudice of any of the Parties or their respective counsel, for any purpose other than in an\n\naction to enforce the terms hereof, and in particular:\n\n (a) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against or to the\n\nprejudice of any of the Released Defendant Parties as evidence of, or construed as, or deemed to\n\nbe evidence of any presumption, concession, or admission by any of the Released Defendant\n\nParties with respect to the truth of any allegation by Co-Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class, or\n\nthe validity of any claim that has been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation,\n\nincluding but not limited to the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims, or of any liability, damages,\n\nnegligence, fault or wrongdoing of any of the Released Defendant Parties or any person or entity\n\nwhatsoever, or of any infirmity in any of Defendants\u2019 defenses;\n\n (b) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against or to the\n\nprejudice of any of the Released Defendant Parties as evidence of a presumption, concession, or\n\nadmission of any fault, misrepresentation, or omission with respect to any statement or written\n\ndocument approved or made by any of the Defendants, or against or to the prejudice of Co-Lead\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 8 of 12\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiffs, or any other member of the Settlement Class as evidence of any infirmity in the claims\n\nof Co-Lead Plaintiffs, or the other members of the Settlement Class;\n\n (c) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against or to the\n\nprejudice of any of the Released Defendant Parties, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, any other member of the\n\nSettlement Class, or their respective counsel, as evidence of a presumption, concession, or\n\nadmission with respect to any liability, damages, negligence, fault, infirmity, or wrongdoing, or in\n\nany way referred to for any other reason against or to the prejudice of any of the Released\n\nDefendant Parties, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, other members of the Settlement Class, or their respective\n\ncounsel, in any other civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, other than such\n\nproceedings as may be necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Stipulation;\n\n (d) do not constitute, and shall not be construed against any of the Released\n\nDefendant Parties, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, or any other member of the Settlement Class, as an\n\nadmission or concession that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the amount that\n\ncould be or would have been recovered after trial; and\n\n (e) do not constitute, and shall not be construed as or received in evidence as\n\nan admission, concession, or presumption against Co-Lead Plaintiffs or any other member of the\n\nSettlement Class that any of their claims are without merit or infirm or that damages recoverable\n\nunder the Second Amended Complaint would not have exceeded the Settlement Amount.\n\n 15. The administration of the Settlement, and the decision of all disputed questions of\n\nlaw and fact with respect to the validity of any claim or right of any Person to participate in the\n\ndistribution of the Net Settlement Fund, shall remain under the authority of this Court.\n\n 16. Modification of the Stipulation. Without further approval from the Court, Co-\n\nLead Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants are hereby authorized to agree to and adopt such\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 9 of 12\n\n\n\n\namendments or modifications of the Stipulation or any exhibits attached thereto to effectuate the\n\nSettlement that: (a) are not materially inconsistent with this judgment; and (b) do not materially\n\nlimit the rights of Settlement Class Members in connection with the Settlement. Without further\n\norder of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the\n\nprovisions of the Stipulation.\n\n Approval of the Plan of Allocation\n\n 17. Copies of the Postcard Notice, which directed recipients to the Notice, which\n\nincluded the proposed Plan of Allocation, were mailed to more than 147,000 potential Settlement\n\nClass Members and nominees. Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules\n\nof Civil Procedure, the Court hereby finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed\n\nto Persons who are Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort,\n\nadvising them of the proposed Plan of Allocation, and of their right to object thereto, and a full\n\nand fair opportunity was accorded to Persons who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with\n\nrespect to the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation.\n\n 18. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the calculation\n\nof the claims of claimants and distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, which was set forth in the\n\nNotice disseminated to Settlement Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon\n\nwhich to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among eligible Settlement Class Members. The Court\n\nhereby approves the Plan of Allocation.\n\n 19. The Court\u2019s approval of the Plan of Allocation is a matter separate and distinct from\n\napproval of the Settlement and shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the other aspects of\n\nthis Judgment with respect to the Settlement.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 10 of 12\n\n\n\n\n Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application\n\n 20. Notice of Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and payment\n\nof Litigation Expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified with\n\nreasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for an\n\naward of attorneys\u2019 fees and payment of Litigation Expenses satisfied the notice requirements of\n\nRule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due\n\nProcess Clause), and Section 21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-\n\n4(a)(7), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; constituted the best\n\nnotice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to\n\nall Persons entitled thereto.\n\n 21. There were no objections to the application for attorneys\u2019 fees or expenses.\n\n 22. Co-Lead Counsel are hereby awarded, on behalf of all Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel,\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees in the amount of $918,500, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement\n\nFund, and $ 101,195.16 in payment of Litigation Expenses, plus accrued interest, which sums the\n\nCourt finds to be fair and reasonable. The award of attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses may\n\nbe paid to Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Judgment,\n\nsubject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and\n\nobligations are incorporated herein.\n\n 23. In making this award of attorneys\u2019 fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to be\n\npaid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has found that:\n\n (a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $2,750,000 in cash and that\n\nnumerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the\n\nSettlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel;\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 11 of 12\n\n\n\n\n (b) The fee sought by Co-Lead Counsel has been reviewed and approved as\n\nreasonable by Co-Lead Plaintiffs, who oversaw the prosecution and resolution of the Action;\n\n (c) Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel undertook the Action on a contingent basis, and have\n\nreceived no compensation during the Action, and any fee and expense award has been contingent\n\non the result achieved;\n\n (d) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of\n\nsettlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain;\n\n (e) Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel conducted the Action and achieved the Settlement with\n\nskillful and diligent advocacy;\n\n (f) Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have devoted 1,666.99 hours, with a lodestar value of\n\n$1,743,054.60, to achieve the Settlement;\n\n (g) The amount of attorneys\u2019 fees awarded and Litigation Expenses to be paid\n\nfrom the Settlement Fund are fair and reasonable and consistent with awards made within this\n\nDistrict; and\n\n (h) Public policy concerns favor the award of attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses in\n\nsecurities class action litigation.\n\n 24. Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan is hereby awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund\n\nas reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the\n\nSettlement Class, pursuant to \u00a721D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4).\n\n 25. Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir Spear is hereby awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund\n\nas reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the\n\nSettlement Class, pursuant to \u00a721D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4).\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 149 Filed 10/10/25 Page 12 of 12\n\n\n\n\n 26. The Court\u2019s approval of the Fee and Expense Application is a matter separate and\n\ndistinct from approval of the Settlement and shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of this\n\nJudgment with respect to the Settlement.\n\n 27. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided herein or in\n\nthe Stipulation.\n\n 28. Retention of Jurisdiction. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any\n\nway, this Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) implementation of the Settlement;\n\n(ii) the allowance, disallowance, or adjustment of any Settlement Class Member\u2019s claim on\n\nequitable grounds and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) disposition of the\n\nSettlement Fund; (iv) any applications for attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, interest, and payment of Litigation\n\nExpenses in the Action; (v) all Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering\n\nthe Settlement and this Judgment; and (vi) other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing.\n\n 29. Termination of Settlement. In the event that the Settlement does not become\n\neffective in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, then this Judgment shall be rendered null\n\nand void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation and shall be vacated,\n\nand in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith shall be null\n\nand void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation, and the Settlement Fund\n\nshall be returned in accordance with Paragraph 48 of the Stipulation.\n\n 30. Entry of Final Judgment. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this\n\nJudgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed.\n 31. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDATED this 9th day of October, 2025.\n ____________________________________\n Jesse M. Furman\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n 12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-13T08:28:35.738881-08:00","document_number":"149","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038361511","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-10T10:11:25.706577-07:00","date_modified":"2026-01-02T02:12:08.489514-08:00","date_filed":"2025-10-10","time_filed":"12:02:17","entry_number":149,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":497,"description":" FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: Incorporation of Settlement Documents. This Judgment incorporates and makes a part hereof: (i) the Stipulation filed with the Court on June 16, 2025; and (ii) the Notice, which was filed with the Court on September 4, 2025. Capitalized terms not defined in this Judgment shall have the meaning set forth in the Stipulation. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and all matters relatin g to the Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over all the Parties, including all Settlement Class Members. Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement. The Court hereby affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and fi nally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class of: all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Stock during the period from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and former officers and directors of G igaCloud and members of their Immediate Families and as further set forth in this Judgment; Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby re-affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies Rajan and Spear as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and finally appoints the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby approves the Settlement and finds that in light of the benefits to the Settlement Class, the complexity and expense of further litigation, the risks of establishing liabil ity and damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, having considered and found that: (a) Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Cla ss; (b) the proposal was negotiated at arms-length between experienced counsel and as further set forth in this Judgment; The Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the \"Second Amended Complaint\"), filed on June 28, 2024, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. Without further action by anyone, and subject to Paragraph 12 below, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, each of the Settling Def endants, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, shall have fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled, released, re solved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice each and every one of the Released Defendants Claims against each and every one of the Released Plaintiff Parties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing, insti tuting, prosecuting, or maintaining any and all of the Released Defendants' Claims against any and all of the Released Plaintiff Parties. This Judgment and the Stipulation (including any exhibits thereto, the Supplemental Agreement, and any P lan of Allocation), whether or not consummated, and whether or not approved by the Court, and any discussion, negotiation, proceeding, or agreement relating to the Stipulation, the Settlement, and any matter arising in connection with settlement d iscussions or negotiations, proceedings, or agreements, shall not be offered or received against or to the prejudice of any of the Parties or their respective counsel, for any purpose other than in an action to enforce the terms hereof, and in part icular as further set forth in this Judgment: Co-Lead Counsel are hereby awarded, on behalf of all Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $918,500 and $101,195.16 in payment of Litigation Expenses which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. The award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses may be paid to Plaintiffs Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Judgment, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated herein. In making this award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has found that: (a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $2,750,000 in cash and that numerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel; Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan is hereby awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to \u00a721D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4). Co-Le ad Plaintiff Meir Spear is hereby awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to \u00a721D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S. C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4). The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided herein or in the Stipulation. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) imple mentation of the Settlement; (ii) the allowance, disallowance, or adjustment of any Settlement Class Member's claim on equitable grounds and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) disposition of the Settlement Fund; (iv) any applications for attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and payment of Litigation Expenses in the Action; (v) all Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering the Settlement and this Judgment; and (vi) other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/9/25) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-10645-JMF, 1:23-cv-10684-JMF (yv)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/439757653/","id":439757653,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/454296048/","id":454296048,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/148/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-10-02T14:11:06.019813-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:44:01.944977-07:00","sha1":"59cc9a6fe93592c08b784c840d4f149cd4c83ca9","page_count":6,"file_size":151210,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.148.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.148.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148 Filed 10/02/25 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: PLAINTIFFS\u2019 REPLY\n MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN\n ALL ACTIONS FURTHER SUPPORT OF (I) MOTION\n FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n ACTION SETTLEMENT AND (II)\n MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES,\n REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION\n EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO\n PLAINTIFFS\n\n\n\n Co-Lead Plaintiffs Sashi Rajan (\u201cRajan\u201d) and Meir Spear (\u201cSpear\u201d, and collectively with\n\nRajan, \u201cCo-Lead Plaintiffs\u201d or \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class,\n\nrespectfully submit this reply memorandum of law in support of the (1) Motion for Final Approval\n\nof Class Action Settlement (the \u201cFinal Approval Motion\u201d) (ECF No. 141) and (2) Motion for an\n\nAward of Attorneys\u2019 Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards To Plaintiffs (the\n\n\u201cFee Motion\u201d) (ECF No. 143) (together, the \u201cMotions\u201d).\n\n I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the pending Motions, which are not\n\nopposed by Defendants or by any member of the Settlement Class. The Settlement, if approved,\n\nwill result in a cash payment of $2.75 million to Settlement Class Members. This will provide the\n\nSettlement Class with a substantial, immediate, and guaranteed recovery that eliminates future\n\nrisks of litigation.\n\n Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 opening papers in support of the Motions show that the Settlement\n\nshould be approved and the requested attorneys\u2019 fees, expenses, and awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148 Filed 10/02/25 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n\nshould be granted. See ECF Nos. 141-146.\n\n The deadline for Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement, the Plan of\n\nAllocation, or the requests for attorneys\u2019 fees, reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and awards\n\nto Co-Lead Plaintiffs, or to request exclusion from the Settlement Class, was September 18, 2025.\n\nNo members of the Settlement Class have objected or requested exclusion from the Settlement\n\nClass. The lack of any objections or requests for exclusion strongly indicates that the Settlement\n\nClass is in favor of the Settlement, which weighs heavily in favor of granting final approval to the\n\nSettlement and granting the requested fees, expenses, and awards.\n\n II. NO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS HAVE OBJECTED TO THE\n SETTLEMENT OR REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT\n CLASS\n\n \u201cThe reaction of the Class to the Settlement is a significant factor in assessing its fairness\n\nand adequacy, and the absence of objections may itself be taken as evidencing the fairness of a\n\nsettlement.\u201d City of Providence v. Aeropostale, Inc., 2014 WL 1883494, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 9,\n\n2014); see also In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig., 909 F. Supp. 2d\n\n259, 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). In accordance with the Court\u2019s Order Granting Preliminary Approval\n\n(the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d) (ECF No. 139), Plaintiffs\u2014through the Claims Administrator,\n\nStrategic Claims Services (\u201cSCS\u201d)\u2014disseminated notice of the Settlement to 147,643 potential\n\nSettlement Class Members or nominees. See Supplemental Declaration of Margery Craig\n\nConcerning: (A) Mailing of the Postcard Notice; (B) Report on Requests for Exclusion and\n\nObjections; and (C) Claims Received to Date (\u201cSupplemental Craig Declaration\u201d or \u201cSupp. Craig\n\nDecl.\u201d) \u00b65, filed herewith; see also Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Mailing of the\n\nPostcard Notice; (B) Report on Requests for Exclusion and Objections; and (C) Claims Received\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148 Filed 10/02/25 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n\nto Date (\u201cCraig Declaration\u201d or \u201cCraig Decl.\u201d) (ECF No. 146-1) \u00b67.1 In addition, the Claims\n\nAdministrator published the Summary Notice once in Investor\u2019s Business Daily and once\n\nelectronically nationally over GlobeNewswire on July 21, 2025, established the Settlement\n\nWebsite on July 7, 2025, and established a toll-free telephone number for Settlement Class\n\nMembers to call with questions. See Craig Decl. \u00b6\u00b610-11 and Ex. D (proof of publication of\n\nSummary Notice).\n\n Settlement Class Members were notified that the deadline to object to the Settlement or to\n\nrequest exclusion from the Settlement Class was September 18, 2025. Craig Decl. Ex. A (Notice)\n\nat 2; Ex. C (Postcard Notice) at 2; and Ex. D (Summary Notice) at 2 and 5. In addition, Settlement\n\nClass Members were notified that Co-Lead Counsel would seek an award of attorneys\u2019 fees of no\n\nmore than 33.4% of the Settlement Fund, or $918,500 plus interest, reimbursement of Litigation\n\nExpenses of no more than $130,000, and awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs of no more than $15,000 in\n\ntotal. Craig Decl. Ex. A at 2,7-8; Ex. C at 2; and Ex. D at 2 and 5.\n\n To date\u2014two weeks after the deadline\u2014not a single member of the Settlement Class has\n\nobjected to the Settlement or requested exclusion from the Settlement Class. Supp. Craig Decl. at\n\n\u00b6\u00b69, 10. This response from the Settlement Class is strong evidence of the fairness, reasonableness,\n\nand adequacy of the Settlement. See, e.g., Rodriquez v. It's Just Lunch Int'l, 2020 WL 1030983, at\n\n*4\u20135 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2020); In re MetLife Demutualization Litig., 689 F. Supp. 2d 297, 333\n\n(E.D.N.Y. 2010) (collecting cases); In re Glob. Crossing Sec. & ERISA Litig., 225 F.R.D. 436,\n\n457 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).\n\n\n\n1\n The Supplemental Craig Declaration provides an update concerning dissemination of notice to\nSettlement Class Members and, together with the previously-filed initial Craig Declaration\n(including the exhibits thereto), provides proof of mailing of the Postcard Notice as required by\nthe Preliminary Approval Order (ECF No. 139 \u00b610).\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148 Filed 10/02/25 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n\n Further, that there were no objections to the proposed fee request, expense reimbursement\n\nrequest, or compensatory awards to Plaintiffs, strongly favors granting those requests. See In re\n\nVeeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 4115808, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007) (the reaction\n\nof class members to a fee and expense request \u201cis entitled to great weight by the Court\u201d and the\n\nabsence of any objection \u201csuggests that the fee request is fair and reasonable\u201d) (citation omitted);\n\nIn re Telik, Inc. Sec. Litig., 576 F. Supp. 2d 570, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (\u201cThat only one objection\n\nto the fee request was received is powerful evidence that the requested fee is fair and reasonable.\u201d);\n\nRodriquez, 2020 WL 1030983, at *11 (awarding the requested 31.5% in attorneys\u2019 fees even\n\nthough there were two objections, noting that \u201cthe relatively low number of objections weighs in\n\nfavor of approving the attorneys\u2019 requested fees as reasonable\u201d). \u201cThe vast disparity between the\n\nnumber of potential class members who received notice of the Settlement and the number of\n\nobjectors creates a strong presumption . . . in favor of the Settlement . . . .\u201d In re Cendant Corp.\n\nLitig., 264 F.3d 201, 235 (3d Cir. 2001).2\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons set forth above and in Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 opening papers in support of the\n\nFinal Approval Motion and the Fee Motion, Co-Lead Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court\n\nenter an Order granting the relief requested by both Motions. Filed herewith is a proposed Final\n\nJudgment, in the form previously attached as Exhibit B to the Stipulation (ECF No. 137 at 94-107)\n\nmodified as appropriate, including to reflect the absence of any objections or requests for exclusion\n\nand to grant the requested attorneys\u2019 fees in the amount of 33.4% of the Settlement Fund, or\n\n$918,500 plus interest, reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in the amount of $101,195.16, and\n\n\n2\n The deadline for Settlement Class Members to submit claims is October 6, 2025. At the\nSettlement Hearing, Co-Lead Counsel will be prepared to report the number of claims received,\nthough such claims must undergo an audit process to determine their validity.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148 Filed 10/02/25 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\nawards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs Sashi Rajan and Meir Spear in the amount of $7,500 each, or $15,000\n\nin total.\n\n\n\nDATED: October 2, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Brian B. Alexander\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n Laurence M. Rosen\n Phillip Kim\n Brian B. Alexander\n 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\n lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n philkim@rosenlegal.com\n balexander@rosenlegal.com\n\n Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir Spear and Co-\n Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n THE SCHALL LAW FIRM\n Brian Schall\n (pro hac vice application forthcoming)\n 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460\n Los Angeles, California 90067\n Telephone: (424) 303-1964\n brian@schallfirm.com\n\n Additional Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir\n Spear\n\n\n POMERANTZ LLP\n Jeremy A. Lieberman\n Jonathan D. Park\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, NY 10016\n Telephone: (212) 661-1100\n Facsimile: (917) 463-1044\n jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n jpark@pomlaw.com\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148 Filed 10/02/25 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\n Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan and Co-\n Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n PORTNOY LAW FIRM\n Lesley F. Portnoy\n 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Floor\n Los Angeles, California 90024\n Telephone: (310) 692-8883\n lesley@portnoylaw.com\n\n Additional Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi\n Rajan\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:41:37.995436-07:00","document_number":"148","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038317472","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664862/","id":483664862,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/148/1/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:42.279433-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:05:08.043767-07:00","sha1":"161da4755c5a560e7e39104b7038bb867a03a8ff","page_count":5,"file_size":311072,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.148.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.148.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-1 Filed 10/02/25 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG\n CONCERNING: (A) MAILING OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE; (B) REPORT ON\n REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS; AND\n (C) CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n\nI, Margery Craig, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am a Project Manager at Strategic Claims Services (\u201cSCS\u201d), a nationally\n\nrecognized class action administration firm. I have over eighteen years of experience specializing\n\nin the administration of class action cases. SCS was established in April 1999 and has administered\n\nover five hundred and seventy-five (575) class action settlements since its inception. I have\n\npersonal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called on to do so, I could and would testify\n\ncompetently thereto.\n\n UPDATE ON MAILING OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE\n\n 2. Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action\n\nSettlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Hearing on Final\n\nApproval of Settlement, dated June 20, 2025 (ECF No. 139, the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d),\n\nSCS was approved as the Claims Administrator.1 I submit this declaration as a supplement to the\n\npreviously filed Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Mailing of the Postcard Notice;\n\n\n\n1\n All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth the Stipulation and\nAgreement of Settlement, dated June 16, 2025 (ECF No. 137, the \u201cStipulation\u201d) or the Initial\nMailing Declaration.\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-1 Filed 10/02/25 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n(B) Publication of the Summary Notice; and (C) Report on Requests for Exclusion and Objections,\n\ndated September 4, 2025 (ECF No. 145-1, the \u201cInitial Mailing Declaration\u201d) in order to provide\n\nthe Court and the Parties with updated information regarding the dissemination of notice to\n\npotential Settlement Class Members, as well as updates concerning other aspects of the Settlement\n\nadministration process.\n\n 3. As reported in the Initial Mailing Declaration, SCS mailed or e-mailed 2,464 letters\n\nto the Nominee Account Holders and Institutional Groups contained on SCS\u2019s master mailing list.\n\nSCS then mailed 97,808 Postcard Notices to potential Settlement Class Members or nominees.\n\nSCS also emailed 49,688 links to the Postcard Notices and the Notice and Claim Form on the\n\nSettlement Website.\n\n 4. Since the Initial Mailing Declaration was executed, SCS received, from one\n\nnominee, the names and addresses for four additional potential Settlement Class Members and\n\nmailed them Postcard Notices, and one other nominee requested 143 Postcard Notices so that the\n\nnominee could forward them to their clients. In addition, since the Initial Mailing Declaration was\n\nexecuted, an additional 25 potential Settlement Class Members requested the Notice and Claim\n\nForm be mailed to them. SCS immediately mailed the Notice and Claim Form to those potential\n\nSettlement Class Members. 2 No requests for additional emailed links to the Postcard Notice and\n\nthe Notice and Claim Form were received after the Initial Mailing Declaration was executed.\n\n 5. In total, 147,643 potential Settlement Class Members or nominees were notified\n\neither by mailed Postcard Notice or emailed a direct link to the Postcard Notice and the Notice and\n\nClaim Form.\n\n\n\n2\n As noted in the Initial Mailing Declaration, SCS previously received three requests from potential\nSettlement Class Members for the Notice and Claim Form to be mailed to them, which SCS\npromptly fulfilled.\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-1 Filed 10/02/25 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 6. Out of the 97,955 Postcard Notices mailed, 1,655 were returned as undeliverable.\n\nOf these, the United States Postal Service provided forwarding addresses for 131, and SCS\n\nimmediately mailed another Postcard Notice to the updated addresses. The remaining 1,524\n\nPostcard Notices returned as undeliverable were \u201cskip-traced\u201d to obtain updated addresses, and\n\n596 were re-mailed to updated addresses.\n\n UPDATE ON TOLL-FREE PHONE LINE\n\n 7. The Initial Mailing Declaration noted that SCS maintains a toll-free telephone\n\nnumber (1-866-274-4004) for Settlement Class Members to call and obtain information about the\n\nSettlement, as well as request a copy of the Notice and Claim Form. SCS continues to promptly\n\nrespond to each telephone inquiry and will address Settlement Class Members\u2019 inquiries through\n\nthe administration process.\n\n UPDATE ON SETTLEMENT WEBSITE\n\n 8. As noted in the Initial Mailing Declaration, on July 7, 2025, SCS established a case-\n\nspecific website dedicated to the Settlement at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. The\n\nSettlement Website is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, allows for online claim filing, and\n\nprovides instructions and a claims filing template for institutional investors. The Settlement\n\nWebsite contains a home page; an important document page with downloadable versions of the\n\nNotice and Claim Form, the Postcard Notice, the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Stipulation\n\nwith exhibits. On September 8, 2025, SCS updated the \u201cImportant Documents\u201d section of the\n\nSettlement Website to include Plaintiffs\u2019 motion papers in support of final approval and requesting\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-1 Filed 10/02/25 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees and expenses. To date, the Settlement Website has received 30,269 pageviews from\n\n5,669 unique users.\n\n UPDATE ON REPORT ON EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS\n\n 9. The Postcard Notice, Notice, Summary Notice, and the Settlement Website\n\ninformed Settlement Class Members that written requests for exclusion were to be mailed to SCS\n\nsuch that they were received no later than September 18, 2025. SCS has been monitoring all mail\n\ndelivered for this case. As of the date of this declaration, SCS has received no requests for\n\nexclusion.\n\n 10. The Postcard Notice, Notice, Summary Notice, and the Settlement Website further\n\ninformed Settlement Class Members seeking to object to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of\n\nAllocation, and/or the application for attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses that they were\n\nrequired to submit their objection in writing such that the request was filed with or received by the\n\nClerk of the Court, as well as Co-Lead Counsel and Counsel for Defendants, no later than\n\nSeptember 18, 2025. As of the date of this declaration, SCS has neither received any misdirected\n\nobjections nor been notified that any objections were received.\n\n CLAIMS RECEIVED TO DATE\n\n 11. The Postcard Notice, Notice, Summary Notice, and the Settlement Website\n\ninformed Settlement Class Members that claims must be filed online at\n\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com by October 6, 2025 or postmarked no later than October\n\n6, 2025. As of the date of this declaration, SCS received 2,316 claims. SCS is currently conducting\n\nquality assurance reviews of the submitted claims, such as verifying that the claim includes the\n\nrequired supporting documentation and detecting duplicative claims. Once this audit process is\n\ncomplete, claimants with incomplete or invalid claims will be given an opportunity to supplement\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-1 Filed 10/02/25 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\nor complete their claims. With these steps currently outstanding, the number of claims considered\n\nvalid has not yet been finally determined.\n\n\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n Signed this 2nd day of October 2025, in Media, Pennsylvania.\n\n\n _____________________________\n Margery Craig\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:42:19.160656-07:00","document_number":"148","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127038317473","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Supplemental Craig Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664863/","id":483664863,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/148/2/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:42.297224-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:09:05.980388-07:00","sha1":"26252123b076715be7697f54d943416138e3c67b","page_count":13,"file_size":164228,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.148.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.148.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\n\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT\n\n WHEREAS:\n\n A. As of June 16, 2025, Co-Lead Plaintiffs Sashi Rajan (\u201cRajan\u201d) and Meir Spear\n\n(\u201cSpear\u201d, and collectively with Rajan, \u201cCo-Lead Plaintiffs\u201d or \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), on behalf of\n\nthemselves and all other members of the Settlement Class (defined below), on the one hand, and\n\nGigaCloud Technology Inc (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), Larry Lei Wu (\u201cWu\u201d), Xin Wan\n\n(\u201cWan\u201d), Kwok Hei David Lau (\u201cLau\u201d), Zhiwu Chen (\u201cChen\u201d), Thomas Liu (\u201cLiu\u201d), and Aegis\n\nCapital Corp. (\u201cAegis\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cSettling Defendants\u201d), on the other, entered into a\n\nStipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the \u201cStipulation\u201d) in the above-titled litigation (the\n\n\u201cAction\u201d);\n\n B. Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,\n\nApproving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Hearing on Final Approval of\n\nSettlement, entered June 20, 2025 (the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d), the Court scheduled a\n\nhearing for October 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d) to, among other things: (i)\n\ndetermine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\n\nin the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court;\n\n(ii) determine whether a judgment as provided for in the Stipulation should be entered; and\n\n(iii) rule on Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application;\n\n C. The Court ordered that the Postcard Notice, substantially in the forms attached to\n\nthe Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit 4, be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on or\n\nbefore ten (10) business days after the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (\u201cNotice\n\nDate\u201d) to all potential Settlement Class Members who could be identified through reasonable\n\neffort, that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for\n\nAttorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses (the \u201cNotice\u201d) and a Proof of Claim and Release form (\u201cClaim\n\nForm\u201d) be posted on the Settlement website, and that the Summary Notice of Pendency and\n\nProposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses (the \u201cSummary\n\nNotice\u201d), substantially in the form attached to the Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit 3, be\n\npublished in Investor\u2019s Business Daily and once over a national newswire service within fourteen\n\n(14) calendar days of the Notice Date;\n\n D. The Notice and the Summary Notice advised potential Settlement Class Members\n\nof the date, time, place, and purpose of the Settlement Hearing. The Notice further advised that\n\nany objections to the Settlement were required to be filed with the Court and served on counsel for\n\nthe Parties such that they were received by September 18, 2025;\n\n E. The provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order as to notice were complied with;\n\n F. On September 4, 2025, Co-Lead Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the\n\nSettlement, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Hearing was duly held\n\nbefore this Court on October 9, 2025, at which time all interested Persons were afforded the\n\nopportunity to be heard; and\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n\n G. This Court has duly considered Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for final approval of the\n\nSettlement, the affidavits, declarations, and memoranda of law submitted in support thereof, the\n\nStipulation, and all of the submissions and arguments presented with respect to the proposed\n\nSettlement;\n\n NOW, THEREFORE, after due deliberation, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND\n\nDECREED that:\n\n 1. Incorporation of Settlement Documents. This Judgment incorporates and makes\n\na part hereof: (i) the Stipulation filed with the Court on June 16, 2025; and (ii) the Notice, which\n\nwas filed with the Court on September 4, 2025. Capitalized terms not defined in this Judgment\n\nshall have the meaning set forth in the Stipulation.\n\n 2. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and\n\nall matters relating to the Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over all the Parties, including\n\nall Settlement Class Members.\n\n 3. Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement. The Court hereby affirms its\n\ndeterminations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the\n\nSettlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the\n\nSettlement Class of: all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired\n\nGigaCloud Stock during the period from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive,\n\nand were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and any\n\naffiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and former officers and directors of GigaCloud and\n\nmembers of their Immediate Families; (iii) Defendants\u2019 liability insurance carriers, and any\n\naffiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a\n\ncontrolling interest; (v) GigaCloud\u2019s employee retirement and benefit plan(s); and (vi) the legal\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n\nrepresentatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity\n\nin (i)-(v).\n\n 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of the\n\nSettlement only, the Court hereby re-affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order\n\nand finally certifies Rajan and Spear as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and finally\n\nappoints the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel for the\n\nSettlement Class.\n\n 5. Notice. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice, Summary Notice,\n\nPostcard Notice, and Proof of Claim: (i) complied with the Preliminary Approval Order; (ii)\n\nconstituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (iii) constituted notice that was\n\nreasonably calculated to apprise Settlement Class Members of the effect of the Settlement, of the\n\nproposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement, of Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s request for\n\npayment of attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of\n\nthe Action, of Settlement Class Members\u2019 rights to object thereto or seek exclusion from the\n\nSettlement Class, and of their right to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (iv) constituted due,\n\nadequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to receive notice of the proposed Settlement;\n\nand (v) satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the\n\nUnited States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and Section 21D(a)(7) of the\n\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private Securities\n\nLitigation Reform Act of 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d).\n\n 6. Objections. There have been no objections to the Settlement.\n\n 7. Final Settlement Approval and Dismissal of Claims. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2)\n\nof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby approves the Settlement and finds that\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n\nin light of the benefits to the Settlement Class, the complexity and expense of further litigation,\n\nthe risks of establishing liability and damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement\n\nis, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, having considered and found that: (a) Co-Lead\n\nPlaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class; (b) the proposal\n\nwas negotiated at arm\u2019s-length between experienced counsel; (c) the relief provided for the\n\nSettlement Class is adequate, having taken into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and\n\nappeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the Settlement Class,\n\nincluding the method of processing Settlement Class Member claims; (iii) the terms of any\n\nproposed award of attorneys\u2019 fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required\n\nto be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (d) the proposed Plan of Allocation treats Settlement\n\nClass Members equitably relative to each other. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby approved\n\nin all respects (including, without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the releases provided\n\nfor in the Stipulation; and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defendants)\n\nand shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation. The\n\nParties are hereby directed to consummate the Stipulation and to perform its terms.\n\n 8. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the \u201cSecond Amended\n\nComplaint\u201d), filed on June 28, 2024, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs\n\nto any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.\n\n 9. Rule 11 Findings. The Court finds that during the course of the Action, the Parties\n\nand their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal\n\nRules of Civil Procedure.\n\n 10. Releases. The releases set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Stipulation, together\n\nwith the definitions contained in Paragraph 1 of the Stipulation relating thereto, are expressly\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n\nincorporated herein in all respects. Without further action by anyone, and subject to Paragraph 12\n\nbelow, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and each and every other\n\nSettlement Class Member, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors,\n\ntrustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, shall be\n\ndeemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever\n\ncompromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed with\n\nprejudice each and every one of the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims against each and every one of the\n\nReleased Defendant Parties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing,\n\ninstituting, prosecuting, or maintaining any and all of the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims against any\n\nand all of the Released Defendant Parties, whether or not such Settlement Class Member executes\n\nand delivers a Proof of Claim form or shares in the Net Settlement Fund.\n\n 11. Without further action by anyone, and subject to Paragraph 12 below, upon the\n\nEffective Date of the Settlement, each of the Settling Defendants, on behalf of themselves and\n\neach of their respective heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and\n\nassigns, in their capacities as such, shall have fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled,\n\nreleased, resolved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice each and every\n\none of the Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against each and every one of the Released Plaintiff\n\nParties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or\n\nmaintaining any and all of the Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against any and all of the Released\n\nPlaintiff Parties.\n\n 12. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 10 to 11 above, nothing in this Judgment shall bar any\n\naction by any of the Parties to enforce or effectuate the terms of the Stipulation or this Judgment.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n\n 13. Binding Effect. The terms of the Stipulation and this Judgment shall be forever\n\nbinding on Settling Defendants, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and each Settlement Class Member (whether\n\nor not such Settlement Class Member executes and delivers a Claim Form), as well as their\n\nrespective successors and assigns.\n\n 14. No Admissions. This Judgment and the Stipulation (including any exhibits thereto,\n\nthe Supplemental Agreement, and any Plan of Allocation), whether or not consummated, and\n\nwhether or not approved by the Court, and any discussion, negotiation, proceeding, or agreement\n\nrelating to the Stipulation, the Settlement, and any matter arising in connection with settlement\n\ndiscussions or negotiations, proceedings, or agreements, shall not be offered or received against or\n\nto the prejudice of any of the Parties or their respective counsel, for any purpose other than in an\n\naction to enforce the terms hereof, and in particular:\n\n (a) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against or to the\n\nprejudice of any of the Released Defendant Parties as evidence of, or construed as, or deemed to\n\nbe evidence of any presumption, concession, or admission by any of the Released Defendant\n\nParties with respect to the truth of any allegation by Co-Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class, or\n\nthe validity of any claim that has been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation,\n\nincluding but not limited to the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims, or of any liability, damages,\n\nnegligence, fault or wrongdoing of any of the Released Defendant Parties or any person or entity\n\nwhatsoever, or of any infirmity in any of Defendants\u2019 defenses;\n\n (b) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against or to the\n\nprejudice of any of the Released Defendant Parties as evidence of a presumption, concession, or\n\nadmission of any fault, misrepresentation, or omission with respect to any statement or written\n\ndocument approved or made by any of the Defendants, or against or to the prejudice of Co-Lead\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiffs, or any other member of the Settlement Class as evidence of any infirmity in the claims\n\nof Co-Lead Plaintiffs, or the other members of the Settlement Class;\n\n (c) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against or to the\n\nprejudice of any of the Released Defendant Parties, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, any other member of the\n\nSettlement Class, or their respective counsel, as evidence of a presumption, concession, or\n\nadmission with respect to any liability, damages, negligence, fault, infirmity, or wrongdoing, or in\n\nany way referred to for any other reason against or to the prejudice of any of the Released\n\nDefendant Parties, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, other members of the Settlement Class, or their respective\n\ncounsel, in any other civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, other than such\n\nproceedings as may be necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Stipulation;\n\n (d) do not constitute, and shall not be construed against any of the Released\n\nDefendant Parties, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, or any other member of the Settlement Class, as an\n\nadmission or concession that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the amount that\n\ncould be or would have been recovered after trial; and\n\n (e) do not constitute, and shall not be construed as or received in evidence as\n\nan admission, concession, or presumption against Co-Lead Plaintiffs or any other member of the\n\nSettlement Class that any of their claims are without merit or infirm or that damages recoverable\n\nunder the Second Amended Complaint would not have exceeded the Settlement Amount.\n\n 15. The administration of the Settlement, and the decision of all disputed questions of\n\nlaw and fact with respect to the validity of any claim or right of any Person to participate in the\n\ndistribution of the Net Settlement Fund, shall remain under the authority of this Court.\n\n 16. Modification of the Stipulation. Without further approval from the Court, Co-\n\nLead Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants are hereby authorized to agree to and adopt such\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\n\namendments or modifications of the Stipulation or any exhibits attached thereto to effectuate the\n\nSettlement that: (a) are not materially inconsistent with this judgment; and (b) do not materially\n\nlimit the rights of Settlement Class Members in connection with the Settlement. Without further\n\norder of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the\n\nprovisions of the Stipulation.\n\n Approval of the Plan of Allocation\n\n 17. Copies of the Postcard Notice, which directed recipients to the Notice, which\n\nincluded the proposed Plan of Allocation, were mailed to more than 147,000 potential Settlement\n\nClass Members and nominees. Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules\n\nof Civil Procedure, the Court hereby finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed\n\nto Persons who are Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort,\n\nadvising them of the proposed Plan of Allocation, and of their right to object thereto, and a full\n\nand fair opportunity was accorded to Persons who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with\n\nrespect to the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation.\n\n 18. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the calculation\n\nof the claims of claimants and distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, which was set forth in the\n\nNotice disseminated to Settlement Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon\n\nwhich to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among eligible Settlement Class Members. The Court\n\nhereby approves the Plan of Allocation.\n\n 19. The Court\u2019s approval of the Plan of Allocation is a matter separate and distinct from\n\napproval of the Settlement and shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the other aspects of\n\nthis Judgment with respect to the Settlement.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application\n\n 20. Notice of Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and payment\n\nof Litigation Expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified with\n\nreasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for an\n\naward of attorneys\u2019 fees and payment of Litigation Expenses satisfied the notice requirements of\n\nRule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due\n\nProcess Clause), and Section 21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-\n\n4(a)(7), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; constituted the best\n\nnotice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to\n\nall Persons entitled thereto.\n\n 21. There were no objections to the application for attorneys\u2019 fees or expenses.\n\n 22. Co-Lead Counsel are hereby awarded, on behalf of all Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel,\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees in the amount of $918,500, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement\n\nFund, and $ 101,195.16 in payment of Litigation Expenses, plus accrued interest, which sums the\n\nCourt finds to be fair and reasonable. The award of attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses may\n\nbe paid to Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Judgment,\n\nsubject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and\n\nobligations are incorporated herein.\n\n 23. In making this award of attorneys\u2019 fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to be\n\npaid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has found that:\n\n (a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $2,750,000 in cash and that\n\nnumerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the\n\nSettlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel;\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n\n (b) The fee sought by Co-Lead Counsel has been reviewed and approved as\n\nreasonable by Co-Lead Plaintiffs, who oversaw the prosecution and resolution of the Action;\n\n (c) Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel undertook the Action on a contingent basis, and have\n\nreceived no compensation during the Action, and any fee and expense award has been contingent\n\non the result achieved;\n\n (d) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of\n\nsettlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain;\n\n (e) Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel conducted the Action and achieved the Settlement with\n\nskillful and diligent advocacy;\n\n (f) Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have devoted 1,666.99 hours, with a lodestar value of\n\n$1,743,054.60, to achieve the Settlement;\n\n (g) The amount of attorneys\u2019 fees awarded and Litigation Expenses to be paid\n\nfrom the Settlement Fund are fair and reasonable and consistent with awards made within this\n\nDistrict; and\n\n (h) Public policy concerns favor the award of attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses in\n\nsecurities class action litigation.\n\n 24. Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan is hereby awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund\n\nas reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the\n\nSettlement Class, pursuant to \u00a721D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4).\n\n 25. Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir Spear is hereby awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund\n\nas reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the\n\nSettlement Class, pursuant to \u00a721D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4).\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\n\n 26. The Court\u2019s approval of the Fee and Expense Application is a matter separate and\n\ndistinct from approval of the Settlement and shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of this\n\nJudgment with respect to the Settlement.\n\n 27. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided herein or in\n\nthe Stipulation.\n\n 28. Retention of Jurisdiction. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any\n\nway, this Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) implementation of the Settlement;\n\n(ii) the allowance, disallowance, or adjustment of any Settlement Class Member\u2019s claim on\n\nequitable grounds and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) disposition of the\n\nSettlement Fund; (iv) any applications for attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, interest, and payment of Litigation\n\nExpenses in the Action; (v) all Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering\n\nthe Settlement and this Judgment; and (vi) other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing.\n\n 29. Termination of Settlement. In the event that the Settlement does not become\n\neffective in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, then this Judgment shall be rendered null\n\nand void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation and shall be vacated,\n\nand in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith shall be null\n\nand void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation, and the Settlement Fund\n\nshall be returned in accordance with Paragraph 48 of the Stipulation.\n\n 30. Entry of Final Judgment. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this\n\nJudgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 148-2 Filed 10/02/25 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n\nDATED this _______ day of ______________, 2025\n\n\n\n ______________________________\n HONORABLE JESSE M. FURMAN\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:42:18.030085-07:00","document_number":"148","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127038317474","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order [Proposed] Final Order and Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-02T14:11:05.993290-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-29T05:14:12.476744-08:00","date_filed":"2025-10-02","time_filed":"15:23:27","entry_number":148,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":493,"description":"REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 143 MOTION for Attorney Fees [Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs]., 141 MOTION for Settlement [For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement]. . Document filed by Sashi Rajan, Meir Spear. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Craig Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order [Proposed] Final Order and Judgment).(Alexander, Brian) (Entered: 10/02/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/439612214/","id":439612214,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68068242/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/454144749/","id":454144749,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-10-01T14:18:35.083422-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:05:02.265907-07:00","sha1":"3574221cc580e387797234868c1a5f7c4cb352a3","page_count":42,"file_size":277604,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 42\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\n\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. PARK\n IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTIONS FOR (I) FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS\n ACTION SETTLEMENT AND (II) FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES,\n REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS\n\n I, Jonathan D. Park, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York, and am admitted to appear\n\nbefore this Court. I am Of Counsel with the law firm of Pomerantz LLP (\u201cPomerantz\u201d), counsel\n\nfor Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan (\u201cRajan\u201d) and Co-Lead Counsel for the proposed Settlement\n\nClass. Rajan and Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir Spear (\u201cSpear\u201d, and collectively with Rajan, \u201cCo-Lead\n\nPlaintiffs\u201d or \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), who is represented by Co-Lead Counsel The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.\n\n(\u201cRosen Law\u201d), together assert claims on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class.1 I have been\n\n\n1\n All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined have the meanings provided in\nthe Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 16, 2025 (ECF No. 137)\n(\u201cStipulation\u201d), which was entered into by and between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and GigaCloud\nTechnology Inc (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), Larry Lei Wu (\u201cWu\u201d), Xin Wan (\u201cWan\u201d),\nKwok Hei David Lau (\u201cLau\u201d), Zhiwu Chen (\u201cChen\u201d), Thomas Liu (\u201cLiu\u201d), and Aegis Capital\nCorp. (\u201cAegis\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cSettling Defendants\u201d), on the other. Plaintiffs and Settling\nDefendants are referred to collectively as the \u201cParties\u201d. Plaintiffs were unable to effect service on\nDefendants Frank Lin (\u201cLin\u201d), Xing Huang (\u201cHuang\u201d), Binghe Guo (\u201cGuo\u201d), but have agreed not\nto pursue any further action with respect to any of these individuals in connection with this Action.\nStipulation \u00b66.\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 42\n\n\n\n\nactively involved in all aspects of the prosecution and resolution of the Action, am familiar with\n\nits proceedings, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based upon my\n\nsupervision and participation in all material aspects of the Action, and if called as a witness, could\n\nand would testify competently thereto.\n\n 2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I submit this\n\ndeclaration in support of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motions for (I) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (the\n\n\u201cFinal Approval Motion\u201d), and (II) for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation\n\nExpenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs (the \u201cFee Motion\u201d).\n\n 3. This Declaration and/or the accompanying memoranda of law discuss several\n\ndocuments, true and correct copies of which are attached as Exhibits hereto as follows:\n\n Exhibit A: Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Mailing of the Postcard\n Notice; (B) Publication of the Summary Notice; And (C) Report on Requests for\n Exclusion and Objections (\u201cCraig Decl.\u201d), which has four exhibits of its own (A-\n D) of its own.\n\n Exhibit B: Declaration of Sashi Rajan.\n\n Exhibit C: Declaration of Meir Spear.\n\n Exhibit D: Declaration of Jonathan D. Park Regarding Attorneys\u2019 Fees and\n Litigation Expenses, which has two exhibits (A-C) of its own.\n\n Exhibit E: Declaration of Brian B. Alexander Regarding Attorneys\u2019 Fees and\n Litigation Expenses, which has two exhibits (A-B) of its own.\n\n Exhibit F: Edward Flores & Svetlana Starykh, Recent Trends in Securities Class\n Action Litigation: 2024 Full-Year Review (NERA Jan. 22, 2025).\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 42\n\n\n\n\nI. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n 4. The proposed Settlement now before the Court provides for the resolution of all\n\nclaims in the Action in exchange for a cash payment of $2,750,000. As detailed herein, Plaintiffs\n\nand Co-Lead Counsel respectfully submit that the Settlement represents a very favorable result for\n\nthe Settlement Class in light of the significant risks of continuing to litigate the Action.\n\n 5. Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have vigorously litigated this case since they were\n\nappointed to represent the putative class on January 11, 2024. See ECF No. 42 (appointing co-lead\n\nplaintiffs and co-lead counsel). Even prior to that, on October 30, 2024, my firm filed the complaint\n\nin the Villanueva Action (defined below), which was later consolidated into this Action. See id.\n\n(consolidating actions). The Settlement was achieved only after Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel,\n\ninter alia, as detailed herein:\n\n (i) conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation that included a review\n and analysis of publicly available information, as well as interviews with\n numerous former GigaCloud employees;\n\n (ii) consulted with experts regarding accounting, market efficiency, loss\n causation, and damages issues;\n\n (iii) prepared and filed a detailed Amended Class Action Complaint (the\n \u201cAmended Complaint\u201d) (ECF No. 59) that identified numerous alleged\n misrepresentations by Defendants and contained allegations derived from\n four former GigaCloud employees;\n\n (iv) analyzed Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No.\n 82);\n\n (v) following the publication of a report by Grizzly Research LLC, conducted\n an additional investigation concerning matters raised therein;\n\n (vi) prepared and filed a detailed Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the\n \u201cSecond Amended Complaint\u201d) (ECF No. 88) that identified additional\n alleged misrepresentations by Defendants and contained allegations derived\n from five additional former GigaCloud employees;\n\n (vii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition (ECF Nos. 107-08) to Defendants\n GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 42\n\n\n\n\n Amended Complaint (ECF No. 95), which the Court granted in part and\n denied in part (ECF No. 117);\n\n (viii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition (ECF Nos. 109-10) to Defendant\n Chen\u2019s separate motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF\n No. 105), which the Court denied in full (ECF No. 117);\n\n (ix) undertook extensive efforts to serve pleadings on Defendants, several of\n whom are believed to reside in the People\u2019s Republic of China;\n\n (x) following the Court\u2019s order sustaining the Second Amended Complaint in\n part, engaged in discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel regarding the scope\n of discovery and a schedule for the Action; and\n\n (xi) engaged in discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel over a period of several\n weeks regarding a potential negotiated resolution of the Action, leading to\n the proposed Settlement.\n\n 6. On June 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation (ECF No. 137) and the Preliminary\n\nApproval Motion (ECF No. 134), seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement and approval of\n\nthe form and method of notifying Settlement Class Members of the Settlement and their rights to\n\nexclude themselves from the Settlement Class, to file a claim for a portion of the Net Settlement\n\nFund, and/or to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or any request for attorneys\u2019\n\nfees, costs, and expenses.\n\n 7. On June 20, 2025, the Court granted the Preliminary Approval Motion,\n\npreliminarily finding that it would \u201clikely be able to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable,\n\nand adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), subject to further consideration at\n\nthe Settlement Hearing.\u201d (ECF No. 139) (the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u201d).\n\n 8. As Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel stated in support of the Preliminary Approval\n\nMotion, they believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Due to their\n\nefforts, Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel are well-informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the\n\nclaims and defenses in the Action. The Settlement was achieved in the face of vigorous opposition\n\nby Defendants who would have continued to raise numerous challenging defenses. For example,\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5 of 42\n\n\n\n\nDefendants raised significant arguments regarding the falsity of the alleged misstatements and\n\nregarding loss causation, and Defendants would surely raise these same issues at later stages of this\n\nAction if the Parties were to continue litigating. Indeed, there is a material risk that the Court or a\n\njury would accept Defendants\u2019 \u201cnegative causation\u201d argument that GigaCloud\u2019s stock price declined\n\nfor reasons unrelated to their alleged misstatements. Were that to occur, Plaintiffs and Settlement\n\nClass Members would recover nothing. Relatedly, Defendants would likely argue that damages are\n\nnot significant. Issues relating to loss causation and damages would likely have come down to an\n\ninherently unpredictable and hotly disputed \u201cbattle of the experts,\u201d with Defendants\u2019 experts\n\nopining, among other things, that Plaintiffs\u2019 expert(s) overstated damages and failed to account for\n\nother factors that may have caused the price of GigaCloud Stock to decline.\n\n 9. Further, GigaCloud has significant operations in China and is incorporated in the\n\nCayman Islands, and numerous of the Individual Defendants reside in, or are believed to reside in,\n\nChina. These circumstances create an additional risk that all or some of the Defendants could cease\n\nparticipating in the Action, or that Plaintiffs would be unable to secure and collect on a judgment\n\nagainst Defendants. Indeed, despite extensive efforts, Plaintiffs were unable to effect service on\n\nDefendants Lin, Huang, Guo, and Liu (though counsel appeared on behalf of Liu, who reserved\n\nthe right to contest the sufficiency of service of process, among other defenses). In the absence of\n\na settlement, there is a very real risk that, after months or years of additional litigation, the\n\nSettlement Class could recover nothing or an amount less than the negotiated Settlement.\n\n 10. The proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable.\n\nAs discussed below, the Plan of Allocation was developed with the assistance of Plaintiffs\u2019\n\ndamages expert and provides for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 42\n\n\n\n\nMembers who submit Claim Forms that are approved for payment on a pro rata basis based on\n\ntheir losses attributable to the alleged securities law violations.\n\n 11. For the reasons set forth below and in the accompanying memoranda and\n\ndeclarations, Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel respectfully submit that the Settlement is \u201cfair,\n\nreasonable, and adequate\u201d in all respects, and that the Court should grant final approval of the\n\nSettlement pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n 12. In addition, Co-Lead Counsel seeks an award of attorneys\u2019 fees to Plaintiffs\u2019\n\nCounsel in the amount of 33.4% of the Settlement Amount (plus interest thereon), reimbursement\n\nof Litigation Expenses, and awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities\n\nLitigation Reform Act of 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d). Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel believe\n\nthat the requested attorneys\u2019 fees, Litigation Expenses, and awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs are fair\n\nand reasonable in light of the extent and quality of the work performed as well as the substantial\n\nresult achieved.\n\nII. PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n\n A. Commencement of the Action, Transfer to this Court, and\n Appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel\n\n 13. On October 4, 2023, this Action commenced with the filing of a class action\n\ncomplaint by plaintiff Thomas J. Kinnally in the United States District Court for the Central\n\nDistrict of California, styled Kinnally v. GigaCloud Technology Inc., No. 2:23-cv-8381 (the\n\n\u201cKinnally Action\u201d), ECF No. 1. The initial complaint in the Kinnally Action asserted claims (i)\n\nagainst GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, Lin, Huang, and Aegis under Section 11 of the Securities Act\n\nof 1933 (the \u201cSecurities Act\u201d); (ii) against Wu, Lau, Wan, Lin, and Huang under Section 15 of the\n\nSecurities Act; (iii) against GigaCloud, Wu, and Lau under Section 10(b) of the Securities\n\nExchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (iv)\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 42\n\n\n\n\nagainst Wu and Lau under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In general, the complaint alleged\n\nmisstatements and omissions in connection with GigaCloud\u2019s August 2022 initial public offering\n\n(the \u201cIPO\u201d) and during the period from August 18, 2022 to September 27, 2023, both dates\n\ninclusive. The complaint asserted such claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or\n\notherwise acquired (a) GigaCloud Stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and\n\nprospectus for the IPO, and/or (b) GigaCloud securities during the period from August 18, 2022\n\nto September 27, 2023, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby.\n\n 14. On October 30, 2023, plaintiff Rock Villanueva filed a securities class action\n\ncomplaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California styled Villanueva\n\nv. GigaCloud Technology Inc., No. 2:23-cv-9134 (the \u201cVillanueva Action\u201d), ECF No. 1. The\n\ncomplaint alleged substantially the same allegations as the Kinnally Action.\n\n 15. On November 20, 2023, Kinnally and GigaCloud stipulated to the transfer of the\n\nKinnally Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the\n\n\u201cCourt\u201d). Kinnally Action, ECF No. 11; Villanueva Action, ECF No. 12. In that stipulation,\n\nGigaCloud\u2019s counsel accepted service of the summons and complaint in the Kinnally Action on\n\nbehalf of GigaCloud. Kinnally Action, ECF No. 11; Villanueva Action, ECF No. 12.\n\n 16. On November 22, 2023, the Kinnally Action was transferred to the United States\n\nDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York (the \u201cCourt\u201d). Kinnally Action, ECF No. 12.\n\nThat same day, the Villanueva Action was also transferred to the Court. Villanueva Action, ECF\n\nNo. 13. The Kinnally Action and the Villanueva Action were assigned case numbers 1:23-cv-\n\n10684 and 1:23-cv-10645, respectively, in this Court.\n\n 17. Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as\n\namended by the PSLRA, on December 4, 2023, three purported members of the putative class\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8 of 42\n\n\n\n\nalleged in the Kinnally and Villanueva Actions filed motions for consolidation of the two cases,\n\ntheir respective appointments as lead plaintiffs, and appointment of their respective counsel as lead\n\ncounsel. Kinnally Action, ECF Nos. 13-15, 17-22.\n\n 18. On December 15, 2023, the Court ordered that, in view of the transfer of the\n\nKinnally and Villanueva Actions to the Southern District of New York, the deadline to seek\n\nappointment as lead plaintiff would be extended to December 22, 2023. ECF No. 23.\n\n 19. On January 10, 2024, Rajan and Spear filed a stipulation and [proposed] order to,\n\ninter alia, (1) consolidate the Kinnally and Villanueva Actions for all purposes, (2) appoint Rajan\n\nand Spear as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated action, (3) approve Rajan and Spear\u2019s\n\nselections of Pomerantz and Rosen Law as Co-Lead Counsel, and (4) deny all other motions for\n\nLead Plaintiff. ECF No. 41.\n\n 20. On January 11, 2024, the Court granted that stipulation and entered the [proposed]\n\norder. ECF No. 42.\n\n 21. On January 18, 2024, Co-Lead Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Defendants\n\nGigaCloud, Wu, and Wan, on the other, filed a stipulation and proposed order (1) setting forth the\n\nduties and responsibilities of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel and (2) proposing a\n\nschedule for Co-Lead Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint or designate a previously filed\n\ncomplaint as operative, for Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, and Wan to respond to the operative\n\ncomplaint and, if Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, and Wan filed a motion to dismiss, for briefing\n\nthereon. ECF No. 46. Per that stipulation, GigaCloud, Wu, and Wan, through their counsel, agreed\n\nto waive service of the summons and complaint in this action. ECF No. 46. On January 22, 2024,\n\nthe Court entered that order. ECF No. 54.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 9 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 22. On January 22, 2024, Aegis was served with a summons and complaint. ECF No.\n\n55.\n\n B. The Amended Complaint and Defendants\u2019 First Motion to Dismiss\n\n 23. On March 18, 2024, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint\n\n(the \u201cAmended Complaint\u201d). ECF No. 59. The Amended Complaint, on behalf of a proposed Class\n\nof all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary shares issued by\n\nGigaCloud pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with\n\nGigaCloud\u2019s IPO,2 and were damaged thereby, asserted claims (1) against GigaCloud, Wu, Lau,\n\nWan, Lin, Huang, Chen, Guo, Liu, and Aegis under Section 11 of the Securities Act, and (2)\n\nagainst Wu, Lau, Wan, Lin, Huang, Chen, Guo, and Liu under Section 15 of the Securities Act. In\n\naddition, the Amended Complaint, on behalf of a proposed Class of all persons and entities that\n\npurchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Class A ordinary shares during the period August 18,\n\n2022 to September 28, 2023, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby, asserted claims (1)\n\nagainst GigaCloud, Wu, Wan, and Iman Schrock (\u201cSchrock\u201d) under Section 10(b) of the Exchange\n\nAct and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and (2) against Wu, Lau, Wan, and Schrock under\n\nSection 20(a) of the Exchange Act.\n\n 24. The Amended Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement contained\n\nmaterially false and misleading statements regarding the Company\u2019s use of artificial intelligence\n\n(\u201cAI\u201d) software. The Prospectus represented, inter alia, that one of GigaCloud\u2019s \u201cCompetitive\n\n\n2\n On May 31, 2021, the Company confidentially filed a draft registration statement with the SEC\nfor a planned initial public offering of its stock. Amended Complaint \u00b639. The Company conducted\nthe IPO the following year, announcing that the IPO was complete on August 22, 2022. Id. In the\nIPO, the Company sold 3,381,000 Class A ordinary shares at a price of $12.25 per share. Id. The\nCompany received net proceeds of approximately $34.2 million from the IPO. Id.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10 of 42\n\n\n\n\nStrengths\u201d was \u201cData Intelligence Powered by AI,\u201d that \u201cself-learning AI\u201d improved the\n\nCompany\u2019s \u201coperating efficiency\u201d by \u201cautomating and optimizing inventory globally based on\n\nhistorical data, rebalancing our merchandise across warehouses to maximize first mile collection\n\nand last mile delivery efficiency,\u201d and that \u201c[o]ur AI-powered warehousing management system\n\nsolves the many practical problems faced by sellers and buyers in connection with complex, cross-\n\nborder transactions involving large parcel goods.\u201d Amended Complaint \u00b6\u00b672, 74.\n\n 25. The Amended Complaint also alleged that Defendants made additional\n\nmisstatements about GigaCloud\u2019s AI capabilities on GigaCloud\u2019s website, in SEC filings, and\n\nduring earnings calls and other investor calls. Id. \u00b6\u00b6149-90.\n\n 26. The Amended Complaint alleged that these statements were false because\n\nGigaCloud did not have the AI capabilities touted by Defendants. The Amended Complaint\n\ncontained allegations drawn from four former GigaCloud employees in support of Plaintiffs\u2019\n\nclaims. Id. \u00b6\u00b626-29.\n\n 27. The Amended Complaint alleged that a short seller report from Culper Research\n\n(the \u201cCulper Report\u201d) revealed the falsity of Defendants\u2019 misstatements on September 28, 2023.\n\nThe Culper Report stated that \u201cwe couldn\u2019t find a single GCT employee on LinkedIn or otherwise\n\nwho claimed to have developed any AI for the Company\u201d and that GigaCloud \u201cdoesn\u2019t even\n\ndisclose software development expenses or capitalized software costs in its financial statements.\u201d\n\nId. \u00b6192. The price of GigaCloud Stock fell $1.78 from its $9.47 closing price on September 27,\n\n2023, or more than 18%, to close at $7.69 per share on September 28, 2023. Id. \u00b6193.\n\n 28. On March 20, 2024, Plaintiffs requested from the Court a summons as to Iman\n\nSchrock. ECF No. 60. The summons was issued the following day (ECF No. 61) and Plaintiffs\n\neffected service on Schrock (ECF No. 62).\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 29. On April 5, 2024, after researching addresses for Defendants Lau, Lin, Huang,\n\nChen, Guo, and Liu, Plaintiffs requested summonses from the Court as to these Defendants. See\n\nECF Nos. 63-68. Plaintiffs attempted to serve these Defendants at GigaCloud\u2019s Hong Kong\n\nexecutive office pursuant to the requirements of the Hague Service Convention. After sending the\n\nnecessary materials to the Hong Kong authorities, Plaintiffs were eventually advised by those\n\nauthorities that service could not be effected on Defendants Lau, Lin, Huang, Guo, and Liu. No\n\nexplanation for this failure was provided.\n\n 30. On May 17, 2024, Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Wan, Schrock, and Aegis (the\n\n\u201cMoving Defendants\u201d) filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, supported by a\n\nmemorandum of law, attorney declaration, and exhibits thereto. ECF Nos. 82-84. In support of the\n\nmotion, these Moving Defendants argued that Plaintiffs (i) failed to allege any material\n\nmisstatements or omissions; (ii) failed to allege, as required for Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims, a\n\nstrong inference that any Defendant acted with scienter; (iii) failed to allege loss causation, which\n\nis a required element of Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims, and that this failure also required\n\ndismissal of the Securities Act claims; and (iv) failed to plead control person liability. ECF No.\n\n83.\n\n 31. On May 20, 2024, the Court ordered that, notwithstanding the briefing schedule\n\nadopted on January 19, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file any second amended complaint by June 7, 2024.\n\nECF No. 85. The Court stated that \u201cPlaintiffs will not be given any further opportunity to amend\n\nto address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.\u201d Id.\n\n C. The Second Amended Complaint\n\n 32. On May 22, 2024, five days after the Moving Defendants filed their motion to\n\ndismiss the Amended Complaint, Grizzly Research LLC (\u201cGrizzly Research\u201d) published a report\n\nentitled \u201cGigaCloud Technology Inc \u2013 Another China Hustle Inflating Key Metrics Using\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12 of 42\n\n\n\n\nUndisclosed Related Party Shell Companies\u201d (the \u201cGrizzly Report\u201d). Second Amended Complaint\n\n\u00b691.\n\n 33. In order to investigate the Grizzly Report and determine whether to address it in a\n\nsecond amended complaint, on May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs requested a twenty-one day extension,\n\nuntil June 28, 2024, to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 86. Defendants did not object\n\nto this request. Id. On May 29, 2024, the Court granted the request. ECF No. 87.\n\n 34. After conducting an additional investigation, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended\n\nComplaint on June 28, 2024. ECF No. 88. The Second Amended Complaint, on behalf of a\n\nproposed Class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary\n\nshares issued by GigaCloud pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in\n\nconnection with GigaCloud\u2019s August 2022 IPO, asserted claims (1) against GigaCloud, Wu, Lau,\n\nWan, Lin, Huang, Chen, Guo, Liu, and Aegis under Section 11 of the Securities Act, and (2)\n\nagainst Wu, Lau, Wan, Lin, Huang, Chen, Guo, and Liu under Section 15 of the Securities Act. In\n\naddition, the Second Amended Complaint, on behalf of a proposed Class of all persons and entities\n\nthat purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Class A ordinary shares during the period August\n\n18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), asserted claims (1) against\n\nGigaCloud, Wu, Lau, and Wan under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5\n\npromulgated thereunder, and (2) against Wu, Lau, and Wan under Section 20(a) of the Exchange\n\nAct.\n\n 35. The Second Amended Complaint differed from the Amended Complaint in several\n\nkey respects, including the following.\n\n 36. First, it added allegations that Defendants made material misstatements and\n\nomissions concerning activity on GigaCloud Marketplace. The Second Amended Complaint\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13 of 42\n\n\n\n\nalleged that misstatements regarding this topic were made in the Registration Statement for the\n\nIPO and during the Class Period.\n\n 37. Second, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that the falsity of Defendants\u2019\n\nmisstatements was revealed on two dates: September 28, 2023 and May 22, 2024. Second\n\nAmended Complaint \u00b6\u00b6402-11. Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that\n\nDefendants made misstatements during a Class Period beginning on August 18, 2022 (as in the\n\nAmended Complaint) and ending on May 22, 2024 (approximately eight months after the\n\nSeptember 28, 2023 conclusion of the Class Period alleged in the Amended Complaint). Compare\n\nSecond Amended Complaint \u00b63, with Amended Complaint \u00b63.\n\n 38. Third, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that certain Defendants participated\n\nin a fraudulent scheme to mislead the public regarding GigaCloud Marketplace activity. Second\n\nAmended Complaint \u00b6\u00b6397-401, 435-44.\n\n 39. Fourth, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that Defendants made material\n\nmisstatements concerning GigaCloud\u2019s AI capabilities only in the Registration Statement and only\n\nfor purposes of Plaintiffs\u2019 Securities Act claims. Unlike the Amended Complaint, it did not allege\n\nAI-related misstatements at any other time or in any other context and did not assert any Exchange\n\nAct claims based on AI-related misstatements. As a result, it did not include Schrock, who\n\nPlaintiffs alleged in the Amended Complaint had made misstatements concerning GigaCloud\u2019s AI\n\ncapabilities during earnings and investor calls, as a defendant.\n\n 40. Fifth, the Second Amended Complaint contained additional allegations based on\n\ninformation from a total of nine GigaCloud employees, including the four former employees cited\n\nin the Amended Complaint. Second Amended Complaint \u00b6\u00b633-41. It also set forth additional\n\nallegations from certain of the former employees cited in the Amended Complaint. E.g., Second\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 14 of 42\n\n\n\n\nAmended Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 97, 110, 376. It also extensively cited other records and sources in support\n\nof the claims. E.g., Second Amended Complaint \u00b6\u00b6102-03, 105, 107-08, 112, 114-15, 117-18, 120-\n\n24, and Ex. B thereto).\n\n D. Defendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint\n\n 41. On August 9, 2024, Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis filed a\n\nmotion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, supported by a memorandum of law, attorney\n\ndeclaration, and exhibits thereto. ECF Nos. 95-97. In support of their motion, these Defendants\n\nargued that the Second Amended Complaint (i) failed to allege any material misstatements or\n\nomissions; (ii) failed to allege, as required for Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims, a strong inference\n\nthat any Defendant acted with scienter; (iii) failed to allege loss causation, which is a required\n\nelement of Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims, and that this failure also required dismissal of the\n\nSecurities Act claims; (iv) failed to allege a fraudulent scheme, and (iv) failed to plead control\n\nperson liability. ECF No. 96.\n\n 42. On August 13, 2024, Defendants\u2019 Counsel advised Co-Lead Counsel that the\n\nBailiff Section of the Hong Kong Judiciary had attempted to effect service of process on Defendant\n\nChen, that Chen did not contest service, that Chen would appear through counsel to respond the\n\nSecond Amended Complaint, and that Chen anticipated submitting a short joinder adopting the\n\nmotion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis,\n\nand making an additional personal jurisdiction argument that is uniquely applicable to him. ECF\n\nNo. 99 at 1.\n\n 43. On August 21, 2024, Defendant Chen filed a notice of joinder with the motion to\n\ndismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and\n\nAegis, and a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction,\n\nsupported by a memorandum of law. ECF Nos. 105-06.\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 15 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 44. On October 8, 2024, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed memoranda of law, attorney\n\ndeclarations, and exhibits thereto in opposition to the motions to dismiss the Second Amended\n\nComplaint. ECF Nos. 107-10.\n\n 45. On November 7, 2024, Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, Aegis, and Chen\n\nfiled replies in support of their motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. ECF Nos.\n\n115-16.\n\n E. Plaintiffs Continue to Attempt to Serve the Remaining Defendants\n\n 46. As indicated above, by the time the briefing was complete regarding Defendants\u2019\n\nmotions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the following Defendants had not been served\n\nwith a summons and complaint or waived service thereof: Lin, Huang, Guo, and Liu. Plaintiffs,\n\nthrough counsel and investigators, conducted a substantial amount of research to identify addresses\n\nat which to serve these Defendants, and to attempt such service.\n\n 47. After their attempt to serve these Defendants at GigaCloud\u2019s principal executive\n\noffice in Hong Kong was unsuccessful, Plaintiffs investigated further and identified addresses in\n\nthe United States for Defendants Lin and Liu. Plaintiffs were unable to identify additional\n\naddresses at which they believed they could effect service on Defendants Guo and Huang.\n\n 48. As to Defendant Lin, Plaintiffs\u2019 process server attempted on November 1, 2024 to\n\neffect service at a United States business address that Plaintiffs identified for Lin, but the server\n\nwas told by an individual who claimed to be an executive assistant that, though Lin was employed\n\nat that address, he was in China for an extended amount of time. Plaintiffs then considered moving\n\nthe Court to permit alternative service on Lin through GigaCloud in light of his membership on\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 16 of 42\n\n\n\n\nGigaCloud\u2019s board of directors. However, according to a report GigaCloud filed with the SEC,\n\nLin resigned from GigaCloud\u2019s board of directors on November 6, 2024, effective immediately.3\n\n 49. As to Defendant Liu, Plaintiffs\u2019 process server reported that their three attempts to\n\nserve process at the United States address identified by Plaintiffs were unsuccessful. Plaintiffs then\n\nsent to Liu two copies of a waiver of service form, one copy of each of the Amended Complaint,\n\namended summons issued October 25, 2024 (ECF No. 113), and a request to waive service, as\n\nwell as a prepaid return envelope; these materials were delivered on November 21, 2024. As this\n\nyielded no response from Liu, Plaintiffs continued to attempt to effect personal service on Liu at\n\nthat address. On January 25, 2025, Defendants\u2019 Counsel contacted Co-Lead Counsel by email,\n\nstating that they did not represent Liu and did not have authority to accept service for him and that\n\nLiu is a non-US resident and did not live or work at the address in question.\n\n F. The Court Upholds the Second Amended Complaint in Part\n\n 50. On January 27, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (1) granting in part\n\nand denying in part GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second\n\nAmended Complaint, and (2) denying Chen\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.\n\nECF No. 117.\n\n 51. The Court held that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the Registration Statement\n\ncontained materially misleading statements about GigaCloud\u2019s use of AI in violation of Section\n\n11 of the Securities Act. Id. at 14-18. The Court found that the former GigaCloud employees\n\nanonymously cited in the Second Amended Complaint were described with sufficient particularity\n\nto support the probability that they possessed the information attributed to them, and that such\n\n\n\n3\n See GigaCloud Technology, Inc., Current Report (Form 8-K) (Nov. 13, 2024), available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1857816/000185781624000216/gct-20241113.htm.\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 17 of 42\n\n\n\n\ninformation was \u201csufficient to support an inference that GigaCloud did not use AI in its logistics\n\noperations as claimed in the Offering Materials.\u201d Id. at 16-17.\n\n 52. The Court also rejected Defendants\u2019 argument for dismissal of these claims for\n\nfailure to sufficiently allege loss causation, reasoning that Section 11 does not require Plaintiffs to\n\nplead loss causation and that it is not \u201capparent from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff[s]\n\ncannot recover [their] alleged losses.\u201d Id. at 17 (alterations in original) (quoting Boluka Garment\n\nCo., Ltd. v. Canaan Inc., 547 F. Supp. 3d 439, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)). Defendants argued that\n\nGigaCloud\u2019s stock price rebounded following the alleged corrective disclosures, negating loss\n\ncausation. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the fact \u201c\u2018that the price [of the stock]\n\nrebounded does not, at the pleading stage, negate the plaintiff\u2019s showing of loss causation\u2019 because\n\nwhen \u2018drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of [plaintiff], [we] assume that the price rose for\n\nreasons unrelated to its initial drop.\u2019\u201d Id. at 18 n.5 (alterations in original) (quoting Acticon AG v.\n\nChina N. E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 692 F.3d 34, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2012)).\n\n 53. The Court also denied Chen\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,\n\nholding that allegations that Chen signed a written consent to be named in the Registration\n\nStatement as being or about to become a director of GigaCloud provided a sufficient basis for the\n\nCourt to exercise personal jurisdiction over Chen. Id. at 18-19.\n\n 54. However, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 claims that Defendants made material\n\nmisstatements concerning activity on GigaCloud Marketplace, finding that Defendants accurately\n\nrepresented activity on GigaCloud Marketplace and were not obligated to disclose the allegedly\n\nconcealed and misrepresented information. Id. at 11-12. The Court also dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019\n\nscheme-liability claims on the basis that \u201cthey are premised on the same misstatements.\u201d Id. at 13.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 18 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 55. The Court also denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their allegations, reasoning that\n\n\u201cthe problems with Plaintiffs\u2019 dismissed claims are substantive, so amendment would be futile.\u201d\n\nId. at 21 (citing Roundtree v. City of New York, 2021 WL 1667193, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28,\n\n2021)).\n\n 56. Thus, the Court upheld Plaintiffs\u2019 claims regarding GigaCloud\u2019s AI capabilities,\n\nwhich were brought under the Securities Act only, but dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 claims regarding\n\nGigaCloud Marketplace, which were brought under both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.\n\nTherefore, Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims were dismissed in their entirety.\n\n G. Defendants\u2019 Answers\n\n 57. On March 4, 2025, Defendant Aegis filed its answer to the Second Amended\n\nComplaint. ECF No. 124. In its answer, Aegis denied liability and asserted thirty-three purported\n\naffirmative defenses.\n\n 58. On March 11, 2025, Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Wan, Lau, Chen, and Liu filed\n\ntheir answer to the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 125. In their answer, these Defendants\n\ndenied liability and asserted forty-six purported defenses including, as to Defendant Liu,\n\ninsufficient service of process. Id. at 181.\n\nIII. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT\u2019S\n PRELIMNARY APPROVAL\n\n A. The Parties Negotiate the Settlement\n\n 59. The Court\u2019s Opinion and Order scheduled an initial pretrial conference for March\n\n26, 2025, and established a deadline of March 20, 2025, for the Parties to submit a joint status\n\nletter and proposed Case Management Plan. ECF No. 117 at 21-22.\n\n 60. Accordingly, the Parties began discussing the scope of discovery and schedule for\n\nthe Action. In the course of those discussions, the Parties broached the subject of a potential\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 19 of 42\n\n\n\n\nnegotiated resolution to the Action. As these discussions were productive, on March 17, 2025, the\n\nParties jointly requested that the Court adjourn the pretrial conference and related deadlines by\n\nthirty days to permit the Parties to continue discussing the possibility of a resolution. ECF No. 127.\n\nThe Court granted that request, rescheduling the initial conference to April 30, 2025. ECF No.\n\n128.\n\n 61. On April 23, 2025, the Parties reached a settlement-in-principle to resolve the\n\nAction for $2,750,000 and began negotiating a term sheet. The following day, the Parties advised\n\nthe Court that they had had constructive discussions about a potential resolution of the Action,\n\nrequested a second thirty-day extension to permit those discussions to continue, and stated that\n\nthey intended to inform the Court of the status of these discussions by May 2, 2025. ECF No. 130.\n\nThat same day, the Court granted the adjournment, rescheduling the initial conference to May 28,\n\n2025, and ordered the Parties to file a joint status letter no later than May 2, 2025. ECF No. 131.\n\n 62. Following additional negotiations, on May 2, 2025, the Parties, through their\n\ncounsel, executed a confidential term sheet setting forth the material terms associated with the\n\nresolution of the Action, subject to the execution of a customary \u201clong form\u201d stipulation and\n\nagreement of settlement and related papers. That same day, the Parties wrote jointly to notify the\n\nCourt that they had reached a settlement-in-principle and that Plaintiffs intended to file a motion\n\nfor preliminary approval of the settlement within forty-five days thereafter. ECF No. 132. In light\n\nof the settlement in principle, the Parties jointly requested an adjournment of the initial pretrial\n\nconference, then scheduled for May 28, 2025, and all other deadlines in this case, pending the\n\nsubmission of Plaintiffs\u2019 preliminary approval motion. Id.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 20 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 63. The Court granted that request the same day, adjourning the pretrial conference and\n\nall existing deadlines sine die pending the filing of a motion for class certification and preliminary\n\napproval of the Settlement, for which the Court set a deadline of June 16, 2025. ECF No. 133.\n\n 64. The Parties then negotiated the terms of the Stipulation and Supplemental\n\nAgreement, which the Parties executed on June 16, 2025.\n\n 65. As provided for in the Stipulation, in exchange for payment of the Settlement\n\nAmount, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class will\n\nforever release all Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims against the Released Defendant Parties. Released\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Claims are any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and description,\n\nwhether known claims or Unknown Claims, contingent or absolute, mature or not mature,\n\nliquidated or unliquidated, accrued or not accrued, concealed or hidden, regardless of legal or\n\nequitable theory and whether arising under federal, state, common, or foreign law, that Co-Lead\n\nPlaintiffs or any other member of the Settlement Class: (a) asserted in the Action, including, for\n\nthe avoidance of doubt, all claims already dismissed by the Court\u2019s order dated January 27, 2025,\n\ngranting in part and denying in part Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s motion to\n\ndismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 95-97); or (b) could have asserted in the\n\nAction or any forum that arise out of, are based upon, or relate to both (i) the allegations,\n\ntransactions, facts, activities, matters or occurrences, conduct, representations, or omissions\n\ninvolved, set forth, or referred to in the Action and (ii) the purchase or acquisition of GigaCloud\n\nStock during the Class Period. Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims shall not include claims to enforce the\n\nSettlement. See Stipulation \u00b61(gg). Also, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Defendants\n\nwill forever release all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims against the Released Plaintiff Parties.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 21 of 42\n\n\n\n\nReleased Defendants\u2019 Claims are all claims related to the institution, prosecution, or settlement of\n\nthe claims against Defendants. See Stipulation \u00b61(ee).\n\n B. The Court Preliminarily Approves the Settlement.\n\n 66. On June 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation (including the exhibits thereto)\n\n(ECF No. 137) as well as the Preliminary Approval Motion, supported by a memorandum of law\n\nand declaration (ECF Nos. 134-136).\n\n 67. On June 20, 2025, the Court, finding that it would likely be able to approve the\n\nSettlement, entered the Preliminary Approval Order, and approved Strategic Claims Services\n\n(\u201cSCS\u201d or the \u201cClaims Administrator\u201d) as the claims administrator. The Court further approved\n\nthe form, substance and requirements of the Notice, Claim Form, Summary Notice, and Postcard\n\nNotice as well as the Parties\u2019 proposed plan for providing notice to the Settlement Class. The Court\n\nfound the proposed notice plan as: (a) constituting the best notice to Settlement Class Members\n\npracticable under the circumstances; (b) as reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to\n\ndescribe the terms and effect of the Settlement and to apprise Settlement Class Members of their\n\nright to object to the proposed Settlement or to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.\n\nPreliminary Approval Order.\n\nIV. PLAINTIFFS\u2019 ISSUE NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS\n PURSUANT TO THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER\n\n 68. The Preliminary Approval Order directed SCS, under Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s direction,\n\nto: (i) post Notice and Claim Form on the website for the Settlement; (ii) mail the Postcard Notice\n\nto Settlement Class Members who can be identified with reasonable effort; and (iii) publish the\n\nSummary Notice once in Investor\u2019s Business Daily and once over a national newswire service.\n\nPreliminary Approval Order \u00b6\u00b68, 11.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 22 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 69. The Court also set a deadline of September 18, 2025 (21 calendar days prior to the\n\nSettlement Hearing) for Settlement Class Members to submit objections to the Settlement, the Plan\n\nof Allocation, and/or the Fee Motion or to request exclusion from the Settlement Class, and\n\nscheduled the Settlement Hearing for October 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. Id. \u00b6\u00b618, 15, 5.\n\n 70. The Court-approved Notice disclosed, among other things, the following\n\ninformation to Settlement Class Members: (a) a summary of the Settlement, including the two\n\nmillion seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($2,750,000), Settlement Amount; (b) that Co-\n\nLead Counsel would apply for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in an amount not to exceed 33.4% of\n\nthe Settlement Amount plus interest, reimbursement of actual expenses of $130,000, and\n\ncompensatory awards to Plaintiffs of up to $15,000; (c) the details of the Plan of Allocation; (d)\n\nthat any Settlement Class Member could object to the requested attorneys\u2019 fees, reimbursement of\n\nthe litigation expenses and Award to Plaintiffs; (e) an explanation of the reasons for the Settlement;\n\n(f) that requests for exclusion from the Settlement must be submitted to the Claims Administrator\n\nno later than September 18, 2025; (g) that objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,\n\nand/or the Fee Motion must be filed with the Court and served on counsel no later than September\n\n18, 2025; and (h) that the deadline for submitting a Claim Form is October 6, 2025. The Notice is\n\nattached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning: (A) Mailing of the Postcard\n\nNotice; (B) Publication of the Summary Notice; And (C) Report on Requests for Exclusion and\n\nObjections (\u201cCraig Decl.\u201d), which is itself attached as Exhibit A hereto.\n\n 71. To disseminate notice, by July 7, 2025, SCS mailed a copy of the Postcard Notice\n\nto the organizations identified in the transfer agent records provided to Claims Administrator by\n\nDefendants. See Craig Decl. \u00b65. On July 7, 2025, SCS also sent the Notice and Claim Form to the\n\nDepository Trust Company (\u201cDTC\u201d) to publish on its Legal Notice System (\u201cLENS\u201d). Id. \u00b63.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 23 of 42\n\n\n\n\nLENS provides DTC participants the ability to search and download legal notices as well as receive\n\ne-mail alerts based on particular notices or particular CUSIPs once a legal notice is posted. Id.\n\n 72. On July 7, 2025, SCS also mailed or emailed a letter to the 2,464 nominees in a\n\nproprietary list that it maintains of banks, brokerage companies, mutual funds, insurance\n\ncompanies, pension funds, and money managers. Id. \u00b64. Nominees were requested to, within ten\n\n(10) calendar days, either: (a) request from SCS sufficient copies of the Postcard Notice to send to\n\neach of their customers who may be beneficial purchasers/owners, and within ten (10) calendar\n\ndays after receipt of the copies of the Postcard Notice, mail them to such beneficial owners; or (b)\n\nprovide SCS with a list of the names, mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses, to the extent e-mail\n\naddresses were available, of such beneficial purchasers/owners so that SCS could promptly either\n\nmail the Postcard Notice or e-mail the links to the Postcard Notice and the Notice and Claim Form\n\non the Settlement Website directly to them. Id.\n\n 73. SCS received additional names and addresses of potential Settlement Class\n\nMembers, additional names and email addresses of potential Settlement Class Members, requests\n\nto send Postcard notices to additional potential Settlement Class Members, and notification from\n\nother nominees that they had mailed Postcard Notices to their clients who were potential\n\nSettlement Class Members. Id. \u00b6\u00b65, 6.\n\n 74. To date, SCS and nominees have mailed or emailed 147,496 copies of the Postcard\n\nNotice to potential Settlement Class Members. Id. \u00b67.\n\n 75. On July 21, 2025 in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, SCS caused\n\nthe Summary Notice to be published once in Investor\u2019s Business Daily and to be transmitted over\n\nGlobe Newswire. Id. \u00b68; see also id., Ex. D (confirmations of publication).\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 24 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 76. Co-Lead Counsel also caused SCS to establish the dedicated Settlement Website,\n\nwhich became operational on July 7, 2025, to provide potential Settlement Class Members with\n\ninformation concerning the Settlement, including exclusion, objection, and claim-filing deadlines\n\nfor the case; the online claim filing link; the date and time of the Settlement Hearing; and\n\ndownloadable versions of the Notice and Claim Form, as well as copies of the Stipulation and\n\nPreliminary Approval Order. Id. \u00b610.\n\n 77. SCS also maintains a toll-free telephone number for potential Settlement Class\n\nMembers to call and obtain information about the Settlement and/or request a Notice and Claim\n\nForm. SCS promptly responds to each telephone inquiry and will continue to address potential\n\nSettlement Class Members\u2019 inquiries. Id. \u00b69.\n\n 78. As set forth above, the Notice informed potential Settlement Class Members that\n\nthe deadline to file objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the Fee\n\nMotion, or to request exclusion from the Settlement Class, is September 18, 2025. To date, no\n\nrequests for exclusion have been received. Id. \u00b611. Plaintiffs will file a supplemental affidavit from\n\nSCS after the September 18, 2025 deadline addressing whether any requests for exclusion have\n\nbeen received.\n\n 79. In addition, to date, no objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or\n\nthe Fee Motion have been entered on this Court\u2019s docket or received by Co-Lead Counsel or SCS.\n\nId. \u00b612. Plaintiffs\u2019 reply papers in support of the Final Approval Motion and the Fee Motion, which\n\nare due on October 2, 2025, will address any objections that may be received.\n\nV. RISKS FACED BY PLAINTIFFS IN THE ACTION\n\n 80. The proposed Settlement eliminates significant risks posed by continuing litigation,\n\nincluding the potential risk that the Settlement Class would recover nothing or an amount\n\nsignificantly less than the $2.75 million negotiated here. Further, while Plaintiffs believe that the\n\n\n 24\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 25 of 42\n\n\n\n\nclaims asserted against Defendants are meritorious, they recognize that there are significant\n\nhurdles to overcome to establish the falsity and materiality of the alleged misstatements. Plaintiffs\n\nare faced with considerable risks and obstacles to achieving a greater recovery, were the case to\n\ncontinue. Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel carefully considered these challenges during the months\n\nleading up to mediation and were mindful of such risks during settlement discussions with\n\nDefendants. In addition, even if Plaintiffs were able to overcome the risks to establishing falsity\n\nand scienter, they faced very serious risks in proving loss causation and damages. Finally, the risk\n\nof being unable to collect on any judgment is heightened in this case because a substantial portion\n\nof GigaCloud\u2019s operations is in China (where several of the Individual Defendants reside or are\n\nbelieved to reside), and GigaCloud is incorporated in the Cayman Islands rather than the United\n\nStates.\n\n A. Risks Concerning Liability\n\n 81. In order to establish Defendants\u2019 liability at trial, Plaintiffs would need to prove\n\nthat Defendants made material misstatements or omitted material facts necessary to make their\n\nstatements not misleading. Defendants would almost certainly argue at summary judgment and\n\ntrial that the alleged misstatements or omissions concerning the Company\u2019s use of AI (which were\n\nthe only alleged statements that survived Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss) were not materially false\n\nand misleading.\n\n 82. First, Defendants would likely argue that there is no single, authoritative definition\n\nof \u201cAI\u201d and thus that the Registration Statement, which distinguished between general data\n\nanalytics and AI technology, could not have given investors a false or misleading understanding\n\nof the Company\u2019s technology. See ECF No. 83 at 10 n.9.\n\n 83. Second, and relatedly, Defendants would likely contend, echoing their arguments\n\nfor dismissal, that the Registration Statement \u201cprovided no detail about how sophisticated\n\n\n 25\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 26 of 42\n\n\n\n\n[GigaCloud\u2019s] technology was,\u201d and thus could not have misrepresented the sophistication of that\n\ntechnology. They would contend that the extent any discussion of the sophistication of the\n\ntechnology was made it was mere puffery which is inactionable as a matter of law. Id. at 11, 15.\n\n 84. Third, Defendants would almost certainly argue that the Registration Statement\u2019s\n\nrepresentations concerning AI were true, and that GigaCloud did use AI in its logistics operations.\n\nIndeed, Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Wan, Lau, Chen, and Liu, in their Answer to the Second\n\nAmended Complaint, pleaded that \u201c[o]ver the last several years, GigaCloud has developed and\n\ndeployed an AI infrastructure to support various aspects of the Company\u2019s business operations,\n\nincluding but not limited to managing inventory, optimizing routing, and analyzing transaction\n\npatterns.\u201d ECF No. 125 at 2. They further pleaded that GigaCloud\u2019s development of its\n\n\u201cproprietary IT software\u201d was led by a data engineer named Yuan Wen, whom GigaCloud hired\n\nin 2016 and promoted to Chief Data Scientist in 2019. Id. According to these Defendants, Mr.\n\nYuan \u201chas led the Company\u2019s efforts to develop various AI functionality to support its operations\n\nalong with a small data science and analytical team consisting of five employees based in Suzhou,\n\nChina.\u201d Id. at 2-3. Thus, Plaintiffs could be in a position where the most authoritative witness\n\nregarding the falsity of Defendants\u2019 alleged misstatements was an employee of GigaCloud itself.\n\nIf Defendants produced discovery and/or adduced testimony that, in the Court\u2019s view, disproved\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 allegations of falsity, the Settlement Class would receive nothing. In addition to fact\n\ndiscovery, a dispute as to whether GigaCloud\u2019s software constituted \u201cAI\u201d would likely lead to a\n\n\u201cbattle of the experts,\u201d the outcome of which would be inherently uncertain, posing an existential\n\nrisk to Plaintiffs\u2019 claims.\n\n 85. Fourth, Defendants, would continue to attack the credibility of the former\n\nGigaCloud employees identified in the Second Amended Complaint, contending that they were\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 27 of 42\n\n\n\n\nnot in a position to be aware of the Company\u2019s AI use, and \u201cwould have no insight into the\n\nCompany\u2019s AI use in the first place.\u201d Id. at 12. Indeed, Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Wan, Lau,\n\nChen, and Liu alleged in their Answer that \u201cbecause th[e] AI work\u201d performed by \u201cMr. Yuan and\n\nhis small team\u201d is \u201cboth important and cutting-edge, the Company takes proactive steps to\n\nsafeguard this work, including by limiting the number of personnel who know the exact back-end\n\nprocesses supporting the systems used by other GigaCloud employees.\u201d Id. at 2-3. \u201cIn other words,\n\naside from the few individuals charged with developing and overseeing its AI programs, most\n\nGigaCloud personnel, including the types of employees described as \u2018former employees\u2019 in the\n\nSAC, would not be privy to the existence, let alone any details, of those programs.\u201d Id. Indeed, if\n\ndiscovery from \u201cMr. Yuan and his small team,\u201d including deposition and trial testimony,\n\nundermined Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations, Plaintiffs could find it difficult to prove their claims to the\n\nfactfinder.\n\n 86. Fifth, Defendants would likely argue, as they did at the pleading stage, that the\n\nRegistration Statement represented that GigaCloud\u2019s \u201cvarious business operations were supported\n\nby \u2018multiple\u2019 technology systems, of which AI and [machine learning] were only but one part,\u201d\n\nand thus that statements concerning AI were of limited scope and significance. ECF No. 96 at 9.\n\n 87. Sixth, and relatedly, Defendants would likely argue that the alleged misstatements\n\nwere not material to investors, and Plaintiffs faced the risk that they would be unable to prove\n\nmateriality.\n\n 88. The risk posed by these arguments is substantial, and the Court has already accepted\n\nthese, or variations of these, arguments to dismiss a significant portion of Plaintiffs\u2019 Second\n\nAmended Complaint. Specifically, the Court dismissed the claims relating to GigaCloud\n\nMarketplace, finding that Defendants accurately represented activity on GigaCloud Marketplace\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 28 of 42\n\n\n\n\nand were not obligated to disclose the allegedly concealed and misrepresented information,\n\neffectively severing all Exchange Act claims. ECF No. 117 at 11-12.\n\n 89. For these reasons, Plaintiffs faced a substantial risk that the Court or a jury would\n\nhave concluded that the alleged misstatements were not materially false or misleading.\n\n B. Risks Related to Loss Causation and Damages\n\n 90. Even if Plaintiffs overcame the above risks and successfully established liability,\n\nDefendants would likely argue that there are no recoverable damages or that damages are minimal.\n\n 91. Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert has estimated that maximum aggregate class-\n\nwide damages are approximately $75 million. This figure encompasses all claims asserted in the\n\nSecond Amended Complaint, which \u2013 as noted above \u2013 asserted a Class Period of August 18, 2022\n\nto May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive, ending with the release of the Grizzly Report. With respect\n\nto the Exchange Act claims asserted therein, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the false\n\nand misleading nature of Defendants\u2019 alleged misstatements was revealed on two dates: (1)\n\nSeptember 28, 2023, when the Culper Report was published, and (2) May 22, 2024, when the\n\nGrizzly Report was published. Second Amended Complaint \u00b6\u00b6402-11. The Second Amended\n\nComplaint alleged that the Grizzly Report revealed the falsity of Defendants\u2019 alleged\n\nmisstatements concerning activity on GigaCloud Marketplace, but the Court dismissed those\n\nclaims (which were the entirety of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims under the Exchange Act). Thus, the maximum\n\ndamages estimate of $75 million reflects claims that were dismissed by the Court. Indeed, the large\n\nmajority of this $75 million estimate relates to Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims, which the Court\n\ndismissed. Further, this estimate does not account for the effect of non-fraud-related company-\n\nspecific information that may have been disclosed contemporaneously with the alleged corrective\n\ndisclosures.\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 29 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 92. Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert has estimated that maximum aggregate class-\n\nwide damages for the shorter class period alleged in the Amended Complaint (ending on\n\nSeptember 28, 2023) range from $14.7 million to $23.8 million for the Exchange Act claims. This\n\nestimate also does not account for the effect of non-fraud-related company-specific information\n\nthat may have been disclosed contemporaneously with the alleged corrective disclosure. Further,\n\nas already noted, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs\u2019 Exchange Act claims.\n\n 93. Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert has estimated that maximum aggregate class-\n\nwide damages for Plaintiffs\u2019 Securities Act claims range from $20.81 million to $23.78 million,\n\napplying the statutory calculation set forth in 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 77k(e). It must be noted that the entirety\n\nof these damages estimates for the Exchange Act claims and for the Securities Act claims cannot\n\nbe added together, as that would reflect double recovery for share purchases eligible under both\n\nstatutes.\n\n 94. Though loss causation is not an element of a Section 11 claim, and thus need not\n\nbe affirmatively pleaded (see ECF No. 117 at 17), the Securities Act would permit Defendants to\n\nassert as an affirmative defense that declines in the price of GigaCloud Stock were unrelated, in\n\nwhole or in part, to the alleged misstatements, and to that extent are not recoverable. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n77k(e). If accepted by the Court or a jury, this \u201cnegative causation\u201d defense could entirely\n\neliminate damages for the Settlement Class.\n\n 95. Indeed, when moving to dismiss both the Amended Complaint and the Second\n\nAmended Complaint, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs\u2019 \u201calleged losses could not have been\n\ncaused by the alleged misstatements.\u201d ECF No. 96 at 22; see also ECF No. 83 at 18 (same). In\n\ntheir motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, Defendants argued that any price declines\n\nfollowing publication of the Culper Report were unrelated to any alleged misstatements\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 30 of 42\n\n\n\n\nconcerning AI because, inter alia, only \u201c38 words in the 27-page short-seller report\u201d related to AI,\n\nand that \u201cinvestors and analysts who commented on the short-seller report focused on the report\u2019s\n\nother unsubstantiated and now-disproven claims . . . rather than the report\u2019s few passing words\n\nabout AI,\u201d which \u201csevers any causal link between the alleged misstatements and the drop in stock\n\nprices.\u201d ECF No. 83 at 18, 20-21.\n\n 96. Defendants also argued that both the Culper Report and the Grizzly Report merely\n\n\u201c\u2018expressed negative opinions about [the Company]\u2019 based on public information,\u201d and thus did\n\nnot reveal anything new. ECF No. 96 at 22 (quoting Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund\n\nv. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 543 F. App\u2019x 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2013)).\n\n 97. Further, Defendants argued that because both the Culper Report and the Grizzly\n\nReport were published by short-sellers with a \u201cdisclosed financial interest in driving down\n\nGigaCloud\u2019s stock price and have expressly disclaimed \u2018as to the accuracy, timeliness, or\n\ncompleteness of any [representation] or with regard to the results to be obtained from its use,\u2019\u201d it\n\nis implausible \u201cthat investors viewed these short-seller reports as revealing the falsity of any prior\n\nstatements.\u201d Id. at 23-24 (citing Espy v. J2 Glob., Inc., 99 F.4th 527, 540-42 (9th Cir. 2024); In re\n\nLexinFintech Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2021 WL 5530949, at *16 (D. Or. Nov. 24, 2021)).\n\n 98. Defendants would also likely contend that because GigaCloud\u2019s stock price\n\ndeclined below the $12.25 IPO price early in the Class Period, before either of the corrective\n\ndisclosures that Plaintiffs pleaded (either in the Amended Complaint or the Second Amended\n\nComplaint) with respect to their Exchange Act claims (including the Culper Report, which\n\naddressed GigaCloud\u2019s purported AI capabilities), the price decline was unrelated to the alleged\n\nfalse statements.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 31 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 99. In addition, Defendants argued that \u201c[e]ven though the releases of the reports were\n\neach followed by a same-day drop in GigaCloud\u2019s stock price, the price quickly rebounded once\n\ninvestors saw that the headline was not supported by any reliable facts,\u201d and that this, also, \u201csevers\n\nany causal link between the alleged misstatements and the drop in stock prices.\u201d ECF No. 96 at\n\n24. This presented another risk concerning loss causation and damages.\n\n 100. Defendants would almost certainly repeat these and similar arguments at class\n\ncertification, summary judgment, and/or trial, and would proffer expert evidence purporting to\n\nestablish that declines in the price of GigaCloud Stock were unrelated to the alleged misstatements.\n\nPlaintiffs would then be compelled to proffer their own expert evidence to rebut Defendants\u2019\n\nevidence. The inherently uncertain outcome of this \u201cbattle of the experts\u201d would pose a risk to\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 ability to recover anything for the Settlement Class, even if Plaintiffs were able to prove\n\nthat Defendants made material misstatements.\n\n C. Other Risks, Including Trial and Appeals, and Ability to Collect a\n Judgment\n\n 101. Even if Plaintiffs succeeded in proving all elements of their case at trial and\n\nobtained a jury verdict, Defendants would almost certainly have appealed. An appeal not only\n\nwould have renewed all the risks Plaintiffs faced\u2014as Defendants would have reasserted all their\n\narguments summarized above\u2014but also would have resulted in significant additional delay. Given\n\nthese significant litigation risks, Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement\n\nrepresents a highly favorable result for the Settlement Class.\n\n 102. Furthermore, litigating against foreign defendants creates additional risk as the\n\ndefendants may not continue to engage in litigation and thus there would be no source of recovery\n\nfor investors. Co-Lead Counsel Rosen Law faced this issue in another securities class action,\n\nVanderhoef v. China Auto Logistics, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-10174-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), where the\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 32 of 42\n\n\n\n\ndefendant company China Auto Logistics, Inc. (\u201cCALI\u201d), a Nevada corporation headquartered in\n\nChina, as well as individual defendants based in China, stopped participating in the action after\n\nthe court denied the defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss. Eventually, because these defendants\n\neffectively disappeared from the action, the plaintiffs were forced to voluntarily dismiss their\n\nclaims against them without prejudice. Vanderhoef, ECF No. 141.\n\n 103. Similarly, in In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:12-\n\ncv-04621-JFW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), after years of litigation, including plaintiffs\u2019 successful appeal of\n\na motion to dismiss ruling to the Ninth Circuit, ChinaCast\u2019s counsel withdrew from the action after\n\nthe company\u2019s insurers refused to cover litigation costs. ChinaCast, ECF Nos. 68, 72. The\n\nplaintiffs secured a default judgment of $65.8 million for the class, but ChinaCast filed for\n\nbankruptcy. ChinaCast, ECF No. 79. In an attempt to recover the default judgment, plaintiffs\n\npursued another lawsuit against ChinaCast\u2019s insurers. See Jayhawk Private Equity Fund II LP v.\n\nLiberty Insurance Underwriters, 2:17-cv-05523-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.). Ultimately, however,\n\nthese claims were dismissed due to expansive exclusion provisions in the insurance policies.\n\nChinaCast, ECF No. 78. Therefore, despite more than seven years of litigation, investors received\n\nnothing from the China-based defendants.\n\n 104. Here, GigaCloud is a Cayman Islands corporation with a large portion of its\n\noperations and assets in China. Furthermore, several of the Individual Defendants are also believed\n\nto be located in China, including Defendants Lin, Huang, Guo, and Liu, on whom Plaintiffs were\n\nunable to serve process. This creates a heightened risk with respect to collecting any judgment.\n\nVI. THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION\n\n 105. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, and as set forth in the Notice, all\n\nSettlement Class Members who wish to participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund\n\nmust submit a valid Claim Form, including all required information, that is postmarked no later\n\n\n 32\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 33 of 42\n\n\n\n\nthan October 6, 2025. Craig Decl., Ex. A (Notice and Claim Form) at 1, 2, 5. As provided in the\n\nNotice, after deduction of Court-awarded attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses, Notice and Administration\n\nCosts, and Taxes and Tax Expenses, the balance of the Settlement Fund will be distributed\n\naccording to the Plan of Allocation, if approved by the Court. Id. at 4-5.\n\n 106. The proposed Plan of Allocation, which is set forth in full in the Notice (id. at 10-\n\n14), was designed to achieve an equitable and rational distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but\n\nit is not a damages analysis that would be submitted at trial. Co-Lead Counsel developed the Plan\n\nof Allocation in close consultation with Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert and Claims\n\nAdministrator, and believe that the plan provides a fair and reasonable method for equitably\n\ndistributing the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized Claimants.\n\n 107. Under the Plan of Allocation, a \u201cRecognized Loss\u201d is calculated for each purchase\n\nof GigaCloud Stock during the Class Period. Id. at 10. Shares purchased in GigaCloud\u2019s August\n\n2022 IPO and during the period from August 18, 2022 through February 14, 2023, inclusive (when\n\na lock-up of insider shares expired), are considered purchases pursuant to or traceable to the\n\nRegistration Statement and thus eligible for a recovery under the Securities Act. Id. For such\n\nshares, Recognized Losses are generally calculated in accordance with the statutory damages\n\nprovision of the Securities Act. Id. at 10, 12. This calculation does not reduce losses to account for\n\nany potential negative causation defense that Defendants could assert.\n\n 108. All shares, including shares purchased in the IPO and during the aforementioned\n\nperiod, are also eligible under the Exchange Act. When calculating Recognized Losses for\n\npurposes of the Exchange Act, the Plan of Allocation\u2019s \u201ccomputation of the estimated alleged\n\nartificial inflation is based on the misrepresentations alleged by Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the decline\n\nin the price of the stock, net of market- and industry-wide factors, on the Corrective Disclosure\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 34 of 42\n\n\n\n\nDates,\u201d as is standard. Id. at 10. For shares of GigaCloud Stock eligible for a recovery under both\n\nthe Securities Act and the Exchange Act, the Recognized Loss shall be the greater of: (i) the\n\nRecognized Loss under the Securities Act; or (ii) the Recognized Loss under the Exchange Act.\n\nId.\n\n 109. The Claims Administrator, under Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s direction, will determine each\n\nAuthorized Claimant\u2019s pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized\n\nClaimant\u2019s total Recognized Claim compared to the aggregate Recognized Claims of all\n\nAuthorized Claimants. Calculation of Recognized Claims will depend upon several factors,\n\nincluding when the Authorized Claimant purchased GigaCloud Stock during the Class Period,\n\nwhether the securities were sold and, if so, when.\n\n 110. Once the Claims Administrator has processed all submitted claims, notified\n\nclaimants of deficiencies or ineligibility, processed responses, and made claim determinations, the\n\nClaims Administrator will distribute the Net Settlement Fund. After an initial distribution of the\n\nNet Settlement Fund, if there is any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after six (6)\n\nmonths from the date of initial distribution, Co-Lead Counsel will, if cost effective, re-distribute\n\nthe balance among Authorized Claimants who have cashed their checks. These re-distributions\n\nwill be repeated until the balance in the Net Settlement Fund is no longer feasible to distribute.\n\nAny balance that still remains in the Net Settlement Fund after re-distribution(s), which is not cost\n\neffective to reallocate, after payment of any outstanding Notice and Administration Costs or Taxes\n\nand Tax Expenses, will be contributed to a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization(s) unaffiliated with\n\nthe Parties or their counsel, and approved by the Court. Stipulation \u00b628.\n\n 111. In sum, the proposed Plan of Allocation, developed in consultation with Plaintiffs\u2019\n\nconsulting damages expert, is designed to fairly and rationally allocate the Net Settlement Fund\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 35 of 42\n\n\n\n\namong Authorized Claimants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel believe the proposed\n\nPlan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class.\n\nVII. CO-LEAD COUNSEL\u2019S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND\n REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES\n\n 112. In addition to seeking final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, Co-\n\nLead Counsel is applying for a fee award of 33.4% of the Settlement Amount, plus interest at the\n\nsame rate earned by the Settlement Fund). Co-Lead Counsel also request reimbursement of\n\nLitigation Expenses from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $101,195.16. The requested\n\nLitigation Expenses are well below the maximum amount of $130,000 in set forth in the Notice.\n\nThe legal authorities supporting these requests are set forth in the memorandum of law in support\n\nof the Fee Motion filed contemporaneously herewith. The primary factual bases for the requested\n\nfee and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses are summarized below and in the Exhibits discussed\n\nbelow.\n\n A. The Favorable Outcome Achieved is the Result of the Significant\n Time and Labor That Lead Counsel Devoted to the Action\n\n 113. Co-Lead Counsel spent considerable time prosecuting the Action on behalf of\n\nSettlement Class. Among other things, Co-Lead Counsel:\n\n (i) conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation that included a review\n and analysis of publicly available information, as well as interviews with\n numerous former GigaCloud employees;\n\n (ii) consulted with experts regarding accounting, market efficiency, loss\n causation, and damages issues;\n\n (iii) prepared and filed a detailed Amended Class Action Complaint (the\n \u201cAmended Complaint\u201d) (ECF No. 59) that identified numerous alleged\n misrepresentations by Defendants and contained allegations derived from\n four former GigaCloud employees;\n\n (iv) analyzed Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No.\n 82);\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 36 of 42\n\n\n\n\n (v) following the publication of a report by Grizzly Research LLC, conducted\n an additional investigation concerning matters raised therein;\n\n (vi) prepared and filed a detailed Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the\n \u201cSecond Amended Complaint\u201d) (ECF No. 88) that identified additional\n alleged misrepresentations by Defendants and contained allegations derived\n from five additional former GigaCloud employees;\n\n (vii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition (ECF Nos. 107-08) to Defendants\n GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second\n Amended Complaint (ECF No. 95), which the Court granted in part and\n denied in part (ECF No. 117);\n\n (viii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition (ECF Nos. 109-10) to Defendant\n Chen\u2019s separate motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF\n No. 105), which the Court denied in full (ECF No. 117);\n\n (ix) undertook extensive efforts to serve pleadings on Defendants, several of\n whom are believed to reside in the People\u2019s Republic of China;\n\n (x) following the Court\u2019s order sustaining the Second Amended Complaint in\n part, engaged in discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel regarding the scope\n of discovery and a schedule for the Action;\n\n (xi) engaged in discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel over a period of several\n weeks regarding a potential negotiated resolution of the Action, leading to\n the proposed Settlement;\n\n (xii) drafted the Preliminary Approval Motion, Notice, Summary Notice,\n Postcard Notice, Claim Form, and all other supporting documents and\n declarations;\n\n (xiii) oversaw the implementation of the judicially approved notice process to\n Settlement Class Members, and continues to oversee claims process; and\n\n (xiv) prepared the Final Approval Motion and the Fee Motion, along with all\n supporting documents and declarations.\n\n 114. Pomerantz expended a total of 830.49 hours in the investigation and prosecution of\n\nthis Action, resulting in a lodestar of $644,589.00. See Exhibit D (Declaration of Jonathan Park\n\nRegarding Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses) (\u201cPark Fee Decl.\u201d) \u00b66 and Ex. A thereto.\n\nRosen Law expended a total of 836.5 hours in the investigation and prosecution of this Action,\n\nresulting in a lodestar of $1,098,465.60. Exhibit E (Declaration of Brian B. Alexander Regarding\n\n\n\n 36\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 37 of 42\n\n\n\n\nAttorneys\u2019 Fees and Litigation Expenses (\u201cAlexander Fee Decl.\u201d) \u00b66. Jointly, Pomerantz and\n\nRosen Law expended 1,666.99 hours in the investigation and prosecution of the Action, resulting\n\nin a lodestar of $1,743,054.60. These figures exclude time spent on the request for attorneys\u2019 fees\n\nand expenses. The requested fee amount is 33.4% of the Settlement Fund. A 33.4% fee would\n\namount to $918,500, plus interest, and therefore represents a total lodestar multiplier of\n\napproximately 0.53x.\n\n B. Co-Lead Counsel Bore Significant Risks Prosecuting the Action\n\n 115. This prosecution was undertaken by Co-Lead Counsel on an entirely contingent-\n\nfee basis. From the outset, there was no guarantee that Co-Lead Counsel would ever be\n\ncompensated for the substantial investment of time and money the case would require. In\n\nundertaking that responsibility, Co-Lead Counsel was obligated to ensure that sufficient resources\n\nwere dedicated to the prosecution of the Action, that funds were available to compensate attorneys\n\nand staff, and that the considerable litigation costs required by a litigation like this one were\n\ncovered. Upon Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s involvement in the Action, it was unknown how long litigation\n\nwould last. With an average lag time of many years for complex cases like this to conclude, the\n\nfinancial burden on contingent-fee counsel is far greater than on a firm that is paid on an ongoing\n\nbasis. Indeed, Pomerantz and Rosen Law received no compensation during the course of the\n\nAction and incurred $101,195.16 in out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses. Park Fee Decl. \u00b68\n\nand Ex. B thereto; Alexander Fee Decl. \u00b68.\n\n C. The Magnitude and Complexity of the Action\n\n 116. As detailed in the Fee Motion, securities class action cases are known for their\n\ncomplexity. This case was no different.\n\n 117. As discussed above, the Action involved two amended complaints, two motions to\n\ndismiss the operative Second Amended Complaint, claims under both the Securities Act and the\n\n\n 37\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 38 of 42\n\n\n\n\nExchange Act, alleged misstatements concerning both GigaCloud\u2019s ecommerce platform and\n\nGigaCloud\u2019s use of AI, multiple short-seller reports, an investigation to obtain information from\n\nformer GigaCloud employees in both the US and China, and service (and attempted service) on\n\nDefendants in both the US and China.\n\n 118. This case would only grow more complex were it to continue, with the prospect of\n\ndiscovery and expert testimony regarding AI, and vigorous disputes regarding damages and loss\n\ncausation, and the need to translate both documents and testimony. Cross-border discovery would\n\npresent particular challenges, as Plaintiffs would need to obtain discovery from witnesses and\n\ndocuments located in China, where laws on state secrecy, personal information protection, and\n\ndata security could create significant obstacles.\n\n D. The Quality of the Representation\n\n 119. Pomerantz and Rosen Law are nationally recognized securities litigation firms.\n\nTheir attorneys are highly experienced in this area of the law and have proven themselves time\n\nand again to be successful investor advocates. Indeed, both firms have substantial experience in\n\nlitigating securities class actions and have negotiated numerous other class settlements, which have\n\nbeen approved by courts in the Second Circuit and throughout the country. Their knowledge and\n\nexperience benefited Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class in this case, as evidenced by the recovery\n\nthey achieved.\n\n 120. Additional information about each firm\u2019s experience is contained within the firm\n\nresumes, which are attached to the respective declarations concerning attorneys\u2019 fees and\n\nexpenses. Ex. C to Ex. D (Pomerantz resume); Ex. A to Ex. E (Rosen Law resume).\n\n 121. The quality of the work performed by Co-Lead Counsel in obtaining the Settlement\n\nshould also be evaluated in light of the quality of the opposition. Here, Defendants were\n\nrepresented by Latham and Watkins LLP and Sichenzia Ross Ference Carmel LLP, well-known\n\n\n 38\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 39 of 42\n\n\n\n\nlaw firms that vigorously represented the interests of their clients throughout the Action. Indeed,\n\nfrom past experience, Co-Lead Counsel knows firsthand that Defendants\u2019 Counsel will zealously\n\nadvocate for their clients through class certification, summary judgment, trial, and appeals. In the\n\nface of this experienced and formidable opposition, Co-Lead Counsel was nonetheless able to\n\npersuade Defendants to settle the case on terms favorable to the Settlement Class.\n\n E. The Requested Fee in Relation to the Settlement\n\n 122. The amount of the fee requested, 33.4% of the Settlement Amount, plus interest\n\nthereon at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, is fair and reasonable. As discussed in the\n\nFee Motion, courts routinely award fees of 33.4% in securities class action settlements of this\n\nmagnitude, and a lodestar \u201ccross-check\u201d confirms the reasonableness of the attorneys\u2019 fees\n\nrequested by Co-Lead Counsel here.\n\n F. Interest of Public Policy, Including the Need to Ensure the\n Availability of Experienced Counsel in High-Risk Contingent\n Securities Case\n\n 123. Courts have consistently recognized that it is in the public interest to have vigorous\n\nprivate enforcement of the federal securities laws. If this important public policy is to be carried\n\nout, the courts should award fees that adequately compensate plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, taking into\n\naccount the risks undertaken in prosecuting a securities class action. Relatedly, it is long-\n\nrecognized public policy that settlement is to be encouraged, including the resolution of fee\n\napplications that fairly and adequately compensate the counsel who bear the risks and dedicate the\n\ntime, financial investment, and expertise necessary to achieve those settlements.\n\n G. The Reaction of the Settlement Class Supports Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s\n Fee Request\n\n 124. As noted above, as of September 4, 2025, 147,496 potential Settlement Class\n\nMembers have been notified about the Settlement by mailed or emailed Postcard Notice. Craig\n\n\n\n 39\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 40 of 42\n\n\n\n\nDecl. \u00b67. In addition, the Court-approved Summary Notice was published in Investor\u2019s Business\n\nDaily and transmitted over GlobeNewswire. Id. \u00b68. To date, no requests for exclusion and no\n\nobjections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorneys\u2019 fees have been received. Id. \u00b6\u00b611-\n\n12. To date, no objections to the maximum potential attorneys\u2019 fees request set forth in the Notice\n\nhave been entered on this Court\u2019s docket or received by SCS or Co-Lead Counsel. Any objections\n\nreceived after the date of this filing will be addressed in Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 reply papers, which\n\nare due by October 2, 2025. Furthermore, any persons who have validly requested exclusion from\n\nthe Settlement Class will be identified in a [Proposed] Final Judgment, the form of which was\n\npreviously submitted as Exhibit B to the Stipulation.\n\n H. Co-Lead Plaintiffs Support Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee Request\n\n 125. As set forth in their declarations submitted herewith, Co-Lead Plaintiffs Sashi\n\nRajan and Meir Spear support Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s requested fee as fair and reasonable based on\n\nthe work performed and the recovery obtained for the Settlement Class. See Ex. B (Declaration of\n\nSashi Rajan) (\u201cRajan Decl.\u201d) \u00b66; Ex. C (Declaration of Meir Spear) (\u201cSpear Decl.\u201d) \u00b66. Co-Lead\n\nPlaintiffs have been intimately involved in the prosecution and resolution of this Action, and their\n\nendorsement of Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s fee request supports the reasonableness of the request.\n\n I. Reimbursement of the Requested Litigation Expenses is Fair and\n Reasonable\n\n 126. The Notice, Summary Notice, and Postcard Notice informed potential Settlement\n\nClass Members that Co-Lead Counsel would be seeking reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in\n\nan amount not to exceed $130,000. As set forth in the Park Fee Decl. (Ex. D hereto) and the\n\nAlexander Fee Decl. (Ex. E hereto), Pomerantz and Rosen Law incurred $57,568.63 and\n\n$43,626.53 in Litigation Expenses, respectively, for a total of $101,195.16.\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 41 of 42\n\n\n\n\n 127. This amount, for which Co-Lead Counsel seeks reimbursement from the Settlement\n\nFund, is well below the $130,000 maximum amount set forth in the Notice to Settlement Class\n\nMembers. To date, no Settlement Class Members have objected to the maximum amount set forth\n\nin the Notice. If any objection to the request for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses is made\n\nafter the date of this filing, it will be addressed in Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 reply papers, which are due\n\nby October 2, 2025.\n\n 128. From the beginning of the Action, Co-Lead Counsel understood that, even\n\nassuming the case was ultimately successful, eventual reimbursement for expenses would not\n\ncompensate them for inability to use those funds for other purposes in the interim. Accordingly,\n\nCo-Lead Counsel were motivated to, and did, take steps to ensure that all expenses were reasonable\n\nand necessary to prosecute the case.\n\n J. Awards to Plaintiffs Pursuant to the PSLRA\n\n 129. Co-Lead Counsel request awards to Plaintiffs, pursuant to the PLSRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n78u-4(a)(4), for the time they devoted to the representation of the Settlement Class, in the amount\n\nof $7,500 per Plaintiff, for a total of $15,000. Plaintiffs lost a significant amount of money on their\n\ninvestments in GigaCloud Stock and were highly motivated to, and did, work closely with Co-\n\nLead Counsel throughout the Action to secure the highest possible recovery for themselves and\n\nthe Settlement Class. Instead of devoting their time to their professional endeavors, Plaintiffs (i)\n\nregularly communicated with Co-Lead Counsel regarding the posture and progress of the case, as\n\nwell as strategy; (ii) reviewed all significant pleadings and briefs filed in the Action; (iii) consulted\n\nwith Co-Lead Counsel regarding the settlement negotiations; and (iv) evaluated and approved the\n\nproposed Settlement. Ex. B (Rajan Decl.); Ex. C. (Spear Decl.).\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146 Filed 10/01/25 Page 42 of 42\n\n\n\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th\n\nday of September, 2025.\n\n\n\n /s/ Jonathan D. Park\n Jonathan D. Park\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:41:56.773126-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311104","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664865/","id":483664865,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/1/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:52.064314-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:41:38.815020-07:00","sha1":"94f9d4254359404af5b28dea66d9ff029dc37c48","page_count":17,"file_size":10079157,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page1of17\n\nEXHIBIT A\nPart 1 of 2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2of17\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\nINC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\nTHIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\nALL ACTIONS\n\nDECLARATION OF MARGERY CRAIG CONCERNING: (A) MAILING OF THE\nPOSTCARD NOTICE; (B) PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE; AND\n(C) REPORT ON REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS\n\nI, Margery Craig, declare as follows:\n\n1. I am a Project Manager at Strategic Claims Services (\u201cSCS\u201d), a nationally\nrecognized class action administration firm. I have over eighteen years of experience specializing\nin the administration of class action cases. SCS was established in April 1999 and has administered\nover five hundred and seventy-five (575) class action settlements since its inception. I have\npersonal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called on to do so, I could and would testify\ncompetently thereto.\n\nMAILING OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE\n\n2. Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action\nSettlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Hearing on Final\nAprroval of Settlement, dated June 20, 2025 (ECF No. 139, the \u201cPreliminary Approval Order\u2019),\nSCS was approved as the Claims Administrator.! I submit this declaration in order to provide the\n\nCourt and the Parties with information regarding the mailing of the Postcard Notice to potential\n\n! All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Stipulation\nand Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 16, 2025 (ECF No. 137, the \u201cStipulation\u201d).\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3of17\n\nSettlement Class Members, as well as updates concerning other aspects of the Settlement\nadministration process.\n\n3. On July 7, 2025, ten business days after the Preliminary Approval Order, SCS sent\nthe Depository Trust Company (\u201cDTC\u201d) the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed\nSettlement, and Motion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses (the \u201cNotice\u201d) and Proof of Claim and\nRelease form (the \u201cClaim Form\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cNotice and Claim Form\u201d) for the DTC to\npublish on its Legal Notice System (\u201cLENS\u201d). LENS provides DTC participants the ability to\nsearch and download legal notices as well as receive e-mail alerts based on particular notices or\nparticular CUSIPs once a legal notice is posted. A true and correct copy of the Notice and Claim\nForm is attached as Exhibit A.\n\n4, As in most class actions of this nature, the large majority of potential Settlement\nClass Members are expected to be beneficial purchasers/owners whose securities are held in \u201cstreet\nname\u201d \u2014 i.e., the securities are purchased by brokerage firms, banks, institutions and other third-\nparty nominees in the name of the nominee, on behalf of the beneficial purchasers/owners. The\nnames and addresses of these beneficial purchasers/owners are known only to the nominees. SCS\nmaintains a proprietary master list consisting of 1,049 banks and brokerage companies (\u201cNominee\nAccount Holders\u201d), as well as 1,415 mutual funds, insurance companies, pension funds, and\nmoney managers (\u201cInstitutional Groups\u201d). On July 7, 2025, SCS caused a letter to be mailed or e-\nmailed to the 2,464 nominees contained in the SCS master mailing list. The letter notified them\nof the Settlement and requested that within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the letter, they\neither: (a) request from SCS sufficient copies of the Postcard Notice to send to each of their\ncustomers who may be beneficial purchasers/owners, and within ten (10) calendar days after\n\nreceipt of the copies of the Postcard Notice, mail them to such beneficial owners; or (b) provide\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4of17\n\nSCS with a list of the names, mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses, to the extent e-mail\naddresses were available, of such beneficial purchasers/owners so that SCS could promptly either\nmail the Postcard Notice or e-mail the links to the Postcard Notice and the Notice and Claim Form\non the Settlement Website directly to them. A copy of the letter sent to these nominees is attached\nas Exhibit B.\n\n5. SCS mailed, by first class mail, postage prepaid, the Postcard Notice to 21\nindividuals and/or entities identified in the transfer records that were provided to SCS by Co-Lead\nCounsel. These records reflect the individuals and/or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired\nGigaCloud Technology Inc. (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d) Class A ordinary shares between August 18, 2022 and\nMay 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). The transfer record mailing was\ncompleted on July 7, 2025. Following this mailing, SCS received 6,977 additional names and\naddresses of potential Settlement Class Members from individuals or nominees requesting that a\nPostcard Notice be mailed by SCS, SCS received a request from two nominees for Postcard\nNotices so that the nominees could forward them to 90,545 of their clients who were potential\nSettlement Class Members, and three nominees notified SCS that they mailed a total of 265\nPostcard Notices to their clients who were potential Settlement Class Members. To date, 97,808\nPostcard Notices have been mailed to potential Settlement Class Members\u201d. Exhibit C is a copy\nof the Postcard Notice.\n\n6. Additionally, SCS received 49,688 e-mail addresses for potential Settlement Class\nMembers from individuals or nominees requesting that SCS e-mail the links to the Postcard Notice\n\nand the Notice and Claim Form on the Settlement Website to these potential Settlement Class\n\n2 SCS received three requests from potential Settlement Class Members for the Notice and Claim\nForm to be mailed to them. SCS immediately mailed the Notice and Claim Form to the potential\nSettlement Class Members.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5of17\n\nMembers. To date, 49,688 e-mails containing the links to the Postcard Notice and the Notice and\nClaim Form have been sent to potential Settlement Class Members.\n\n7. In total, 147,496 notices (either via mailed Postcard Notice or e-mailed links to the\nPostcard Notice and the Notice and Claim Form) were sent to potential Settlement Class Members\n\nby SCS or nominees.\n\nPUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE\n\n8. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Summary Notice of Pendency and\nProposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorney\u2019s Fees and Expenses (the \u201cSummary\nNotice\u201d) was published once in Investor\u2019s Business Daily and once electronically nationally over\nGlobeNewswire on July 21, 2025. The confirmations of publication are attached hereto as Exhibit\nD.\n\nTOLL-FREE PHONE LINE\n\n9. SCS maintains a toll-free telephone number (1-866-274-4004) for Settlement Class\nMembers to call and obtain information about the Settlement, as well as request a copy of the\nNotice and Claim Form. SCS has promptly responded to each telephone inquiry and will continue\n\nto address Settlement Class Member inquiries.\n\nSETTLEMENT WEBSITE\n\n10. On July 7, 2025, SCS established a case-specific website dedicated to the\nSettlement at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com (\u201cSettlement Website\u201d). The Settlement\nWebsite is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, allows for online claim filing, and provides\ninstructions and a claims filing template for institutional investors. The Settlement Website\n\ncontains a home page; an important document page with downloadale versions of the Notice and\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6of17\n\nClaim Form, the Postcard Notice, the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Stipulation with\nexhibits. To date, the Settlement Website has received 9,169 pageviews from 2,596 unique users.\n\nREPORT ON EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS\n\n11. The Postcard Notice, Notice, Summary Notice, and Settlement Website informed\nSettlement Class Members that written requests for exclusion are to be mailed to SCS such that\nthey are received no later than September 18, 2025. SCS has been monitoring all mail delivered\nfor this case. As of the date of this declaration, SCS has received no requests for exclusion.\n\n12. The Postcard Notice, Notice, Summary Notice, and Settlement Website further\ninformed Settlement Class Members seeking to object to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of\nAllocation, and/or the application for attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses are required to\nsubmit their objection in writing such that the request is filed with or received by the Clerk of the\nCourt, as well as Co-Lead Counsel and Counsel for Defendants, no later than September 18, 2025.\nAs of the date of this declaration, SCS has neither received any misdirected objections nor been\nnotified that any objections were received.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nSigned this 4\" day of September 2025, in Media, Pennsylvania.\n\n\u2019 ff i sf\nAli 3:y i ff 4 $\nMargery-Craig {/ ~\u2014 7\n\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page KXHABIT A\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\nSECURITIES LITIGATION\n\nTHIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\nALL ACTIONS\n\nNOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR\nATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\nPlease be advised that your rights may be affected by the above-captioned securities class action (the \u201cAction\u201d) pending\nin the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \u201cCourt\u201d) if you purchased or acquired\nGigaCloud Technology Inc (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) Class A ordinary shares (\u201cGigaCloud Stock\u201d) during the\nperiod from August 18, 2022 through May 22, 2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), and were allegedly damaged thereby\n(the \u201cSettlement Class\u201d).!\n\nA federal court authorized this Notice. This is not attorney advertising.\n\ne The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on October 9, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. to decide whether to approve the\nSettlement. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will provide for the payment of $2,750,000 gross (the\n\u201cSettlement Amount\u201d), plus interest as it accrues, minus attorneys\u2019 fees, expenses, compensatory awards to Co-Lead\nPlaintiffs, Notice and Administration Expenses, and Taxes on interest, to persons and entities who purchased\nGigaCloud Stock during the Class Period, and who submit eligible Claim Forms.\n\ne Based on Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 consulting damages expert\u2019s estimate of approximately 26.3 million shares of\nGigaCloud Stock that may have been affected by the conduct alleged in the Action, and assuming that all Settlement\nClass Members elect to participate in the Settlement, the estimated average gross recovery (before the deduction of\nany Court-approved fees, expenses and costs as described herein) is approximately $0.10 per share. Settlement Class\nMembers should note, however, that the foregoing average recovery is only an estimate. Settlement Class Members\nmay recover more or less than this amount depending on, among other factors, when their shares were purchased or\notherwise acquired and the price at the time of purchase or acquisition; whether the shares were sold and, if so, when\nthey were sold and for how much, and the aggregate value of the Recognized Claims represented by valid and\nacceptable Claim Forms. In addition, the actual recovery of Settlement Class Members may be further reduced by\nthe payment of fees and costs from the Settlement Fund, as approved by the Court. Distributions to Settlement Class\nMembers will be made based on the Plan of Allocation set forth below (see pages 10-13 below) or such other plan\nof allocation as may be approved by the Court.\n\ne To claim your share of the Settlement, you must submit a valid Claim Form postmarked or submitted online by\nOctober 6, 2025.\n\ne Attorneys for Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cCo-\nLead Counsel\u201d), intend to ask the Court to award them and additional counsel Portnoy Law Firm and The Schall\nLaw Firm (together \u201cPlaintiffs? Counsel\u201d) fees of up to 33.4% of the Settlement Amount, plus interest, and payment\nof up to $130,000 in litigation expenses and up to $15,000 in total in compensatory awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs,\npursuant to the Private Securities Action Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d). Since the Action\u2019s inception, Plaintiffs\u2019\nCounsel have expended considerable time and effort in this case on a contingent-fee basis and have advanced the\nexpenses of the litigation with the expectation that if they were successful in obtaining a recovery for the class, they\nwould be paid from such recovery. Collectively, the requested attorneys\u2019 fees, litigation expenses and compensatory\nawards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs are estimated to average approximately $0.04 per share. If approved by the Court, these\namounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund.\n\ne The estimated average net recoveries, after the deductions set forth in the preceding paragraph, are approximately\n$0.06 per share. These estimates are based on the assumptions set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Your actual\n\n1 All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise defined have the meanings given to them in the\nStipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 16, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation\u201d), which is available at\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8of17\n\nrecovery, if any, will depend on, among other things, when their shares were purchased or otherwise acquired and\nthe price at the time of purchase or acquisition; whether the shares were sold and, if so, when they were sold and for\nhow much, and the aggregate value of the Recognized Claims represented by valid and acceptable Claim Forms.\nThe Settlement resolves the Action and claims that GigaCloud, Larry Lei Wu (\u201cWu\u201d), Xin Wan (\u201cWan\u201d), Kwok Hei\nDavid Lau (\u201cLau\u201d), Zhiwu Chen (\u201cChen\u201d), Thomas Liu (\u201cLiu\u201d), Frank Lin (\u201cLin\u201d), Xing Huang (\u201cHuang\u201d), Binghe\nGuo (\u201cGuo\u201d), and Aegis Capital Corp. (\u201cAegis\u201d) (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) violated federal securities laws by\nallegedly making misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in public statements to the investing public\nconcerning, inter alia, GigaCloud\u2019s artificial intelligence capabilities and activity on GigaCloud\u2019s e-commerce\nmarketplace. Lin, Huang, and Guo have not appeared in the Action, GigaCloud, Wu, Wan, Lau, Chen, Liu, and Aegis\n(\u201cSettling Defendants\u201d) have entered into the Stipulation with Co-Lead Plaintiffs (collectively, the \u201cParties\u2019).\nSettling Defendants have denied and continue to deny each, any, and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability,\nor damage whatsoever asserted by Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Settling Defendants have also denied, inter alia, the allegations\nthat Co-Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class have suffered damages or that Co-Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement\nClass were harmed by the conduct alleged in the Action. Settling Defendants continue to believe the claims asserted\nagainst them in the Action are without merit.\n\nThe Settling Parties disagree on how much money, if any, could have been won if Co-Lead Plaintiffs prevailed on\neach of their claims.\n\nFor Co-Lead Plaintiffs, the principal reason for the Settlement is the guaranteed cash benefit to the Settlement Class.\nThis benefit must be compared to the costs and delay associated with completing discovery (including foreign\ndiscovery), the risk that the Court may refuse to certify a class and/or grant anticipated motions for summary\njudgment filed by Settling Defendants, in whole or in part, the risks involved in proving the allegations, the\nuncertainty of a greater recovery after a trial and appeals, and the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation.\nFor Settling Defendants, who deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever and deny that Settlement\nClass Members were damaged, the sole reason for entering into the Settlement is to end the burden, expense,\nuncertainty, and risk of further litigation.\n\nIf you are a member of the Settlement Class, your legal rights will be affected whether you act or do not act. If you\ndo not act, you may permanently forfeit your right to recover on these claims. Therefore, you should read this Notice\ncarefully.\n\nYOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT\n\nSUBMIT A CLAIM | The only way to get a payment from the Settlement. Claim Forms must be postmarked\n\nFORM or submitted online on or before October 6, 2025\nGet no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other\nEXCLUDE lawsuit against the Defendants or any other Released Defendant Parties about the\nYOURSELF legal claims that were or could have been asserted in this case. Requests for exclusion\n\nmust be received on or before September 18, 2025\n\nWrite to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,\nand/or the request for attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, and expenses. You will still be a member\nof the Settlement Class. Objections must be received by the Court and counsel on or\nbefore September 18, 2025\n\nOBJECT\n\nAsk to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,\nPARTICIPATE IN | and/or the request for attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, and expenses. Requests to speak must be\n\nTHE HEARING received by the Court and counsel on or before September 18, 2025 to participate\nin the hearing on October 9, 2025.\n\nDO NOTHING Get no payment. Give up your rights.\n\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page9of17\n\nINQUIRIES\n\nPlease do not contact the Court, Defendants, Defendants\u2019 Counsel, or the Office of the Clerk of Court regarding\nthis Notice. All inquiries concerning this Notice, the Claim Form, or any other questions by Settlement Class Members\nshould be directed to:\n\nInre GigaCloud Technology Inc Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.\nSecurities Settlement Jonathan D. Park, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq.\nStrategic Claims Services POMERANTZ LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\nP.O. Box 230 600 Third Ave, Floor 20 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor\n600 N, Jackson St., Ste. 205 New York, NY 10016 New York, NY 10016\nTelephone: (866) 274-4004 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Telephone: (212) 686-1060\nFacsimile: (610) 565-7985 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827\ninfo@strategicclaims.net jalieberman@pomlaw.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com\njpark@pomlaw.com balexander@rosenlegal.com\n\nBASIC INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT\n\n1, Why did I receive notice of the Settlement?\n\nYou or someone in your family may have purchased or acquired GigaCloud Stock during the period from August 18,\n2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the Class Period). RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN\nTHAT YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS OR THAT YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO\nRECEIVE A PAYMENT. The Parties do not have access to your individual investment information. If you wish to be\neligible for a payment, you are required to submit the Claim Form that is being distributed with this Notice. See Question\n10 below.\n\n| 2. What is this case about?\n\nThis settlement resolves the case known as In re GigaCloud Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-\n10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Southern District of\nNew York. The Action involves allegations that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (\u201cSecurities\nAct\u201d) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange Act\u2019). The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges\nthat the registration statement and prospectus for GigaCloud\u2019s August 2022 initial public offering (the \u201cIPO\u201d) contained\nuntrue statements of material facts, and/or omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein about GigaCloud\u2019s\nartificial intelligence capabilities and/or activity on its e-commerce marketplace. The Second Amended Complaint also\nalleges that certain Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about activity on GigaCloud\u2019s\ne-commerce marketplace that artificially inflated the price of GigaCloud Stock during the Class Period and that, when\nthe true facts were revealed, the artificial inflation was removed from the price of GigaCloud Stock, causing the price to\ndrop and damage to members of the Settlement Class.\n\nOn January 27, 2025, the Court issued an order (1) granting in part and denying in part GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and\nAegis\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and (2) denying Chen\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second\nAmended Complaint. Specifically, the Court dismissed all claims that Defendants made misrepresentations and/or\nomissions of material fact about activity on GigaCloud\u2019s e-commerce marketplace, and found that Co-Lead Plaintiffs\nsufficiently alleged that the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO contained certain misrepresentations and/or\nomissions of material fact about GigaCloud\u2019s artificial intelligence capabilities. The Court did not finally decide in favor\nof Co-Lead Plaintiffs or Settling Defendants and there has been no trial. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.\n\nSettling Defendants have denied and continue to deny each, any and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or\ndamage whatsoever asserted in the Action and maintain that the Company\u2019s disclosures were true and correct in all\nmaterial respects. The Settlement shall not be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, liability, fault, wrongdoing,\ninjury or damages, or of any wrongful conduct, acts or omissions on the part of Settling Defendants or any of the Released\nDefendant Parties, or of any infirmity of any defense, or of any damages to the Co-Lead Plaintiffs or any other Settlement\nClass Member. The Settlement resolves all of the claims in the Action, as well as certain other related claims or potential\nclaims, whether known or unknown.\n\n3. Why is this a class action?\n\nIn a class action, one or more persons called plaintiffs sue on behalf of all persons who have similar claims. All of the\npersons with similar claims are referred to as a class. One court resolves the issues for all class members, except for those\nwho exclude themselves from the class.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10of17\n\n4. Why is there a settlement?\n\nCo-Lead Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants do not agree about the merits of Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations and Settling\nDefendants\u2019 defenses with respect to liability or the average amount of damages per share, if any, that would be\nrecoverable if Co-Lead Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial on each claim. The issues on which Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the\nSettling Defendants disagree include: (1) whether the challenged statements were materially false or misleading or\notherwise actionable under federal securities laws; (2) whether Settling Defendants had a duty to disclose the allegedly\nomitted information; (3) whether the Settling Defendants acted with scienter; (4) whether Settling Defendants\u2019 alleged\nmisstatements and omissions caused any damages to investors; (5) the amount of alleged damages, if any, that could be\nrecovered at trial; and 6) whether Co-Lead Plaintiffs would have prevailed on any appeal of the District Court\u2019s dismissal\nof the claims that Defendants made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact about activity on GigaCloud\u2019s\ne-commerce marketplace.\n\nThis matter has not gone to trial and the Court has not decided in favor of either Co-Lead Plaintiffs or Settling Defendants.\nInstead, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants have agreed to settle the case. Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs\u2019\nCounsel believe the Settlement is best for all Settlement Class Members because of the risks associated with continued\nlitigation and the nature of the defenses raised by the Settling Defendants. Among the reasons that Co-Lead Plaintiffs\nand Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel believe the Settlement is fair is the fact that there is uncertainty about whether they will be able\nto prove that any challenged statement was false or misleading, that the alleged misstatements and omissions actually\ncaused the Settlement Class any damages, and the amount of damages, if any.\n\nMoreover, in addition to litigation of this type usually being expensive, it appears that, even if Co-Lead Plaintiffs\u2019\nallegations were found to be true, the total amount of damages to which class members would be entitled could be\nsubstantially reduced. For the avoidance of doubt, Settling Defendants believe that the alleged claims are without merit,\nmaintain that the Company\u2019s disclosures were true and correct in all material respects, and maintain that they have agreed\nto resolve this case solely to avoid the expense and potential distraction of litigation.\n\nWHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT\n\nTo see if you will get money from this Settlement, you first have to determine if you are a Settlement Class Member.\n\n5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement Class?\n\nThe Settlement Class is all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Stock during the\nperiod from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive.\n\nCheck your investment records or contact your broker to see if you have any eligible securities. The Parties do not\nindependently have access to your trading information.\n\n6. Are there exceptions to being included?\n\nYes. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and\nformer officers and directors of GigaCloud and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) Defendants\u2019 liability insurance\ncarriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a controlling\ninterest; (v) GigaCloud\u2019s employee retirement and benefit plan(s); (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents,\nsuccessors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity in (i)-(v); and (vii) any persons or entities who or which\nexclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court.\n\n7. What if I am still not sure if ] am included?\n\nIf you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. You can contact the Claims Administrator\ntoll-free at (866) 274-4004 or email at info@strategicclaims.net or by visiting the website\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com, or you can fill out and return the Claim Form available at\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com to see if you qualify.\n\nTHE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS \u2014 WHAT YOU GET\n\n8. What does the Settlement provide?\n\nThe proposed Settlement provides for Settling Defendants to pay, or cause the payment of, $2,750,000 into a settlement\nfund, which may accrue interest (the \u201cSettlement Fund\u201d). The Settlement is subject to Court approval. Also, subject to\nthe Court\u2019s approval, a portion of the Settlement Fund will be used to pay attorneys\u2019 fees with interest and reasonable\nLitigation Expenses to Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel, and compensatory awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs. A portion of the Settlement\nFund also will be used to pay Taxes due on interest earned by the Settlement Fund, if necessary, and the costs of the\nclaims administration, including the costs of printing and mailing this Notice, the costs of publishing notice, and the costs\nof processing claims. After the foregoing deductions from the Settlement Fund have been made, the amount remaining\n\n4\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11of17\n\n(the \u201cNet Settlement Fund\u201d) will be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit timely, valid claims, according\nto the Plan of Allocation to be approved by the Court (\u201cAuthorized Claimants\u201d).\n\n9. How much will my payment be?\n\nYour share of the Net Settlement Fund will depend on several factors, including (i) when you purchased or otherwise\nacquired GigaCloud Stock, and the price at the time of purchase or acquisition; (ii) whether you sold GigaCloud Stock\nand, if so, when and for how much; (iii) the Recognized Losses of timely and valid claims submitted by other Settlement\nClass Members; (iv) the amount of administrative costs, including the costs of notice; and (v) the amount awarded by the\nCourt to Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel for attorneys\u2019 fees, expenses, and compensatory awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs.\n\nThe Claims Administrator will determine each Authorized Claimant\u2019s pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based\nupon each Authorized Claimant\u2019s recognized claim calculated pursuant to the allocation formulas set forth in the Plan of\nAllocation approved by the Court. The allocation formulas are the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be\nproportionately allocated to Settlement Class Members with valid claims. The allocation formulas are not intended to\nestimate the amount that a Settlement Class Member might have been able to recover after a trial; they also are not an\nestimate of the amount that will be paid to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement. You can calculate your\nrecognized claim by following the instructions in the proposed Plan of Allocation on pages 10-13 of this Notice.\n\nIt is unlikely that you will get a payment for all of your recognized claim. After all Settlement Class Members have sent\nin their Claim Forms, the payment you get will be a share of the Net Settlement Fund equal to your proportional share of\nthe Recognized Losses of timely and valid claims submitted by all Authorized Claimants.\n\nHOW YOU GET A PAYMENT\u2014SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM\n\n10. How can I get a payment?\n\nTo qualify for a payment, you must submit a Claim Form. The Claims Administrator will process your claim and\ndetermine whether you are an Authorized Claimant.\n\nA Claim Form is enclosed with this Notice and may also be downloaded at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com or\nsubmitted online using the website claim portal. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, include all the\ndocuments that the form requests, sign it, and mail or submit it online so that it is postmarked or received no later than\nOctober 6, 2025. The Claim Form may be submitted online at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com or mailed to:\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 230\n600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\nMedia, PA 19063\ninfo@strategicclaims.net\n\n11. When would I get my payment?\n\nThe Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on October 9, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. to decide whether to approve the Settlement.\nIf the Court approves the Settlement, there might be appeals afterwards. It is always uncertain whether these appeals can\nbe resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. It also takes time for all the Claim Forms to be\nprocessed. Please be patient.\n\n12. What am I giving up to get a payment or to stay in the Settlement Class?\n\nIf you are a member of the Settlement Class, unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by the September\n18, 2025 deadline, you will remain a member of the Settlement Class and will be bound by the release of claims against\nDefendants and other Released Defendant Parties if the Settlement is approved. It also means you will be bound by any\norders issued by the Court. If the Settlement is approved, the Court will enter a judgment. The judgment will dismiss\nwith prejudice the claims against the Released Defendant Parties and will provide that, upon the Effective Date of the\nSettlement, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and each and every other Settlement Class Member, on behalf of themselves and each of\ntheir respective heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as\nsuch, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and\nforever compromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice each\nand every one of the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims against each and every one of the Released Defendant Parties and shall\nforever be barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or maintaining any and all of the Released\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Claims against any and all of the Released Defendant Parties, whether or not such Settlement Class Member\nexecutes and delivers a Claim Form or shares in the Net Settlement Fund. Claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation\nare not released.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12of17\n\n\u201cReleased Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims\u201d means any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and description,\nwhether known claims or Unknown Claims, contingent or absolute, mature or not mature, liquidated or\nunliquidated, accrued or not accrued, concealed or hidden, regardless of legal or equitable theory and whether\narising under federal, state, common, or foreign law, that Co-Lead Plaintiffs or any other member of the\nSettlement Class: (a) asserted in the Action, including, for the avoidance of doubt, all claims already dismissed\nby the Court\u2019s order dated January 27, 2025, granting in part and denying in part Defendants GigaCloud, Wu,\nLau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 95-97); or (b) could have\nasserted in the Action or any forum that arise out of, are based upon, or relate to both (i) the allegations,\ntransactions, facts, activities, matters or occurrences, conduct, representations, or omissions involved, set forth,\nor referred to in the Action and (ii) the purchase or acquisition of GigaCloud Stock during the Class Period.\nReleased Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims shall not include claims to enforce the Settlement.\n\n\u201cReleased Defendant Parties\u201d means Defendants and each of their respective former, present or future parents,\nsubsidiaries, divisions, controlling Persons, associates, related entities and affiliates and each and all of their\nrespective present and former employees, members, partners, principals, officers, directors, controlling\nshareholders, agents, attorneys, advisors (including financial or investment advisors), accountants, auditors,\nconsultants, underwriters, investment bankers, commercial bankers, general or limited partners or partnerships,\nlimited liability companies, members, joint ventures and insurers and reinsurers of each of them, in their\ncapacities as such; and the predecessors, successors, assigns, estates, Immediate Family, heirs, executors, trusts,\ntrustees, administrators, agents, legal representatives, and assignees of each of them, in their capacities as such,\nas well as any trust of which any Released Defendant Party is the settlor or which is for the benefit of any of\ntheir Immediate Family members.\n\n\u201cUnknown Claims\u201d means any and all Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims that Co-Lead Plaintiffs or any other\nSettlement Class Member do not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of the\nReleased Defendant Parties, and any and all Released Defendants\u2019 Claims that any Settling Defendant does not\nknow or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of the Released Plaintiff Parties, which\nif known by him, her, or it might have affected his, her, or its decision(s) with respect to the Settlement, including\nthe decision to object to the terms of the Settlement or to exclude himself, herself, or itself from the Settlement\nClass. With respect to any and all Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims and Released Defendants\u2019 Claims, the Parties\nstipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants shall expressly, and\neach other Settlement Class Member shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative\nJudgment shall have, to the fullest extent permitted by law, expressly waived and relinquished any and all\nprovisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or foreign law,\nor principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to Cal. Civ. Code \u00a7 1542, which\nprovides:\n\nA general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not\nknow or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that,\nif known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the\ndebtor or released party.\n\nCo-Lead Plaintiffs, other Settlement Class Members, or Settling Defendants may hereafter discover facts, legal\ntheories, or authorities in addition to or different from those which any of them now knows or believes to be true\nwith respect to the Action, the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims or the Released Defendants\u2019 Claims, but Co-Lead\nPlaintiffs and Settling Defendants shall expressly, fully, finally, and forever settle and release, and each\nSettlement Class Member shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever settled and released, and upon the\nEffective Date and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment shall have settled and released, fully,\nfinally, and forever, any and all Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims and Released Defendants\u2019 Claims as applicable,\nwithout regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or\nauthorities. Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants acknowledge, and other Settlement Class Members by\noperation of law shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that the inclusion of \u201cUnknown Claims\u201d in the\ndefinition of Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims and Released Defendants\u2019 Claims was separately bargained for and was\na material element of the Settlement.\n\nThis means you and all other Settlement Class Members and each of your respective heirs, executors, trustees,\nadministrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, will release (agreeing never to sue,\ncontinue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit) as against Defendants and other Released Defendant Parties. You will\naccept a share of the Net Settlement Fund as sole compensation for any losses you allegedly suffered as a result of your\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13o0f17\n\npurchase or acquisition of GigaCloud Stock during the Class Period. Additional specific terms of the release are included\nin the Stipulation available at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com.\n\nEXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS\n\nIf you do not want a payment from this Settlement, and you want to keep any right you may have to sue or continue to\nsue Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties on your own about the claims being released in this Settlement,\nthen you must take steps to remove yourself from the Settlement Class. This is called excluding yourself, or \u201copting out,\u201d\nfrom the Settlement Class. Defendants can terminate the Settlement if a certain amount of exclusion requests are received.\n\n13. How do I get out of the proposed Settlement? |\n\nTo exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must mail a letter stating that you request to be \u201cexcluded from the\nSettlement Class in In re GigaCloud Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.).\u201d\nTo be valid, the letter must state (A) your name, address, telephone number, and email address (if any); and (B) the\nnumber of shares of GigaCloud Stock that you (i) owned as of the opening of trading on August 18, 2022 and as of the\nclose of trading on August 20, 2024 and (ii) purchased, acquired, and/or sold from August 18, 2022 through August 20,\n2024, inclusive, as well as the dates and prices for each such purchase, acquisition and sale, and to submit documentary\nproof of such ownership and such purchase, acquisition, and/or sale transactions. In order to be valid, a request for\nexclusion must be submitted with documentary proof of such ownership and such purchase, acquisition, and/or sale\ntransactions. Any request for exclusion must be signed and submitted by you, as the beneficial owner. You must submit\nyour exclusion request so that it is received no later than September 18, 2025 at:\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\n600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\nMedia, PA 19063\n\nYou cannot exclude yourself by telephone or by email. If you properly exclude yourself, you will not receive a payment\nfrom the Net Settlement Fund, you cannot object to the Settlement, and you will not be legally bound by any orders or\nthe judgment in this case.\n\n14. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants or the other Released Defendant Parties for the same\nthing later?\n\nNo. Unless you exclude yourself by following the instructions above, you give up any rights to sue the Defendants or the\nother Released Defendant Parties for the claims being released in this Settlement. If you have a pending lawsuit against\nthe Released Defendant Parties or related to any Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims, speak to your lawyer in that case\nimmediately, since you must exclude yourself from this Setthkement Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the\nexclusion deadline is September 18, 2025.\n\n15. If I exclude myself, can I get money from the proposed Settlement? |\n\nNo. If you exclude yourself, you may not send in a Claim Form to ask for any money.\n\nTHE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU\n\n16. Do I have a lawyer in this case? |\n\nThe Court has appointed Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel to the Settlement Class, to\nrepresent you and the other Settlement Class Members. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire\none at your own expense and they may file a notice of appearance in the Action. Contact information for Pomerantz LLP\nand The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is provided above.\n\n17. How will the lawyers be paid?\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have expended considerable time litigating this Action on a contingent-fee basis and have paid for\nthe expenses of the case themselves. They have not been paid attorneys\u2019 fees or for their expenses in advance of this\nSettlement. Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel have done so with the expectation that, if they are successful in recovering money for the\nSettlement Class, they will receive attorneys\u2019 fees and be paid for their litigation expenses from the Settlement Fund, as\nis customary in this type of litigation. Plaintiffs' Counsel will not receive attorneys\u2019 fees or be paid for their litigation\nexpenses except from the Settlement Fund. Therefore, Co-Lead Counsel will file a motion, on behalf of themselves,\nPortnoy Law Firm, and The Schall Law Firm prior to the Settlement Hearing asking the Court for an award of attorneys\u2019\nfees in an amount not greater than 33.4% of the Settlement Fund, equaling $918,500 plus interest, plus payment of\nlitigation expenses of no more than $130,000 and compensatory awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs of no more than $15,000\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 14of17\n\nin total. The Court may award less than these amounts. Any amounts awarded by the Court will come out of the Settlement\nFund.\n\nOBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS\n\n18. How do I tell the Court that I object to the proposed Settlement, the Fee and Expense Application,\nand/or the Plan of Allocation?\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member, you can tell the Court you do not agree with the proposed Settlement, any part of\nthe Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses and\napplication for compensatory awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs. You can write to the Court setting out your objection. The\nCourt will consider your views.\n\nTo object, you must send a signed letter saying that you object to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or\napplication for attorneys\u2019 fees and Litigation Expenses in \u201cJn re GigaCloud Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Case\nNo. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.).\u201d You must include (1) your name, address, telephone number, email address, and\nyour signature; (2) the number of shares of GigaCloud Stock that the objector (i) owned as of the opening of trading on\nAugust 18, 2022 and close of trading on August 20, 2024, and (ii) purchased, acquired, and/or sold from August 18, 2022\nthrough August 20, 2024, as well as the dates and prices for each such purchase, acquisition and sale, and documents\nshowing such ownership and trading; and (3) the objection(s) and the specific reasons for each objection, including\nwhether it applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the Settlement Class, or to the entire Settlement Class, and\nany legal and evidentiary support, and witnesses the Settlement Class Member wishes to bring to the Court\u2019s attention.\nIf you are represented by counsel, you must also provide the name, address and telephone number of all counsel, if any,\nwho represent you, including your former or current counsel who may be entitled to compensation in connection with\nthe objection; the number of times you and your counsel has filed an objection to a class action settlement in the last five\nyears; the nature of each such objection in each case; and the name and docket number of each case.\n\nIf you object, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter and consent to being deposed in your\ndistrict of residence and producing, in advance of a deposition, any responsive documents to a discovery request prior to\nthe Settlement Hearing.\n\nAttendance at the Settlement Hearing is not necessary. Objectors wishing to be heard orally at the Settlement Hearing\nmust indicate in their written objection that they intend to participate in the Settlement Hearing and identify any witnesses\nthey may call to testify or exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing.\n\nAll written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Clerk of the\nCourt, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40\nFoley Square, New York, NY 10007, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for\nthe Southern District of New York, or, for users of the Court\u2019s Electronic Case Filing system, by that system, and\nreceived by the Court or filed no later than September 18, 2025. You must also mail or deliver copies of any\nobjections, papers and briefs to each of the below such that they are received no later than September 18, 2025:\n\nCo-Lead Counsel Co-Lead Counsel Counsel For Defendants\nJeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Jason C. Hegt, Esq.\nPOMERANTZ LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP\n600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor 1271 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10016 New York, NY 10016 New York, NY 10020\n\n19, What is the difference between objecting and excluding myself?\n\nObjecting is telling the Court you do not like something about the Settlement or some part of it. You can object only if\nyou stay in the Settlement Class. Requesting exclusion is telling the Court you do not want to be part of the Settlement\nClass or the Settlement. If you exclude yourself, you cannot object to the Settlement because it no longer concerns you.\nIf you stay in the Settlement Class and object, but your objection is overruled, you will not be allowed a second\nopportunity to exclude yourself.\n\nTHE COURT\u2019S SETTLEMENT HEARING\n\nThe Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement, the Fee and Expense Application,\nand the Plan of Allocation. You may participate, and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to.\n\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 15of17\n\n20. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement? |\n\nThe Court will remotely hold a Settlement Hearing on October 9, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. To remotely join the hearing, call\nthe Court\u2019s dedicated conference line at (855) 244-8681 and use access code 2303 019 3884, followed by the pound (#)\nkey. When prompted for an attendee ID number, press the pound (#) key again.\n\nAt this hearing, the Court will consider whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be\napproved by the Court; whether an Order and Final Judgment as provided for in the Stipulation should be entered; and\nwhether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved. If there are objections, the Court will consider them, and\nthe Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much should be\nawarded to Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel for attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses and compensatory awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs for their\nservice to the Settlement Class.\n\nWe do not know how long these decisions will take. You should be aware that the Court may change the date and time\nof the Settlement Hearing, or decide to hold it in person, without another notice being mailed to Settlement Class\nMembers. If you want to attend the hearing, you should check with Co-Lead Counsel or the Settlement website,\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com beforehand to be sure that the date and/or time has not changed.\n\n21. Do I have to come to the hearing?\n\nNo. Co-Lead Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. However, you are welcome to attend at your own\nexpense. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mail your written\nobjection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.\nSettlement Class Members do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.\n\n22. May I speak at the hearing?\n\nIf you object, you may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Settlement Hearing. To do so, you must include with\nyour objection (see question 18 above) a statement that you \u201cintend to appear in Jn re GigaCloud Technology Inc.\nSecurities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.).\u201d Persons who intend to object to the Settlement, the Plan\nof Allocation, and/or the application for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, and expenses, and desire to present evidence\nat the Settlement Hearing, must include in their written objection the identity of any witnesses they may call to testify\nand exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. You cannot speak at the hearing if you\nexclude yourself.\n\nIF YOU DO NOTHING\n\n23. What happens if I do nothing at all?\n\nIf you do nothing, you will not receive a payment from the Settlement. However, unless you exclude yourself, you will\nnot be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Defendants or the Released\nDefendant Parties about the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims (as defined in the Stipulation) ever again.\n\nGETTING MORE INFORMATION\n\n24. Are there more details about the proposed Settlement?\n\nThis Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated\nJune 16, 2025. The Stipulation is the controlling document describing the proposed Settlement, and its terms govern\neverything in this Notice. You can get a copy of the Stipulation, other documents related to the Settlement and the Fee\nand Expense Application, and obtain answers to common questions regarding the proposed Settlement by visiting\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4004.\n\n25, How do I get more information about the case?\n\nThis Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of\nthe proposed Settlement, please see the Stipulation. More information about the matters involved in the Action, including,\namong other documents, copies of the Stipulation and Claim Form, is available at\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. For even more detailed information concerning the matters involved in this\nAction, see the pleadings filed in the case, the papers filed in support of the Settlement and the Fee and Expense\nApplication, and the orders entered by the Court, which are available for review during business hours at the Office of\nthe Clerk of the Court, Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,\nNew York, NY 10007. (Please check the Court\u2019s website, www.nysd.uscourts.gov, for information about Court closures\nbefore visiting.) Subscribers to PACER, a fee-based service, can also view the papers filed publicly in the Action through\nthe Court\u2019s on-line Case Management/Electronic Case Files system at https://www.pacer.gov.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 16of17\n\nPROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND\n\n1. The Plan of Allocation set forth below is the plan for calculating claims and distributing the proceeds of the\nSettlement that is being proposed by Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel to the Court for approval. The objective\nof the Plan of Allocation is to equitably distribute the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized Claimants based on their\nrespective alleged economic losses as a result of the alleged misstatements and omissions at issue in this Action. The\nClaims Administrator shall determine each Authorized Claimant\u2019s share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon the\nrecognized loss formula (\u201cRecognized Loss\u201d) described below. The Court may approve this Plan of Allocation or modify\nit without additional notice to the Settlement Class. Any order modifying the Plan of Allocation will be posted on the\nSettlement website www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. Settling Defendants had no role in the preparation of the\nPlan of Allocation.\n\n2. The Action alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange\nAct\u201d) with respect to purchases or acquisitions of GigaCloud Stock during the period from August 18, 2022 through May\n22, 2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933\n(the \u201cSecurities Act\u201d) with respect to GigaCloud Stock purchased or otherwise acquired pursuant or traceable to the\nRegistration Statement filed in connection with the Company\u2019s initial public offering (\u201cIPO\u201d).? For purposes of the\nSecurities Act claims, purchases or acquisitions of GigaCloud Stock in the IPO and during the period from August 18,\n2022 through February 14, 2023, inclusive, shall be considered purchases pursuant to or traceable to the Registration\nStatement.\u2019\n\n3. The Recognized Loss under the Exchange Act will be calculated as set forth below in \u201cCalculation of Recognized\nLoss Per Share Under the Exchange Act.\u201d The Recognized Loss under the Securities Act will be calculated as set forth\nbelow in \u201cCalculation of Recognized Loss Per Share Under the Securities Act.\u201d For shares of GigaCloud Stock eligible\nfor a recovery under both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, the Recognized Loss shall be the greater of: (i) the\nRecognized Loss under the Securities Act; or (ii) the Recognized Loss under the Exchange Act.\n\n4. The calculation of Recognized Loss will depend upon several factors, including when and in what amounts\nGigaCloud Stock was purchased or otherwise acquired, whether those shares were sold, and if sold, when they were sold\nand for what amounts. The Recognized Loss is not intended to estimate the amount a Settlement Class Member might\nhave recovered at trial, nor to estimate the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement.\nThe Recognized Loss is the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately allocated to the Authorized\nClaimants. The Claims Administrator will make its best efforts to administer and distribute the Net Settlement Fund in a\nmanner that is both equitable and economically feasible.\n\n5. With respect to Securities Act claims, the Recognized Loss will generally be calculated in accordance with the\nstatutory measure of damages. For shares sold before the Securities Act claims were first alleged in this Action, the\nRecognized Loss is the difference between the purchase price (not to exceed the IPO offering price of $12.25) and the\nsale price. For shares held or sold on or after the date the claims were first alleged, the Recognized Loss is the difference\nbetween the purchase price (not to exceed $12.25) and the value of the stock at the time the claims were first alleged.\n\n6. With respect to Exchange Act claims, Co-Lead Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made false statements and\nomitted material facts during the Class Period, which artificially inflated the price of GigaCloud Stock. Co-Lead Plaintiffs\nfurther allege that corrective disclosures removed the artificial inflation from the stock price on September 28, 2023 and\nMay 22, 2024 (the \u201cCorrective Disclosure Dates\u201d). The estimated alleged artificial inflation during the Class Period is\nreflected in Table 1 below. The computation of the estimated alleged artificial inflation is based on the misrepresentations\nalleged by Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the decline in the price of the stock, net of market- and industry-wide factors, on the\nCorrective Disclosure Dates. In order to have recoverable damages under the Exchange Act, disclosures correcting the\nalleged misrepresentations must be the cause of the decline in the price of GigaCloud Stock. Accordingly, if GigaCloud\nStock was sold before September 28, 2023 (the earliest Corrective Disclosure Date), the Recognized Loss for those shares\nis $0.00, and any loss suffered is not compensable under the federal securities laws. Likewise, if GigaCloud Stock was\nboth purchased and sold between the Corrective Disclosure Dates, the Recognized Loss for those shares is $0.00.\n\n? GigaCloud\u2019s Class A common stock was listed on the NASDAQ Global Market and began trading under the ticker\nsymbol \u201cGCT\u201d on August 18, 2022. The Company\u2019s IPO consisted of 3,381,000 shares of Class A common stock, priced\nat $12.25 per share.\n\n3 February 14, 2023 was the end of the 180-day lockup period following the Company\u2019s IPO.\n\n10\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 17 of17\n\nTable 1\nArtificial Inflation in GigaCloud Stock\nUnder the Exchange Act\nFrom To Per-Share Price Inflation\nAugust 18, 2022 September 27, 2023 $3.41\nSeptember 28, 20234 May 21, 2024 $1.60\nMay 22, 2024 Thereafter $0.00\n\n7. The \u201c90-day look back\u201d provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) is\nincorporated into the calculation of the Recognized Loss for GigaCloud Stock under the Exchange Act. The limitations\non the calculation of the Recognized Loss imposed by the PSLRA are applied such that losses on shares of GigaCloud\nStock purchased or acquired during the Class Period and held as of the close of the 90-day period subsequent to the Class\nPeriod (the \u201c90-Day Lookback Period\u201d) cannot exceed the difference between the purchase price paid for GigaCloud\nStock and the average price of GigaCloud Stock during the 90-Day Lookback Period. The Recognized Loss on GigaCloud\nStock purchased or acquired during the Class Period and sold during the 90-Day Lookback Period cannot exceed the\ndifference between the purchase price paid for GigaCloud Stock and the rolling average price of GigaCloud Stock during\nthe portion of the 90-Day Lookback Period elapsed as of the date of sale.\n\n8. In the calculations below, all purchase and sale prices shall exclude any fees, taxes and commissions. If a\nRecognized Loss amount is calculated to be a negative number, that Recognized Loss shall be set to zero. Any\ntransactions in GigaCloud Stock executed outside of regular trading hours for the U.S. financial markets shall be deemed\nto have occurred during the next regular trading session.\n\nCalculation of Recognized Loss Per Share Under the Exchange Act\n\n9. For each share of GigaCloud Stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period (i.ec., August 18,\n2022 through May 22, 2024, inclusive), the Recognized Loss per share under the Exchange Act shall be calculated as\nfollows:\n\nI. For each share of GigaCloud Stock purchased/acquired during the period August 18, 2022 through May 21,\n2024, inclusive,\ni. that was sold prior to September 28, 2023, at 9:51 a.m. ET, the Recognized Loss is $0.\n\nii. that was sold during the period September 28, 2023, at 9:51 a.m. ET, through May 21, 2024, inclusive,\nthe Recognized Loss is the amount of per-share price inflation on the date of purchase as appears in\nTable 1 above minus the amount of per-share price inflation on the date of sale.\n\niii. | that was sold during the period May 22, 2024 through August 19, 2024, inclusive (i.e., sold during the\n90-Day Lookback Period), the Recognized Loss is the lesser of:\n\na. the amount of per-share price inflation on the date of purchase as appears in Table 1 above; or\n\nb. the purchase/acquisition price minus the \u201c90-Day Lookback Value\u201d on the date of sale provided\nin Table 2 below.\n\niv. that was still held as of the close of trading on August 19, 2024, the Recognized Loss is the lesser of:\na. the amount of per-share price inflation on the date of purchase as appears in Table 1 above; or\n\nb. the purchase/acquisition price minus the average closing price for GigaCloud Stock during the\n90-Day Lookback Period, which is $29.01.\n\nII. For each share that was purchased/acquired on or after May 22, 2024, the Recognized Loss is $0.00.\n\n4 The alleged disclosure of information which allegedly corrected a misleading statement or omission on September 28,\n2023, occurred at approximately 9:51 a.m. ET. Purchases and sales of GigaCloud Stock on September 28, 2023 at a\nprice at or above $8.96 shall be considered to have occurred prior to the alleged corrective disclosure that day, at $3.41\nper-share price inflation. Purchases and sales of GigaCloud Stock on September 28, 2023 at a price below $8.96 shall\nbe considered to have occurred after the alleged corrective disclosure that day, at $1.60 per-share price inflation.\n\n11\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:42:39.237610-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311105","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A Part 1 (M Craig Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664866/","id":483664866,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/2/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:52.116887-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:38:45.804448-07:00","sha1":"295af4de3d483e52372dcd1a779ca473d771de22","page_count":18,"file_size":9560074,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page1of18\n\nEXHIBIT A\nPart 2 of 2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2of18\nTable 2\n90-Day Lookback Values for Exchange Act Claims\nSale / 90-Day Sale / 90-Day Sale / 90-Day\nDisposition Lookback Disposition Lookback Disposition Lookback\n\nDate Value Date Value Date Value\n5/22/2024 $29.83 6/24/2024 $31.08 7/24/2024 $30.67\n5/23/2024 $31.09 6/25/2024 $31.01 7/25/2024 $30.58\n5/24/2024 $31.58 6/26/2024 $30.95 7/26/2024 $30.53\n5/28/2024 $31.34 6/27/2024 $30.91 7/29/2024 $30.49\n5/29/2024 $31.42 6/28/2024 $30.89 7/30/2024 $30.45\n5/30/2024 $31.23 7/1/2024 $30.93 7/31/2024 $30.43\n5/31/2024 $31.22 7/2/2024 $30.95 8/1/2024 $30.37\n6/3/2024 $31.39 7/3/2024 $30.98 8/2/2024 $30.27\n6/4/2024 $31.38 7/5/2024 $31.02 8/5/2024 $30.16\n6/5/2024 $31.44 7/8/2024 $31.04 8/6/2024 $30.07\n6/6/2024 $31.32 7/9/2024 $31.05 8/7/2024 $29.94\n6/7/2024 $31.26 7/10/2024 $31.07 8/8/2024 $29.83\n6/10/2024 $31.31 7/11/2024 $31.08 8/9/2024 $29.70\n6/11/2024 $31.43 7/12/2024 $31.06 8/12/2024 $29.57\n6/12/2024 $31.49 7/15/2024 $31.02 8/13/2024 $29.46\n6/13/2024 $31.51 7/16/2024 $31.01 8/14/2024 $29.34\n6/14/2024 $31.49 7/17/2024 $30.97 8/15/2024 $29.22\n6/17/2024 $31.41 7/18/2024 $30.92 8/16/2024 $29.11\n6/18/2024 $31.34 7/19/2024 $30.86 8/19/2024 $29.01\n6/20/2024 $31.25 7/22/2024 $30.80 N/A N/A\n6/21/2024 $31.16 7/23/2024 $30.75 N/A N/A\n\nFor each share of GigaCloud Stock purchased or otherwise acquired pursuant or traceable to the IPO, the\nRecognized Loss per share under the Securities Act shall be calculated as follows:\n\ni. For each share sold prior to October 4, 2023 (i.e., the date Securities Act claims were first alleged in\nthis Action), the Recognized Loss is the purchase price (not to exceed $12.25) minus the sale price.\n\nii. | Foreach share sold on or after October 4, 2023, the Recognized Loss is the purchase price (not to exceed\n$12.25) minus the greater of: (a) the sale price; or (b) $8.94.\u00b0\n\niii. | For each share held as of October 4, 2023 and not subsequently sold, the Recognized Loss is the\n\npurchase price (not to exceed $12.25) minus $8.94.\nINSTRUCTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMANTS\n\nThe payment you receive will reflect your proportionate share of the Net Settlement Fund. Such payment will\ndepend on the number of eligible securities that participate in the Settlement, and when those securities were purchased\n\nand sold. The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case.\n\nA purchase or sale of GigaCloud Stock shall be deemed to have occurred on the \u201ccontract\u201d or \u201ctrade\u201d date as\n\nopposed to the \u201csettlement\u201d or \u201cpayment\u201d date.\n\n5 $8.94 is the closing price of GigaCloud Stock on October 4, 2023.\n\n12\n\nCalculation of Recognized Loss Per Share Under the Securities Act\n\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3of 18\n\nAcquisition by Gift, Inheritance, or Operation of Law: If a Settlement Class Member acquired GigaCloud Stock\nby way of gift, inheritance or operation of law, such a claim will be computed by using the date and price of the original\npurchase and not the date and price of transfer.\n\nShares of GigaCloud Stock acquired through the exercise, conversion, or exchange of non-publicly traded\nsecurities of GigaCloud are not eligible to participate in the Settlement.\n\nNotwithstanding any of the above, receipt of GigaCloud Stock in exchange for securities of any other corporation\nor entity shall not be deemed a purchase or sale of GigaCloud Stock.\n\nThe first-in-first-out (\u201cFIFO\u201d) basis will be applied to purchases and sales. Under FIFO, sales of GigaCloud\nStock will be matched against previous purchases/acquisitions of GigaCloud Stock in chronological order, beginning\nwith the earliest purchase/acquisition.\n\nThe date of covering a \u201cshort sale\u201d is deemed to be the date of purchase of shares. The date of a \u201cshort sale\u201d is\ndeemed to be the date of sale of shares. In accordance with the Plan of Allocation, however, the Recognized Loss on\n\u201cshort sales\u201d is zero. In the event that a claimant has a short position in GigaCloud Stock, the earliest subsequent\npurchases shall be matched against such short position and not be entitled to a recovery until that short position is fully\ncovered.\n\nOption contracts are not securities eligible to participate in the Settlement. With respect to stock purchased or\nsold through the exercise of a publicly traded option, the purchase/sale date of the stock shall be the exercise date of the\noption and the purchase/sale price of the stock shall be the exercise price of the option. Any Recognized Loss arising\nfrom purchases of stock acquired through the exercise of a publicly traded option on GigaCloud Stock\u00ae shall be computed\nas provided for other purchases of GigaCloud Stock in the Plan of Allocation.\n\nA Recognized Loss will be calculated as defined herein and cannot be less than zero. The Claims Administrator\nshall allocate to each Authorized Claimant a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on his, her, or its Recognized\nLoss as compared to the total Recognized Losses of all Authorized Claimants (see the Plan of Allocation on pages 10-13\nfor additional details). No distribution will be made to Authorized Claimants who would otherwise receive a distribution\nof less than $10.00.\n\nSettlement Class Members who do not submit acceptable Claim Forms will not share in the Settlement proceeds.\nThe Settlement and the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing this Action will nevertheless\nbind Settlement Class Members who do not submit a request for exclusion and/or submit an acceptable Claim Form.\n\nPlease contact the Claims Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel if you disagree with any determinations made by\nthe Claims Administrator regarding your Claim Form. If you are unsatisfied with the determinations, you may ask the\nCourt, which retains jurisdiction over all Settlement Class Members and the claims-administration process, to decide the\nissue by submitting a written request.\n\nPayment according to the Plan of Allocation will be deemed conclusive against all Authorized Claimants.\n\nSettling Defendants, Defendants\u2019 Counsel, and all other Released Parties will have no responsibility or liability\nwhatsoever for the investment of the Settlement Fund, the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Plan of Allocation,\nor the payment of any claim. Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs\u2019 Counsel, likewise, will have no liability for their\nreasonable efforts to execute, administer, and distribute the Settlement.\n\nDistributions will be made to Authorized Claimants after all claims have been processed and after the Court has\nfinally approved the Settlement. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed distribution checks\nor otherwise, then, after the Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Settlement Class\nMembers who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund cash their distributions, any balance\nremaining in the Net Settlement Fund after at least six (6) months after the initial distribution of such funds will be used\nin the following fashion: (a) first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the initial disbursement; (b) second, to\npay any additional settlement administration fees, costs, and expenses, including those of Co-Lead Counsel as may be\napproved by the Court; and (c) finally, to make a second distribution to claimants who cashed their checks from the initial\ndistribution and who would receive at least $10.00, after payment of the estimated costs, expenses, or fees to be incurred\nin administering the Net Settlement Fund and in making this second distribution, if such second distribution is\neconomically feasible. These redistributions shall be repeated, if economically feasible, until the balance remaining in\n\n6 Including (1) purchases of GigaCloud Stock as the result of the exercise of a call option, and (2) purchases of\nGigaCloud Stock by the seller of a put option as a result of the buyer of such put option exercising that put option.\n\n13\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4of18\n\nthe Net Settlement Fund is de minimis and such remaining balance will then be distributed to a private, non-profit, non-\nsectarian 501(c)(3) organization identified by Co-Lead Counsel and approved by the Court.\n\nSPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES\n\nIf, from August 18, 2022 through May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive, you purchased and/or sold GigaCloud Stock for\nthe beneficial interest of a person or entity other than yourself, the Court has directed that, WITHIN TEN (10)\nCALENDAR DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE, you either (a) provide to the Claims Administrator the\nname and last known address of each person or entity for whom or which you purchased and/or sold GigaCloud Stock\nduring such time period or (b) request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Postcard Notice to forward\nto all such beneficial owners and WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt of those Postcard Notices from the\nClaims Administrator forward them to all such beneficial owners. Nominees shall also provide email addresses for all\nsuch beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator, to the extent they are available. If you choose to follow alternative\nprocedure (b), the Court has directed that, upon such mailing, you send a statement to the Claims Administrator\nconfirming that the mailing was made as directed. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRINT THE POSTCARD\nNOTICE YOURSELF. POSTCARD NOTICES MAY ONLY BE PRINTED BY THE COURT-APPOINTED\nCLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR.\n\nYou may request reimbursement from the Settlement Fund of your reasonable out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred\nin connection with the foregoing of up to: $0.02 per Postcard Notice, plus postage at the current pre-sort rate used by the\nClaims Administrator, for Postcard Notices mailed by nominees; or $0.02 per mailing record and email address provided\nto the Claims Administrator. Expenses will be paid upon request and submission of appropriate supporting documentation\nand timely compliance with the above directives. All communications regarding the foregoing should be addressed to\nthe Claims Administrator at the address listed on page 3 above.\n\nDATED: June 20, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES\nDISTRICT COURT FOR THE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n14\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5of18\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\nSECURITIES LITIGATION\n\nTHIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:\nALL ACTIONS\n\nPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE\n\nA. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS\n\n1. To recover as a member of the Settlement Class based on your claims in the class action entitled In re\nGigaCloud Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.) (the \u201cAction\u201d), you must\ncomplete and, on page 5 below, sign this Proof of Claim and Release form (\u201cClaim Form\u201d). If you fail to submit a timely\nand properly addressed (as explained in paragraph 3 below) Claim Form, your claim may be rejected and you may not\nreceive any recovery from the Net Settlement Fund created in connection with the proposed Settlement.!\n\n2. Submission of this Claim Form, however, does not assure that you will share in the proceeds of the\nSettlement of the Action. Claimants are responsible for establishing their eligibility to recover.\n3. THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED ONLINE AT\n\nWWW.GIGACLOUDSECURITIESSETTLEMENT.COM NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 6, 2025 OR, IF\nMAILED, BE POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 6, 2025, ADDRESSED AS\nFOLLOWS:\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc. Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 230\n600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\nMedia, PA 19063\nTel: (866) 274-4004\nFax: (610) 565-7985\ninfo@strategicclaims.net\nwww. gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com\n\n4. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, and you do not timely request exclusion from the\nSettlement Class in response to the Notice dated June 20, 2025, you are bound by the terms of any judgment entered in\nthe Action, including the releases provided therein, WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM OR\nRECEIVE A PAYMENT. RECEIPT OF THIS CLAIM FORM DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE\nSETTLEMENT CLASS.\n\nB. CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION\n\n1. You are eligible to file a claim, or have a legal representative file a claim for you, if you are a member\nof the Settlement Class, which is: all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Stock?\nduring the Class Period from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive.* Excluded from the Settlement\nClass are: (i) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and former officers and directors of\nGigaCloud and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) Defendants\u2019 liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or\nsubsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a controlling interest; (v) GigaCloud\u2019s\n\n! All capitalized terms used in this Claim Form that are not otherwise defined have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation\nand Agreement of Settlement dated June 16, 2025 (the Stipulation\u201d), which is available at\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com.\n\n2 \u201cGigaCloud Stock\u201d means GigaCloud\u2019s Class A ordinary shares.\n\n3 Only shares of GigaCloud Stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period are eligible under the Settlement\nand the proposed Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice. However, under the \u201c90-Day Lookback Period\u201d (described in the\nPlan of Allocation), sales of GigaCloud Stock through the close of trading on August 19, 2024 will be used for purposes of\ncalculating certain Recognized Loss amounts under the Plan of Allocation. Therefore, in order for the Claims Administrator\nto be able to calculate your Recognized Loss and balance your claim, the requested purchase and sale information during this\nperiod must also be provided.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6of18\n\nemployee retirement and benefit plan(s); (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors, or assigns of any\nsuch excluded person or entity in (i)-(v); and (vii) any persons or entities who or which exclude themselves by submitting\na request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court.\n\n2. If you purchased or acquired GigaCloud Stock in your name, you were the record owner as well as the\nbeneficial owner. However, if you purchased or acquired GigaCloud Stock through a third party, such as a brokerage\nfirm, you were the beneficial owner and the third party was the record owner.\n\n3. Use Part I of this form entitled \u201cClaimant Information\u201d to identify each beneficial owner of GigaCloud\nStock whose purchase or acquisition forms the basis of this claim. THIS CLAIM MUST BE FILED BY THE ACTUAL\nBENEFICIAL OWNER(S) OR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH OWNER(S). All joint owners must sign\nthis claim.\n\n4, Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators, custodians, trustees, and legal representatives must\ncomplete and sign this Claim Form on behalf of persons represented by them and their authority must accompany this\nclaim and their titles or capacities must be stated. The Social Security (or taxpayer identification) number and telephone\nnumber of the beneficial owner may be used in verifying the claim. Failure to provide the foregoing information could\ndelay verification of the claim or result in rejection of the claim.\n\nC. IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONS\n\n1. Use Part II of this form entitled \u201cSchedule of Transactions in GigaCloud Stock\u201d to supply all required\ndetails of your transaction(s) in GigaCloud Stock. If you need more space or additional schedules, attach separate sheets\ngiving all of the required information in substantially the same form. Sign and print or type your name on each additional\nsheet.\n\n2. On the schedules, provide all of the requested information with respect to all of your purchases, sales,\nand tenders/cancellations/exchanges of GigaCloud Stock at the relevant times, whether such transactions resulted in a\nprofit or a loss. Failure to report all such transactions may result in the rejection of your claim.\n\n3, Copies of broker confirmations or other documentation of your transactions in GigaCloud Stock must\nbe attached to your claim. Failure to provide this documentation could delay verification of your claim or result in\nrejection of your claim. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR\nTRANSACTIONS IN GIGACLOUD STOCK.\n\n4, NOTICE REGARDING INSTITUTIONAL FILERS: Representatives with authority to file on behalf\nof (a) accounts of multiple Settlement Class Members and/or (b) institutional accounts with large numbers of transactions\n(\u201cRepresentative Filers\u201d) must submit information regarding their transactions in an electronic spreadsheet format. If\nyou are a Representative Filer, you must contact the Claims Administrator at efile@strategicclaims.net or visit the website\nat www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com to obtain the required file layout. Claims which are not submitted in\nelectronic spreadsheet format and in accordance with the Claims Administrator\u2019s instructions may be subject to rejection.\nAll Representative Filers MUST also submit a manually signed Claim Form, as well as proof of authority to file along\nwith the electronic spreadsheet format. No claims submitted in the electronic spreadsheet format will be considered to\nhave been properly submitted unless the Claims Administrator issues to the claimant a written acknowledgment of receipt\nand acceptance of electronically submitted data.\n\n5. NOTICE REGARDING ONLINE FILING: Claimants who are not Representative Filers may submit\ntheir claims online using the electronic version of the Claim Form hosted at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. If\nyou are not acting as a Representative Filer, you do not need to contact the Claims Administrator prior to filing; you will\nreceive an automated e-mail confirming receipt once your Claim Form has been submitted. If you are unsure if you\nshould submit your claim as a Representative Filer, please contact the Claims Administrator at info@strategicclaims.net\nor (866) 274-4004. If you are not a Representative Filer, but your claim contains a large number of transactions, the\nClaims Administrator may request that you also submit an electronic spreadsheet showing your transactions to\naccompany your Claim Form.\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 18\n\nGIGACLOUD\n\nPART I- CLAIMANT INFORMATION\n\nThe Claims Administrator will use this information for all communications regarding this Claim Form. If this information\nchanges, you MUST notify the Claims Administrator in writing at the address above. Complete names of all persons and\n\nentities must be provided.\n\nBeneficial Owner Name\n\nCo-Beneficial Owner Name\n\nAddress 1 (Street Name and Number)\n\nAddress 2 (apartment, unit, or box number)\n\nCity State ZIP\nForeign Province Foreign Country\n\nTelephone Number (home) Telephone Number (work)\nEmail Address\n\nAccount Number (if filing for multiple accounts, file a separate Claim Form for each account)\n\ncorporations, etc.):\n\nSocial Security Number (for individuals): OR_ | Taxpayer Identification Number (for estates, trusts,\n\nClaimant Account Type (check appropriate box):\n\nO Individual (includes joint owner accounts) \u00a9 Pension Plan CO Trust\n(| Corporation Estate\nO \u00a96IRA/401K O Other (please specify)\n\nPART II \u2014- SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN GIGACLOUD STOCK\n\n1. HOLDINGS AS OF AUGUST 18, 2022 \u2014 State the total number of shares of GigaCloud Stock held as\nof the opening of trading on August 18, 2022. (Must be documented.) If none, write \u201czero\u201d or \u201c0.\u201d\n\nConfirm Proof of\nPosition Enclosed\noO\n\n2. PURCHASES FROM AUGUST 18, 2022 THROUGH AUGUST 19, 2024, INCLUSIVE. Separately list each and every\npurchase of GigaCloud Stock from after the opening of trading on August 18, 2022 through and including the close of trading on\n\nAugust 19, 2024. (Must be documented.)\n\nDate of Purchase Number of Shares Purchase Total Purchase Price Confirm Proof of\n(List Chronologically) Purchased Price Per Share (excluding taxes, Purchase Enclosed\n(Month/Day/Year) commissions, and fees)\n/ $ $ O\n/ / $ $ O\n/ | $ $ 6\n/ / $ $ O\n\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nDocument 146-2\n\nFiled 10/01/25\n\nPage 8 of 18\n\n3. SALES FROM AUGUST 18, 2022 THROUGH AUGUST 19, 2024, INCLUSIVE -\u2014 Separately list IF NONE, CHECK\neach and every sale of GigaCloud Stock from after the opening of trading on August 18, 2022 through and HERE\nincluding the close of trading on August 19, 2024. (Must be documented.) Oo\nDate of Sale Number of Sale Price Total Sale Price Confirm Proof\n(List Chronologically) Shares Sold Per Share (excluding taxes, of Sale Enclosed\n(Month/Day/Year) commissions, and fees)\n/ | $ $ O\n/ | $ $ O\n/ | $ $ O\n/ | $ $ O\n4. HELD AS OF AUGUST 19, 2024 \u2014 State the total number of shares of GigaCloud Stock held at the Confirm Proof of\nclose of trading on August 19, 2024. (Must be documented.) If none, write \u201czero\u201d or \u201c0.\u201d Position Enclosed\noO\n\nIF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL SPACE TO LIST YOUR TRANSACTIONS, PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THIS PAGE, WRITE\nYOUR NAME, AND CHECK THIS BOX:\n\nPART II \u2014 SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\nYOU MUST READ AND SIGN THE RELEASE BELOW. FAILURE TO SIGN MAY RESULT IN A DELAY\nIN PROCESSING OR THE REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM.\n\n1. I (We) submit this Claim Form under the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June\n16, 2025 (the \u201cStipulation\u201d). I (We) also submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York, with respect to my (our) claim as a Settlement Class Member(s) and for purposes\nof enforcing the release set forth herein. I (We) further acknowledge that I am (we are) bound by and subject to the\nterms of any judgment that may be entered in the Action. I (We) agree to furnish additional information to the\nClaims Administrator to support this claim if requested to do so. I (We) have not submitted any other claim in the\nAction covering the same transactions in GigaCloud Stock during the relevant periods and know of no other person\nhaving done so on my (our) behalf.\n\n2. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I am (we are) a Settlement Class Member as defined above, and\nthat I am (we are) not excluded from the Settlement Class.\n\n3. I(We) hereby acknowledge full and complete satisfaction of, and do hereby fully, finally, and forever settle,\nrelease, and discharge from the Released Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims each and all of the Released Defendant Parties, both as\ndefined in the Stipulation. This release shall be of no force or effect unless and until the Court approves the\nSettlement and the Settlement becomes effective on the Effective Date (as defined in the Stipulation).\n\n4. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have not assigned or transferred or purported to assign or\ntransfer, voluntarily or involuntarily, any matter released pursuant to this release or any other part or portion thereof.\n\n5. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have included the information requested about all of my\n(our) transactions in GigaCloud Stock which are the subject of this claim, as well as the opening and closing\npositions in such securities held by me (us) on the dates requested in this Claim Form.\n\n6. I (We) certify that I am (we are) not subject to backup withholding under the provisions of Section\n3406(a)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code. (Note: If you have been notified by the Internal Revenue Service that\nyou are subject to backup withholding, please strike out the prior sentence.)\n\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page9of18\n\nI (We) declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that all of the foregoing\ninformation supplied on this Claim Form by the undersigned is true and correct.\n\nExecuted this day of , in ,\n\n(Month / Year) (City) (State/Country)\nSignature of Claimant Signature of Joint Claimant, if any\nPrint Name of Claimant Print Name of Joint Claimant, if any\n\n(Capacity of person(s) signing, e.g., Beneficial Owner, Executor or Administrator)\n\nACCURATE CLAIMS PROCESSING TAKES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME. THANK\nYOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.\n\nREMINDER CHECKLIST:\n\nPlease sign the above release and acknowledgement.\n\nIf this claim is being made on behalf of Joint Claimants, then both must sign.\n\nRemember to attach copies of supporting documentation, if available.\n\nDo not send originals of certificates.\n\nKeep a copy of your Claim Form and all supporting documentation for your records.\n\nIf you desire an acknowledgment of receipt of your Claim Form, please send it Certified Mail, Return Receipt\nRequested.\n\n7. Ifyou move, please send your new address to:\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 230\n600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\nMedia, PA 19063\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com\n8. Do not use red pen or highlighter on the Claim Form or supporting documentation.\n\nAYR WN YP\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10o0f18\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Settlement\nc/o Strategic Claims Services\n\n600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205\nMedia, PA 19063\n\nIMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE \u2014 PLEASE FORWARD\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1u@xBIBIT B\n\nREQUEST FOR NAMES, EMAILS AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBER\nSTRATEGIC CLAIMS SERVICES\n600 N. JACKSON STREET, SUITE 205\nMEDIA, PA 19063\nPHONE: (610) 565-9202 EMAIL: info@strategicclaims.net FAX: (610) 565-7985\n\nJuly 7, 2025\n\nThis letter is being sent to all entities wnose names have been made available to us, or which we believe may know of\npotential Settlement Class Members.\n\nWe request that you assist us in identifying any individuals/entities who fit the following description:\n\nALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC\n(\u201cGIGACLOUD\u201d OR THE \u201cCOMPANY\u201d) CLASS A ORDINARY SHARES (\u201cGIGACLOUD STOCK\u201d) DURING THE PERIOD FROM\nAUGUST 18, 2022 THROUGH MAY 22, 2024, INCLUSIVE.\n\nExcluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and\nformer officers and directors of GigaCloud and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) Defendants\u2019 liability\ninsurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a\ncontrolling interest; (v) GigaCloud\u2019s employee retirement and benefit plan(s); (vi) the legal representatives, heirs,\nestates, agents, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity in (i)-(v).\n\nThe information below may assist you in finding the above requested information:\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation Security Identifiers:\nNo. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nExclusion Deadline: September 18, 2025 Cusip Number: G38644103\nObjection Deadline: September 18, 2025 ISIN: KYG386441037\nNotice to Appear Deadline: September 18, 2025 SEDOL: BPOWTV4.\n\nClaim Filing Deadline: October 6, 2025 Ticker Symbol: GCT\n\nSettlement Hearing: October 9, 2025\n\nPER RT ORDER, PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE.\n\nPlease comply in one of the following ways:\n\n1. If you have no beneficial purchasers/owners, please so advise us in writing; or\n\n2. Supply us with names, last known addresses, and email addresses (to the extent known) of your\nbeneficial purchasers/owners and we will do the mailing of the Postcard Notice and/or emailing of the\nlinks to the Postcard Notice and the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and\nMotion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Expenses and the Proof of Claim and Release form (\u201cNotice and Claim\nForm\u201d). Please provide us this information electronically. If you are not able to do this, labels will be\naccepted, but it is important that a hardcopy list also be submitted of your clients; or\n\n3. Advise us of how many beneficial purchasers/owners you have, and we will supply you with ample\npostcards to do the mailing. After the receipt of the Postcard Notices, you have ten (10) calendar days to\nmail them.\n\nNominees are not authorized to print the Postcard Notice for dissemination. Postcard Notices may only be printed for\ndissemination by the Claims Administrator.\n\nYou can bill us for any reasonable expenses actually incurred and not to exceed:\n\ne $0.02 per name, address and email address if you are providing us the records, OR\n\ne $0.02 per name and address, including materials, plus postage at the pre-sort rate used by the Claims\nAdministrator if you are requesting the Postcard Notice and performing the mailing.\n\nAll invoices must be received within 30 days of this letter.\n\nYou are on record as having been notified of the legal matter. A copy of the Notice and Claim Form and other\nimportant case-related documents are available on our website at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. You can\nalso request a copy via email at info@strategicclaims.net.\n\nThank you for your prompt response.\n\nSincerely,\nClaims Administrator\nIn re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation\n\nPLEASE NOTE - A COPY OF THE POSTCARD NOTICE IS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS LETTER\n\fPage 12 of 18\n\nFiled 10/01/25\n\nDocument 146-2\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nEXHIBIT C\n\nCA'N'C'S) AIN-S7901-A9-\u20acZ:1\n\"ON OSBD \u2018UOoNsiNT Saijlnzay\nauy ABojouyoa] pnojjvsty a4 uy\n\n*A[[NJo18d JL peas\n\nWSVI[q \u2018SYS [Vda] ANOA Jd9IJU\nABW ddHON SIV \u201cyuowAed\nHSV0O # 0} papyiqua oq Avur nox\n\n\"JUIUIITIIAE\nUOWIY Sse[) S9VLINIag\nB yNoge saIj0N JUL}.10d Wy]\n\nADTION\nWOAT C4aAdAIO-LANOD\n\n\u00a39061 Vd PIpsl\n\nS0Z \u201c31S \u201cIS WosyseL \u201cN 009\nSOOTAIA SUNE[Z) S1d9}e]S\nwoes] sontmaag\n\nouy ASOTOUqIS], PNopHestyH o1 Uy\n\fPage 13 of 18\n\nDocument 146-2 Filed 10/01/25\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\n\u2018SOON Pallejep 94] Peal PUP WOd JUOWATHASSaTILINIOSpNOpIeSIT MMM SJISGOM OU} JISTA JO \u2018JOU SUNTE|IOISAeIIS@ojul\nye [reula \u2018pOOr-PLZ (998) 927J-[[0} [[2o \u2018UOTBUOJUI SIOUI JO,] \u00b00}] SAvY JOU Op NOA Ing \u2018yNO_ 94) Aq pIeoy 9q 0} Yse pur ZuLeoy oy) puaye\nAPU NOA \u201cJUOWATHES oy} Suljenosou pue UOTeSII] SIU] SuNONpuOd YIM poyersosse QOO'S7I$ 01 dn spreme AloyesusdwWo. pur sosuadxo\nJenjoe snjd \u2018pun, jUOWIITIES 9Y] JO Mp'EE 01 dn sagy ,sAOUIO}E IO} sse[D oy) PUP S]JHUIe[_ pvoy-0D Surjuasoider sxoAMe] oy] Aq opeul\nysonbal ol] pue yuowapyjes pesodoid oy aaosdde 0} JoyJOYM JapIsuod 0} $ZOZ \u20186 J9QO}O UO VONSY SI] Ul SuLeaY e@ Ploy [IM yNOD sy],\n\n\u201cuorpalqo ue o[IF 10 \u2018sse[D ot) Woy UOISN[Dxo Jsonbal \u201cWOT WHe[D e JTUIQNs 0} MOY SuTETdxXe SOON porrejop\nOL \u2018SZOT \u201c81 Jaquiajdag Aq uonsofqo ue oy Aeu Nod \u2018yusWIO|IOS Oy] 0} JOO[qGo 0} yURM NOA JT \u2018spsod01d JUOWIOPNES OY] UT SIeYS JoUULD\nnoA \u2018Jjasmod apnyoxs nod J] \u20189sed SI] Ul SUNTE[D [edo] St] 0} SuIe[SI sjUepUayaq] ons 0} [GB Oq JOU [JIM NOA IO SZOZ \u2018RI Joquiajdag Aq\nJlssmnod spnjpoxa snul nod \u2018uouray}es sty} Aq punog AT[es9] 9q 0} UM JOU Op NOA J] \u2018zz \u201c9 1990990 Aq pay1eUjsod 10 sUTTUO poyyTUIqns\naq JSNW SULIO WIRD JOyeNsUTUpY swe; 94) 0} Jsonboxr UodN nod oO} pale oq [IM JO Woo jUOWO]ESSONLIMNIEspnopsesIs MAM\nye punoy oq ued WO WIRD oy \u2018Wo, wie Apu pue pyea B yugqns ysna nod Yuautked acy Ayqenb of\n\n\u201cSTISQOM JUOWUDTIAS OY}. UO PUNOJ SION poTrelop oy} Ul poure[dxo JoyINY SI SIU], \u2018Poywqns suTe[s Jo JoqumMuU\nOU] UO poseq vip. oud PSUTULID}Op 9q [IM PIVME INOA \u2018SUOTONPsp poloplo-N0| Joyo pue sasusdxa olojaq oIeYs S[qISI[O Jod QT Os 9q\nTM AroA0sal O8vIDAR OY] \u201cWO. UNIe[D PI[BA B S}TUIQNs IOqUIOVY SseID SIQISI[D AIOAS J] \u2018sareys AIBUIPIO Y Sse[D pno[DesiH ul suoToRsuRQ\nInoA Jo Sur pure \u2018azis \u2018Iaquinu ay] pure \u2018payIuqns suo] UNeTD prTeA Jo Joquinu ay} UO puadop [IM sposoold JuoWaTHAs oy] Jo oreYs MO,\n\n*W109\u00b0}UIWI]J}JISSILINIISPHOPIVSIS' MAA\n\nJB J[qQuTeav \u2018VdHON [My pues uoHENdyS a4) peor \u2018WuIWIIEIaS 9q) JO STIBIIp [Te AOA \u201cSIOqUIDTA, sse[D Aq O89 SIU} 0} PoyeloI SUUITE[O Jo\nOSBO[OY OU} PUL OSE SIT} JO JUSWUDTIJOS OY} JOJ OSULYOXO UT \u2018(,,WUO.] WIe[D,,) WUOJ 9seO|SY PUL LUTE[D JO JOOIg PITA e WUIQNs OYM SISqUID|\\\nSSP[D JWOWONMSG [[e Buowe psprlAIp oq O} SI \u2018soxR) pue \u2018s}soo UOTeNSIUTWUIpe pue sorjoU \u2018sasuodxe pue soay .sAouIO}Je poaoidde-yn0s\nAue Jo worjonpap Joye \u2018pun, yusWETES oY} JU} saprAoid yuowaTMAS SUT, \u2018OOO\u2018OSL\u2018T$ JO JUNOLUe JUSWUOPIes @ Aed 0} poarse savy syuepuajoq\n\u2018poliag Sse 94) SuLINp sozeys ATeUIpso\n\nV SSU[D pnojpesip postnbow astmsoyjo Jo paseysind savy Aeul Ajlurey MOA Ul aUOSUOS IO NOA asnedeq SOTION PIed}sOg SY} Poalooos\nnox \u2018uoHesyI] Jo uoTSeNsIp penUsjod pue ssuadxo 9} PIOAR 0} A[O[OS OSed SIY} SATOSAI 0} poorde savy AOU} 1eY} UTeJUTeUT pue \u2018s}oodsoI\n[ELIS eur [[@ UT JALIOD PUL ONT) SIOM SOINSOTSSIP JIOy} Wey) UleyUTEW \u201cBulopsuoIM Aue Auap s]UEpUdjoq \u201cSMET SONLINOs [BIApsy oy} Jo\nUOTPIOIA Ul (,,POLIOg SSPID,, OY}) SAISNJOUT sayep yIOq \u2018pzoz \u2018ZZ APIA PUL ZZOT \u2018SI IsNsNy Ud9Mj0q PNO[DeSIH Inoqe o1[qnd Surjsoaut 94} 0}\nUOTLUUOJUI SUIped|SIW pu os]e] AT[eLIOJELU POyUIWASSIP syURPUdjaq] 9dO|[e S[JIUIe[_ Ped ]-0FD YOIYAA UI JINSMP] B SATOSAI PMO JUOWIOTOS\nou \u2018(,siuepuajag,, au \u2018AjaATI9T[09) \u2018diod jeyidesd sigoy pure \u2018ony sysurg \u201cSuenyzy Bury \u2018UIT] yueLy \u2018ny sewoyy, \u201c\u2018uoyD naz \u2018ney preg\nTOE] YOMY \u2018ULM UTX \u2018NM IoT AueyT \u201c(,pnopgesin,,) sul Adopouypey, pnoyjesiyH ysurese suelo Jo Juowapes posodoid v useq sey SIO],\n\n\u2018NOLLVAMOANI FIOW AOA WOD INAWATLLIASSALLIENOASGNIO TIVOID MMM LISTA ASVATA\nUNAWATLLAS FHL LAOWV NOLLVAMOANT CALIATI X'INO SAGIAOUd CAV SIBLE\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page jEXHIBIT D\n\nAFFIDAVIT\n\nSTATE OF NEW JERSEY )\n\n) ss:\nCITY OF MONMOUTH JUNCTION, in the COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX )\n\nI, Keith Oechsner, being duly sworn, depose and say that | am the advertising clerk of the Publisher of\nINVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY, a weekly national newspaper of general circulation throughout the\nUnited States, and that the notice attached to this Affidavit has been regularly\n\npublished in INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY for National distribution for\n\n1 insertion(s) on the following date(s):\n\nJUL-21-2025;\nADVERTISER: GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC;\n\nand that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\nfideo ~\n\nSworn to before me this\n21 dayof July 2025\n\nfe\nx\n\nNotary Public\n\nnteeelteeterag,,\n\n>\nS *, .\n% *Seneey wet\u201d Q\n\n\u201cty OF wew oo\n\nHt\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-2 Filed 10/01/25 Page 15of18\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nIN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC SECURITIES LITIGATION | No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\nTHIS DOCUMENT RELATESTO: ALLACTIONS\nSUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION\nFOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES.\n\nTo: All persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary shares of\nGigaCloud Technology Inc (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d) during the dvdr from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both\ndates inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), and were all tt by (the \u201cSettl t Class\").\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs, on\nbehalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and GigaCloud, Larry Lei Wu, Xin Wan,\nKwok Hei David Lau, Zhiwu Chen, Thomas Liu, and Aegis Capital Corp (collectively, the \u201cSettling Defendants\u201d),\nhave reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the \u201cAction\u201d) in the\namount of $2,750,000 (the \u201cSettlement\u2019).\n\nA hearing will be held remotely on October 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman of\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d) to determine\nwhether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss\nthe Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 16, 2025: (iii)\napprove the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the \u201cNet Settlement\nFund\u201d) to Settlement Class Members: and (iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The\nCourt may change the date of the Settlement Hearing or change it to an in-person hearing without providing\nanother written notice. Information about the hearing, including instructions for remote access, will be posted\nat www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a\ndistribution from the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nIF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY\nTHE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have\nnot yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at:\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology inc Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063\n(866) 274-4004\ninfo@strategicclaims.net\nInquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead\n\nCounsel:\nPOMERANTZ LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\nJeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.\nJonathan D. Park, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq.\n600 Third Avenue, 20\" Floor, NewYork, NY 10016 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10016\nwww. pomlaw.com www. rosenlegal.com\n(212) 661-1100 (212) 686-1060\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,\nyou must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no fater than October 6, 2025. If you area\nSettlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the\ndistribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered\nby the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must\nsubmit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is\nreceived no later than September 18, 2025. |f you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you\nwill not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable\nor unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nAny objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application, and/or the\nproposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person or, for users of the Court's\nElectronic Case Filing system, by that system, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the\ninstructions in the Notice, such that they are received no fater than September 18, 2025.\n\nPLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS\u2019 COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.\nDATED: JUNE 20, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\fCase Al228oGW2bQ645-JMF MORMUAWAGND PERFORMANCE 10/01/25 Pageod of 18\n\nie To ei | ie Ta -\u00ab |ae Ta ee | ie Dm \u00abie Ta ee | Tm @ |ie Ta ee | Wi @\nPeters, ix ieat ie leet WE % iar dena WT | Reiners ide eon | Paterna 5 we dae ar | Ferranes % ie oat | Patras Sir leo et | Ferrans % it ot KY\nRang | Ford | Cg hCag RoBi ley Chg | Rang [Fond [Chg Chg Rca} ate | Chg | Rang | Ferd [hg hChglTortin) tw Chg | Rating [Fond [Chg ChgiRerEm] Pak Chg | Rar [Ferd |hg hg farm] Woep| Chg | Rang 1 Fomd Chg [Chg farsa] Toke Chg | Radng [Rad 1 Cy Hty eriin| ele 1ehg | Rang [Fond | Chg Chg aco abn Cig\nA Copp | +5+17+12 a G49] A Fim Ll \u00ab241912 1255 O04 Aa a wee 662 OA | A Focused = e212 MLE O52 | D+ShortTermB+d+1 +2 9.19 000 | A MOG) = +1222 +10 12048 1.07 | Vanguard Feds bow C-SmCoOpy -3e1d 9 B70 OA\nAMidCap | +712+10 441 a2 a bed ah Od AMUDG AR 4 AN OF CeMC\u00a5I e4eT1-11 6350 O66 | $1617 DU BOD 462-7799 \u2018Victory Mic Won |\n\nH-SWMBad \u00ab2st \u00ab5 1700 008 jdet7s11 1270 Wd osu 00 455 A None H+19 9 8 OB ReMCpL Bb 030MM 206 | A DIVEnty \u2014 -J6Ag-11 Set 038 | gona peo\n\nPSMOne seth MO G40 Aci eit 9 26M, UG (ASK oe of BB OT |etdn ee a A E Allnprm 2-0 2 ib) Osa 0k of ZO |p vacua et\nA-SAMSH A B15 of 2419-019 | AeLg-Coptro lQeZ7+14 34.Mo 025 | AvLCGrO \u2014_+7e2he11 TBAT O12 | Tomchatons Fonds Gen $24uloN 2-779 E MVLngTim 20 +1 1050-002 | A GCap lye \u00ab15-15 15 Be O07 Trt\nPrincipal Fens ieat Ae MCTTKALE +116 +11 25.60 0.14 | Thlvont Fume $ $4301 O58 ON? fe tangy ood AZ 6 | E PALng-Tim 240 +1 1020-008 | Ae GID Egy +1622 \u00ab9 A10ln 04 $25b1 020-194\nSeduion nase A SRPSOD kh, B01 $2: O82 ssstiaman ans Be MiCap 21 ok SGD Oot | elineLgeake +244) \u00ab10 447% OM |B PacStk \u2014lGeld 4 10Gb O55 |B Ind Emir =Zh1G 8 197% O19\n542 0 TION [CHSC oN) 9 36H OM eld 3 a ou fartton snag i UneSetero +f+10-+10 36:74 0.90 RAE eyed ML 069 | int'Val \u2014\nGlobeNewswire Release Distribution Confirmation: Pomerantz LLP\n\n1 message\n\ndonotreply@globenewswire.com Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 9:01 AM\n\nTo: mcraig@strategicclaims.net\nCc: jbravata@strategicclaims.net, mcraig@strategicclaims.net\n\nF notified\n\nBoost the trust and credibility of your next press release. Get CLEAR Verified by GlobeNewswire\n\nRelease Distribution Confirmation\n\nPomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announce\nProposed Class Action Settlement on Behalf of Purchasers\nof Class A Ordinary Shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc \u2014\nGCT\n\nCross time: 07/21/25 09:00 AM ET: Eastern Time - View release on\nGlobeNewswire.com\n\nThis email message serves as a formal confirmation that your release was transmitted\non GlobeNewswire's distribution network as requested, including any fax or email\nbroadcasts.\n\nIf you have any questions, comments or concerns, please reply to this message, contact\nyour account manager, or call our Customer Service Center at 800-307-6627, or\n310-642-6930\n\nThis message was distributed by GlobeNewswire.\n2321 Rosecrans Ave. Ste 2200, El Segundo, CA, 90245, USA. +1-800-307-6627. www.globenewswire.com\n\nYou received this email because you have an account with GlobeNewswire.\n\nIf you have any questions, please send an email to support@globenewswire.com or Contact Us\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-2 Filed 10/01/25\n\n\u00a9 | \"Gaieyeronie\n\nShare\n\nR@&s\n\nPemerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announce Proposed Class...\n\nPomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announce\nProposed Class Action Settlement on Behalf of Purchasers of\nClass A Ordinary Shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc \u2014 GCT\n\nJuly 21, 2025 09:00 ET | Source: Pomerantz LLP &>\n\nNEW YORK, July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerartz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announce that the United States District\nCourt for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that woulc\n\nbenefit purchasers of Class A ordinary shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc (NASDAQ: GCT)\n\nSUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS\nACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\nTo: All persons and entitles who or that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc (\"GigaCloud\")\nduring the period fram August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive {the \u201cClass Period\"), and were allegedly damaged thereby {the\n\u201cSettlement Class\").\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for\nthe Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves ard all members of the proposec\nSettlement Class, and GigaCloud, Larry Lei Wu, Xin Wan, Kwok Hei David Lau, Zhiwu Chen, Thomas Liu, ard Aegis Capital Corp (collectively\nthe \u201cSettling Defendants\"), have reached a proposec settlement of the claims in the above-captioned cass action (the \u201cAction\") in the amount\n\nof $2,750,000 (the \u201cSettlement\u201d}\n\nA hearing will be held remotely on October 9, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for\n\nthe Southern District of New York, (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d) to determine whether the Court should: {i} approve the proposed Settlement as\n\nfair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Sti ion and Ag of Settlement, dated June\n16, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement [the \u201cNet Settlement Fund\u201d) te\nSettlement Class Members; and f{iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the\nSettlement Hearing or change it to an in-person hearing without providing another written notice. Infcrmation about the hearing, including\n\ninstructions for remote access, will be posted at www.gigacl com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing\n\nto receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund,\n\nIF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU\nMAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these\n\ndocuments by visiting www.gi .corr or by contacting the Claims Administrator at:\n\ninte GigaCloud Technology Ine Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 23C\n600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\nMedia, PA 19063.\n(866) 274-4004\n\ninfo@strategicclaims.net\n\nInquiries, other than requests for information abott the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:\n\nPOMERANTZ LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\nJeremy A. Lieberman, Esq Laurence M. Rosen, Esq\nJonathan D. Park, Esq Brian B. Alexander, Esq\n600 Third Avenue, 20 Floor 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\nNew York, NY 1001\u20ac New York, NY 1001\u20ac\nwww.pomlaw.cor www rosenleg:\n(212) 661-110C (212) 686-106C\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligibe to share in the distribution of the Net Settlemert Fund, you must submit a Claim Form\npostmarked or submitted online ne later then October 8, 2025. \\f you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Clair\nForm, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will revertheless be bound by all judgments or\n\norders entered by the Court relating to the Settierrent, whether favorable or unfavorable.\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusior\nin accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than September 18, 2025. \\f you properly exclude\nyourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether\n\nfavorable or unfavorable, and you will not be elig ble to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nAny objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be\nfiled with the Court, either by mail or in person cr, for users of the Court\u2019s Electronic Case Filing system, by that system, and be mailed te\ncounsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no ister than September 18, 2025.\n\nPLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR\nDEFENDANTS\u2019 COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.\n\nDATED: JUNE 20, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nGlass Action\n\nPage 18 of 18\n\nCompany Profile\n\nPomerantz LLP\nIndustry: Industrial Goods & Services\n\nPrass Release Actions\n\nPrint\nDownload PDF\n\n\u2018on via RES\nSubscribe via ATOM\nJavascript\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:42:47.201300-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311106","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A Part 2 (M Craig Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664867/","id":483664867,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/3/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:52.148814-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:05:39.244040-07:00","sha1":"3b9fb5167411ebadb7e9153b8bd6488e626e7a08","page_count":4,"file_size":444925,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-3 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-3 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DECLARATION OF\n SASHI RAJAN\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\nI, Sashi Rajan, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of final approval of the settlement\n\nof this Action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration.\n\n 2. I am 54 years old, a software engineer, and have been investing in the securities\n\nmarkets for over 15 years. My hourly rate, as a software engineer, is $140.\n\n 3. I have been involved in the prosecution of this case since my filing of a lead plaintiff\n\nmotion on December 4, 2023. On January 19, 2024, the Court appointed me and Meir Spear as\n\nCo-Lead Plaintiffs. ECF No. 54.\n\n 4. As Co-Lead Plaintiff, I have worked closely with Pomerantz LLP Pomerantz ,\n\nto prosecute this Action. In particular, I: (a) communicated with my attorneys regarding the case,\n\nas well as strategy; (b) reviewed information about the case; (c) produced information and\n\ndocuments to my attorneys; (d) reviewed significant filings in the Action; (e) consulted with my\n\nattorneys regarding the settlement negotiations; and (f) evaluated and approved the proposed\n\nSettlement.\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-3 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 5. I have evaluated the risks of continued litigation and trial, including the risk of no\n\nrecovery at all, and, in light of that evaluation, authorized the attorneys at Pomerantz to settle the\n\nAction on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. I believe the Settlement is fair and reasonable,\n\nrepresents an exceptional result, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, I\n\nstrongly endorse approval of the Settlement by the Court.\n\n 6. I believe that Co-Lead\n\namount of 33.4% of the $2,750,000 Settlement Amount is fair and reasonable in light of the result\n\nand work Co-Lead Counsel performed on behalf of the Settlement Class. I have evaluated Co-\n\nLead\n\nSettlement Class, and the risks of continued litigation, and have authorized this fee request for the\n\n .\n\n 7. I further believe that the litigation expenses that Co-Lead Counsel have requested\n\nreimbursement for are reasonable, and represent costs and expenses necessary for the prosecution\n\nand resolution of the claims in the Action. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with my\n\nobligation to the Settlement Class to obtain the best result at the most efficient cost, I fully support\n\nCo-Lead request\n\nexpenses.\n\n 8.\n\nexpenses is authorized under the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4). For this reason, in connection\n\nwith Co-Lead litigation expenses, I am seeking\n\nreimbursement for the costs and expenses that I incurred directly relating to my representation of\n\nthe Settlement Class in the Action.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-3 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 9. The time that I devoted to the representation of the Settlement Class in this Action\n\nwas time that I otherwise would have spent working as a software engineer. I seek reimbursement\n\nin the amount of $7,500 for the time I devoted to participating in the Action. I make this request\n\nbased on the conservative effort that I devoted over 25 hours to the litigation-related activities\n\ndescribed above. It is my belief that this request for reimbursement is fair and reasonable.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n Executed on September ___, 2025, in ______________________________.\n\n\n\n Sashi Rajan\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:43:00.370455-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311107","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B (S Rajan Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664868/","id":483664868,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/4/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:52.172895-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:05:39.168880-07:00","sha1":"a2361b0b0cefee95595b096194b0deef06d27ae7","page_count":4,"file_size":450880,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-4 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-4 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DECLARATION OF\n MEIR SPEAR\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\nI, Meir Spear, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of final approval of the settlement\n\nof this Action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration.\n\n 2. I am a CPA and CEO of Spear CPA CFP, as well as a resident of New York. I am\n\na sophisticated investor with over 25 years of experience. My hourly rate, as CEO, is $500.00.\n\n 3. I have been involved in the prosecution of this case since my filing of a lead plaintiff\n\nmotion on December 4, 2023. On January 19, 2024, the Court appointed me and Sashi Rajan as\n\nCo-Lead Plaintiffs. ECF No. 54.\n\n 4. As Co-Lead Plaintiff, I have worked closely with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.\n\n Rosen Law , to prosecute this Action. In particular, I: (a) communicated with my attorneys\n\nregarding the case, as well as strategy; (b) reviewed information about the case; (c) produced\n\ninformation and documents to my attorneys; (d) reviewed significant filings in the Action;\n\n(e) consulted with my attorneys regarding the settlement negotiations; and (f) evaluated and\n\napproved the proposed Settlement.\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-4 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 5. I have evaluated the risks of continued litigation and trial, including the risk of no\n\nrecovery at all, and, in light of that evaluation, authorized the attorneys at Rosen Law to settle the\n\nAction on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. I believe the Settlement is fair and reasonable,\n\nrepresents an exceptional result, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, I\n\nstrongly endorse approval of the Settlement by the Court.\n\n 6. I believe that Co-Lead\n\namount of 33.4% of the $2,750,000 Settlement Amount is fair and reasonable in light of the result\n\nand work Co-Lead Counsel performed on behalf of the Settlement Class. I have evaluated Co-\n\nLead\n\nSettlement Class, and the risks of continued litigation, and have authorized this fee request for the\n\n .\n\n 7. I further believe that the litigation expenses that Co-Lead Counsel have requested\n\nreimbursement for are reasonable, and represent costs and expenses necessary for the prosecution\n\nand resolution of the claims in the Action. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with my\n\nobligation to the Settlement Class to obtain the best result at the most efficient cost, I fully support\n\nCo-Lead request\n\nexpenses.\n\n 8.\n\nexpenses is authorized under the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4). For this reason, in connection\n\nwith Co-Lead litigation expenses, I am seeking\n\nreimbursement for the costs and expenses that I incurred directly relating to my representation of\n\nthe Settlement Class in the Action.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-4 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 9. The time that I devoted to the representation of the Settlement Class in this Action\n\nwas time that I otherwise would have spent working. I seek reimbursement in the amount of $7,500\n\nfor the time I devoted to participating in the Action. I make this request based on the conservative\n\neffort that I devoted over 30 hours to the litigation-related activities described above. It is my belief\n\nthat this request for reimbursement is fair and reasonable.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n Executed on ________________, in Woodmere, New York.\n\n\n\n Meir Spear\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:43:02.339511-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311108","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C (M Spear Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664869/","id":483664869,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/5/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:53.226386-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:09:07.512225-07:00","sha1":"9156f76c2457617bc79c7efcd38d1b2a43474759","page_count":70,"file_size":804307,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT D\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 70\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DECLARATION OF\n JONATHAN D. PARK REGARDING\n ALL ACTIONS ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n I, Jonathan D. Park, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am Of Counsel with the law firm Pomerantz LLP (\u201cPomerantz\u201d). I submit this\n\ndeclaration in support of Plaintiffs\u2019 application for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in connection with\n\nservices rendered in the Action, as well as for reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred in\n\nconnection with the Action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called\n\nupon, could and would testify thereto.\n\n 2. Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, was involved in all aspects of the Action and its\n\nsettlement, as set forth in the Declaration of Jonathan D. Park in Support of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motions for\n\n(I) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and (II) for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees,\n\nReimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs.\n\n 3. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a detailed summary indicating the amount of time\n\nspent by attorneys and professional support staff of my firm who, from inception of the Action\n\nthrough and including August 31, 2025, billed to the Action, and the lodestar calculation for those\n\nindividuals based on my firm\u2019s current billing rates. Exhibit A does not include time spent on the\n\nMotion for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards to\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 70\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiffs. For personnel who are no longer employed by my firm, the lodestar calculation is based\n\nupon the billing rates for such personnel in his or her final year of employment by my firm. The\n\nschedule was prepared from contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and\n\nmaintained by my firm.\n\n 4. I am the attorney who oversaw or conducted the day-to-day activities in the Action\n\nand I reviewed these daily time records in connection with the preparation of this declaration. The\n\npurpose of this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the records as well as the necessity for,\n\nand reasonableness of, the time committed to the litigation. Based on this review, I believe that the\n\ntime of Pomerantz attorneys and staff reflected in Exhibit A was reasonable and necessary for the\n\neffective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the Action.\n\n 5. The hourly rates for the attorneys and professional support staff in my firm included\n\nin Exhibit A are consistent with the rates approved by courts in other securities or shareholder\n\nlitigation when conducting a lodestar cross-check.\n\n 6. The total number of hours reflected in Exhibit A is 830.49 hours. The total lodestar\n\nreflected in Exhibit A is $644,589.00.\n\n 7. My firm\u2019s lodestar figures are based upon the firm\u2019s billing rates, which rates do\n\nnot include charges for expense items. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are\n\nnot duplicated in my firm\u2019s billing rates.\n\n 8. As detailed in Exhibit B, my firm is seeking reimbursement of a total of $57,568.63\n\nin expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this Action.\n\n 9. The litigation expenses incurred in the Action are reflected on the books and records\n\nof my firm. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 70\n\n\n\n\nother source materials and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred. The expenses reflected\n\nin Exhibit B are the expenses actually incurred by my firm.\n\n 10. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is the firm resume of Pomerantz LLP.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th\n\nday of September 2025.\n\n\n /s/ Jonathan D. Park\n Jonathan D. Park\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\n\n In re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation\n Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\n Pomerantz LLP\n\n LODESTAR REPORT\n FROM INCEPTION THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025\n\n\n Hourly\n Professional Title Hours Worked Lodestar\n Rate\nJeremy Lieberman Managing Partner $1,375 4.50 $ 6,187.50\nAlex Hood Partner $1,050 2.30 $2,415.00\nJonathan D. Park Of Counsel $825 658.70 $543,427.50\nJames LoPiano Associate $600 33.59 $20,154.00\nThomas Przybylowski Associate $650 2.80 $1,820.00\nJared Rabinowitz Associate $575 111.80 $64,285.00\nSimon Hall Paralegal $375 16.80 $6,300.00\nTOTALS 830.49 $644,589.00\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\n In re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation\n Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\n Pomerantz LLP\n\n EXPENSE REPORT\n FROM INCEPTION THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025\n\n\n Category Amount\n Expert and Consulting Fees $29,106.00\n Investigator Fees $19,099.00\n Process Server Fees $1,276.00\n Filing Fees $402.00\n Online Legal Research $2,317.49\n Press Release / Notice to Class Member Fees $3,100.00\n Postage and FedEx Fees $233.26\n Travel, Transportation, Hotel, Meals $913.40\n Clerical Overtime $921.36\n Photocopying $200.12\n TOTAL EXPENSES $57,568.63\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8 of 70\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 9 of 70\n\n\n\n\nHistory Pomerantz LLP is one of the most respected law firms in the United States dedicated\nto representing investors. The Firm was founded in 1936 by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,\nwidely regarded as a legal pioneer and \u201cdean\u201d of the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, who helped secure\nthe right of investors to bring class and derivative actions.\n\nLeadership Today, led by Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, the Firm maintains the\ncommitments to excellence and integrity passed down by Abe Pomerantz.\n\nResults Pomerantz achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for defrauded investors in 2018\nas well as precedent-setting legal rulings, in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation. Pomerantz\nconsistently shapes the law, winning landmark decisions that expand and protect investor rights\nand initiating historic corporate governance reforms.\n\nGlobal Expertise Beyond its three American offices, the Firm has offices in Paris,\nLondon, and Tel Aviv. Pomerantz also partners with an extensive network of prominent law firms\nacross the globe to assist clients, wherever they are situated, in recovering monies lost due to\ncorporate misconduct and securities fraud. Our team of attorneys is collectively fluent in English,\nArabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish,\nand Ukrainian.\n\nPractice Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights through our\nsecurities litigation services and portfolio monitoring service. The Firm represents some of the\nlargest and most influential pension funds, asset managers and institutional investors around the\nglobe, monitoring assets of over $9.4 trillion and growing. Pomerantz\u2019s practice includes\ncorporate governance, antitrust, and strategic consumer litigation.\n\nRecognition Pomerantz has been recognized as a top tier firm by The Legal 500, Benchmark\nLitigation, and Chambers USA, among others. In 2020, Pomerantz was named the Plaintiff Firm of\nthe Year by Benchmark Litigation and honored with European Pensions\u2019 inaugural Thought\nLeadership Award. Courts across the country have noted the quality of our legal work, and\nPomerantz attorneys regularly receive praise from their peers. The 2024 Benchmark Litigation\nguide describes Pomerantz\u2019s \u201cprodigious capacity for cases and its tenacity to keep pursuing\nthem\u201d as well as the Firm\u2019s work on litigation \u201cwith more meaningful angles.\u201d The Firm\u2019s attorneys\nhave been recognized by major industry publications, including The National Law Journal, The\nNew York Law Journal, Law360, and Lawdragon. Among the prestigious honors received by\nPomerantz attorneys are the Benchmark Litigation Plaintiff Litigator of the Year Award (Jeremy\nLieberman, 2019; Emma Gilmore 2024), New York Law Journal Innovation Award (Jennifer Pafiti,\n2023), 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\nwww.pomlaw.com 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10 of 70\n\n\n\n\n Securities Litigation\n Significant Landmarks\n\nIn re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\nOn January 3, 2018, in a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz, as sole Lead Counsel for the class,\nalong with Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (\u201cUSS\u201d), achieved a historic $2.95\nbillion settlement with Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A. (\u201cPetrobras\u201d) and its related entity, Petrobras International\nFinance Company, as well as certain of Petrobras\u2019 former executives and directors. On February 2, 2018,\nPomerantz and USS reached a $50 million settlement with Petrobras\u2019 auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers\nAuditores Independentes, bringing the total recovery for Petrobras investors to $3 billion.\n\nThis is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever\nin a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever\nachieved in the United States, the largest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead\nPlaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of\nfinancial reports.\n\nThe class action, brought on behalf of all purchasers of common and preferred American Depositary\nShares (\u201cADSs\u201d) on the New York Stock Exchange, as well as purchasers of certain Petrobras debt,\nprincipally alleged that Petrobras and its senior executives engaged in a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar\nmoney-laundering and bribery scheme, which was concealed from investors.\n\nIn addition to the multi-billion-dollar recovery for defrauded investors, Pomerantz secured precedent-\nsetting decisions when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals squarely rejected defendants\u2019 invitation to\nadopt the heightened ascertainability requirement promulgated by the Third Circuit, which would have\nrequired plaintiffs to demonstrate that determining membership in a class is \u201cadministratively feasible.\u201d\nThe Second Circuit\u2019s rejection of this standard is not only a victory for bondholders in securities class\nactions, but also for plaintiffs in consumer fraud class actions and other class actions where\ndocumentation regarding Class membership is not readily attainable. The Second Circuit also refused to\nadopt a requirement, urged by defendants, that all securities class action plaintiffs seeking class\ncertification prove through direct evidence (i.e., an event study) that the prices of the relevant securities\nmoved in a particular direction in response to new information.\n\nPirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\nIn August 2019, Pomerantz, as Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $110 million settlement for the\nClass in this high-profile securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Fiat Chrysler concealed from\ninvestors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software designed to cheat\nNOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat Chrysler of\nviolating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors with as much\nas 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics in class action\nsettlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11 of 70\n\n\n\n\nIn addition to creating precedent-setting case law in successfully defending the various motions to dismiss\nthe Fiat Chrysler litigation, Pomerantz also significantly advanced investors\u2019 ability to obtain critically\nimportant discovery from regulators that are often at the center of securities actions. During the litigation,\nPomerantz sought the deposition of a former employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety\nAdministration (\u201cNHTSA\u201d). The United States Department of Transportation (\u201cUSDOT\u201d), like most federal\nagencies, has enacted a set of regulations\u2014known as \u201cTouhy regulations\u201d\u2014governing when its\nemployees may be called by private parties to testify in court. On their face, USDOT\u2019s regulations apply to\nboth \u201ccurrent\u201d and \u201cformer\u201d employees. In response to Pomerantz\u2019s request to depose a former\nemployee of NHSTA that interacted with Fiat Chrysler, NHTSA denied the request, citing the Touhy\nregulation. Despite the widespread application, and assumed appropriateness, of applying these\nregulations to former employees throughout the case law, Pomerantz filed an action against USDOT and\nNHTSA, arguing that the statute pursuant to which the Touhy regulations were enacted speaks only of\n\u201cemployees,\u201d which should be interpreted to apply only to current employees. The court granted\nsummary judgment in favor of Pomerantz\u2019s clients, holding that \u201cUSDOT\u2019s Touhy regulations are unlawful\nto the extent that they apply to former employees.\u201d This victory will greatly shift the discovery tools\navailable, so that investor plaintiffs in securities class actions against highly regulated entities (for\nexample, companies subject to FDA regulations) will now be able to depose former employees of the\nregulators that interacted with the defendants during the class period to get critical testimony concerning\nthe company\u2019s violations and misdeeds.\n\nKarimi v. Deutsche Bank AG, 1:22-cv-02854 (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nOn September 27, 2022, Pomerantz reached a $26.25 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors\nin a securities class action against Deutsche Bank AG. The settlement represents over 49% of estimated\nrecoverable damages, far in excess of the 1.8% median recovery in similar cases.\n\nThe complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank failed to properly adhere to its own Know Your Customer\n(\u201cKYC\u201d) policies when dealing with customers it considered high-risk, such as accused sex offender Jeffrey\nEpstein, Russian oligarchs and politically exposed persons (\u201cPEPs\u201d) reportedly engaged in criminal\nactivities. The Bank repeatedly assured investors that it had \u201cdeveloped effective procedures for assessing\nclients and processes for accepting new clients in order to facilitate comprehensive compliance\u201d with\nthese policies. In reality, however, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly exempted high net-\nworth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, further enabling their crimes through the\nuse of the Bank\u2019s facilities.\n\nFor example, in 2013, Deutsche Bank took on Jeffrey Epstein as a client, despite his previous convictions\nfor and new allegations of child sex trafficking and abuse. Because Epstein was regarded as a \u201chigh-risk\u201d\ncustomer, he should have been subject to the strict due diligence required by the Bank\u2019s KYC program;\nhowever, he was instead classified as an \u201cHonorary PEP,\u201d and his activities within the Bank were allowed\nto continue, largely due to the business he could generate for the Bank. Prior to his onboarding as a client,\n\u201c40 underage girls had come forward with testimony of Epstein sexually assaulting them,\u201d and despite\nthese allegations, Deutsche Bank remained \u201ccomfortable with things continuing.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12 of 70\n\n\n\n\nHoward v. Arconic et al., No. 2:17-cv-01057 (W.D.Pa.)\n\nIn August 2023, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $74 million settlement on\nbehalf of defrauded investors in a securities class action against the American industrial company Arconic.\n\nOn June 14, 2017, a devastating fire broke out in the Grenfell Tower block of flats in London, United\nKingdom, resulting in the deaths of 72 people and injuries to more than 70 other tenants. In the wake of\nthe tragedy, numerous investigations were conducted, ultimately revealing that, while an electrical fault\nwithin the building instigated the blaze, Arconic\u2019s Reynobond PE panels, which covered the outside of the\nbuilding, likely acted as an accelerant, contributing to the rapid spread of the flames to the floors above.\n\nIn August 2017, Pomerantz filed a securities class action against Arconic alleging that its stock price was\nartificially inflated during the Class Period by the company\u2019s misstatements about the safety of its\nReynobond PE insulating panels. Following a partial dismissal, Pomerantz filed a second amended\ncomplaint, which cited numerous instances in which Arconic sold Reynobond PE panels for use in other\nhigh-rise towers in the UK and across the globe.\n\nNotably, despite the United States\u2019 near universal ban of combustible Reynobond for buildings taller than\ntwelve meters (40 feet), plaintiffs found that Arconic had sold these panels for use in the construction of\nnumerous structures measuring twelve meters or higher throughout the country, including a terminal at\nthe Dallas/Fort Worth airport and Ohio\u2019s Cleveland Browns stadium. The complaint also pointed to at\nleast eighteen other instances in which deadly fires had spread through exterior wall assemblies, most of\nwhich involved high-rise buildings. The new allegations included in the second amended complaint\nconvinced Chief U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak to not only change his mind on many of the claims he\nhad previously dismissed, but also to make new law in plaintiffs favor on several significant issues,\nincluding the element of scienter, i.e., intent to deceive investors.\n\nThe $74 million settlement represents approximately 22% of recoverable damages for defrauded Arconic\nshareholders, an amount far exceeding the 1.8% median recovery for all securities class action settlements\nin 2022.\n\nKaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P, No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y.)\nIn May 2017, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $135 million recovery for the\nClass in this securities class action that stemmed from what has been called the most profitable insider\ntrading scheme in U.S. history. After years of vigorous litigation, billionaire Steven A. Cohen's former\nhedge fund, S.A.C. Capital Advisors LP, agreed to settle the lawsuit by investors in the drug maker Elan\nCorp, who said they lost money because of insider trading by one of his portfolio managers.\n\nIn re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2185 (S.D. Tex.)\nBeginning in 2012, Pomerantz pursued ground-breaking individual lawsuits for institutional investors to\nrecover losses in BP p.l.c.\u2019s London-traded common stock and NYSE-traded American Depository Shares\n(ADSs) arising from its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Over nine years, Pomerantz briefed and argued every\nsignificant dispute on behalf of 125+ institutional plaintiffs, successfully opposed three motions to dismiss,\nwon other contested motions, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million party and non-party documents, led\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13 of 70\n\n\n\n\nthe Individual Action Plaintiffs Steering Committee, served as sole Liaison with BP and the Court, and\nworked tirelessly with our clients\u2019 outside investment management firms to develop crucial case evidence.\n\nA threshold challenge was how to litigate in U.S. court given the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Morrison\nv. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), which barred recovery for losses in foreign-traded\nsecurities under the U.S. federal securities laws. In 2013 and 2014, Pomerantz won significant victories in\ndefeating BP\u2019s forum non conveniens arguments, which sought to force dismissal of the English common\nlaw claims from U.S. courts for refiling in English courts, first as regards U.S. institutions and, later, foreign\ninstitutions. Pomerantz also defeated BP\u2019s attempt to extend the U.S. federal Securities Litigation Uniform\nStandards Act of 1998 to reach, and dismiss, these foreign law claims in deference to non-existent\nremedies under the U.S. federal securities laws. These rulings paved the way for 125+ global institutional\ninvestors to pursue their claims and marked the first time, post-Morrison, that U.S. and foreign investors,\npursuing foreign claims seeking recovery for losses in a foreign company\u2019s foreign-traded securities, did\nso in a U.S. court. In 2017, Pomerantz earned an important victory that expanded investor rights under\nEnglish law, permitting certain BP investors to pursue a \u201cholder claim\u201d theory seeking to recover losses in\nsecurities held, rather than purchased anew, in reliance on the alleged fraud\u2014a theory barred under the\nU.S. federal securities laws since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). This win\nwas significant, given the dearth of precedent from anywhere recognizing the viability of a \u201cholder claim\u201d\nunder any non-U.S. law and holding that a given plaintiff alleged facts sufficiently evidencing reliance and\ndocumenting the resulting retention of an identifiable amount of shares on a date certain.\n\nIn Q1 2021, Pomerantz secured confidential, favorable monetary settlements from BP for our nearly three\ndozen clients, including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and\ninvestment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia.\n\nIn re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.)\nIn June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York\ngranted final approval of a $225 million settlement proposed by Pomerantz and Lead Plaintiff the Menora\nGroup, with Comverse Technology and certain of Comverse\u2019s former officers and directors, after four\nyears of highly contested litigation. The Comverse settlement is one of the largest securities class action\nsettlements reached since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).1 It is the\nsecond-largest recovery in a securities litigation involving the backdating of options, as well as one of the\nlargest recoveries\u2014$60 million\u2014from an individual officer-defendant, Comverse\u2019s founder and former\nCEO, Kobi Alexander.\n\n Other Significant Settlements\n\nEven before the enactment of the PSLRA, Pomerantz represented state agencies in securities class actions,\nincluding the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (recovered $100 million) against a major\ninvestment bank. In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litig., No. 91-cv-5471 (S.D.N.Y.).\n\nPomerantz recovered $50 million for the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey and several New Jersey\npension funds in an individual action. This was a substantially higher recovery than what our clients would\n\n1 Institutional Shareholder Services, SCAS Top 100 Settlements Quarterly Report (Sept. 30, 2010).\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 14 of 70\n\n\n\n\nhave obtained had they remained in a related federal class action. Treasurer of State of New Jersey v. AOL\nTime Warner, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., Mercer Cty.).\n\nPomerantz has litigated numerous cases for the Louisiana School Employees\u2019 Retirement System. For\nexample, as Lead Counsel, Pomerantz recovered $74.75 million in a securities fraud class action against\nCitigroup, its CEO Sanford Weill, and its now infamous telecommunications analyst Jack Grubman. In re\nSalomon Analyst AT&T Litig., No. 02-cv-6801 (S.D.N.Y.) Also, the Firm played a major role in a complex\nantitrust and securities class action which settled for over $1 billion. In re NASDAQ Market-Makers\nAntitrust Litig., MDL No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.). Pomerantz was a member of the Executive Committee in In re\nTranskaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165 (D. Mass.), helping to win a $50\nmillion settlement for the class.\n\nIn 2008, together with Co-Counsel, Pomerantz identified a substantial opportunity for recovery of losses\nin Countrywide mortgage-backed securities (\"MBS\") for three large New Mexico funds (New Mexico State\nInvestment Council, New Mexico Public Employees' Retirement Association, and New Mexico Educational\nRetirement Board), which had been overlooked by all of the firms then in their securities litigation pool.\nWe then filed the first non-class lawsuit by a public institution with respect to Countrywide MBS. See N.M.\nState Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct.). In Fall 2010,\nwe negotiated for our clients an extremely favorable but confidential settlement.\n\nOver its long history, Pomerantz has achieved significant settlements in numerous cases, a sampling of\nwhich appears below:\n\n\u2022 In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\n $3 billion settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\n $110 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel\n\u2022 In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-00373 (N.D. Cal. 2018)\n $80 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel\n\u2022 In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262\n $31 million partial settlement with three defendants in this multi-district litigation in which Pomerantz\n represents the Berkshire Bank and the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico\n\u2022 Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)\n $135 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 In re Groupon, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 12-cv-02450 (N.D. Ill. 2015)\n $45 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-2860 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)\n $75 million settlement in class action arising out of alleged accounting manipulations.\n\u2022 In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Stockholders Litig., No. 00-cv-736-17 (D.S.C. 2004)\n $54.5 million in total settlements in class action alleging accounting manipulations by corporate\n officials and auditors; last settlement reached on eve of trial.\n\u2022 Duckworth v. Country Life Ins. Co., No. 1998-CH-01046 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. 2000)\n $45 million recovery.\n\u2022 Snyder v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 97/0633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Onondaga Cty. 1998)\n Settlement valued at $100 million in derivative case arising from injuries to consumers purchasing life\n insurance policies.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 15 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 In re National Health Lab., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 92-1949 (S.D. Cal. 1995)\n $64 million recovery.\n\u2022 In re First Executive Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 89-cv-07135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n $102 million recovery for the class, exposing a massive securities fraud arising out of the Michael\n Milken debacle.\n\u2022 In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Litig., MDL No. 712 (D. Conn. 1994)\n Over $66 million benefit in securities fraud action.\n\u2022 In re Telerate, Inc. S\u2019holders Litig., C.A. No. 1115 (Del. Ch. 1989)\n $95 million benefit in case alleging violation of fiduciary duty under state law.\n\nPomerantz has also obtained stellar results for private institutions and Taft-Hartley funds. Below are a few\nexamples:\n\n\u2022 In re Charter Commc\u2019ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-1186 (E.D. Mo. 2005) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead\n Plaintiff StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC); $146.25 million class settlement, where Charter also\n agreed to enact substantive improvements in corporate governance.\n\u2022 In re Am. Italian Pasta Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-865 (W.D. Mo. 2008) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 and 417; $28.5 million aggregate settlements).\n\u2022 Richardson v. Gray, No. 116880/1995 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999); and In re Summit Metals, No. 98-\n 2870 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) (two derivative actions where the Firm represented C.C. Partners Ltd. and\n obtained judgment of contempt against controlling shareholder for having made \u201cextraordinary\u201d\n payments to himself in violation of a preliminary injunction; persuaded the court to jail him for two\n years upon his refusal to pay; and, in a related action, won a $43 million judgment after trial and\n obtained turnover of stock of two companies).\n\n Shaping the Law\n\nNot only has Pomerantz established a long track record of obtaining substantial monetary recoveries for\nour clients; whenever appropriate, we also pursue corporate governance reforms on their behalf. In In re\nChesapeake Shareholders Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. 2011), for\nexample, the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel, representing a public pension client in a derivative case\narising from an excessive compensation package granted to Chesapeake\u2019s CEO and founder. This was a\nderivative action, not a class action. Yet it is illustrative of the results that can be obtained by an\ninstitutional investor in the corporate governance arena. There we obtained a settlement which called for\nthe repayment of $12.1 million and other consideration by the CEO. The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 3, 2011)\ncharacterized the settlement as \u201ca rare concession for the 52-year-old executive, who has run the\ncompany largely by his own rules since he co-founded it in 1989.\u201d The settlement also included\ncomprehensive corporate governance reforms.\n\nThe Firm has won many landmark decisions that have enhanced shareholders\u2019 rights and improved\ncorporate governance. These include decisions that established that:\n\n\u2022 defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance on an efficient market must do so by a\n preponderance of the evidence. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v.\n Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 16 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 plaintiffs have no burden to show price impact at the class certification stage. Waggoner v. Barclays\n PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v. Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n\u2022 the ascertainability doctrine requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish\n a membership with definite boundaries. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petr\u00f3leo\n Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017);\n\u2022 companies cannot adopt bylaws to regulate the rights of former stockholders. Strougo v. Hollander,\n C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015);\n\u2022 a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective disclosure\n does not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. Acticon AG v. China Ne. Petroleum Holdings Ltd.,\n 692 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2012);\n\u2022 an MBS holder may bring claims if the MBS price declines even if all payments of principal and interest\n have been made. Transcript of Proceedings, N.M. State Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-\n 0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 25, 2009);\n\u2022 when a court selects a Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), the\n standard for calculating the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d must take into account sales as well as\n purchases. In re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-cv-1825, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 (E.D.N.Y.\n Mar. 2, 2007);\n\u2022 a managing underwriter can owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to an issuer in connection with a\n public offering of the issuer stock, even in the absence of any contractual agreement. Professor John\n C. Coffee, a renowned Columbia University securities law professor, commenting on the ruling, stated:\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to change the practice of all underwriting.\u201d EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y. 3d 11\n (2005);\n\u2022 purchasers of options have standing to sue under federal securities laws. In re Green Tree Fin. Corp.\n Options Litig., No. 97-2679, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13986 (D. Minn. July 29, 2002);\n\u2022 shareholders have a right to a jury trial in derivative actions. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970);\n\u2022 a company may have the obligation to disclose to shareholders its Board\u2019s consideration of important\n corporate transactions, such as the possibility of a spin-off, even before any final decision has been\n made. Kronfeld v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 832 F.2d 726 (2d Cir. 1987);\n\u2022 specific standards for assessing whether mutual fund advisors breach fiduciary duties by charging\n excessive fees. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., 740 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1984);\n\u2022 investment advisors to mutual funds are fiduciaries who cannot sell their trustee positions for a profit.\n Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d 1337 (2d Cir. 1971); and\n\u2022 management directors of mutual funds have a duty to make full disclosure to outside directors \u201cin\n every area where there was even a possible conflict of interest.\u201d Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369 (1st\n Cir. 1971).\n\n Comments from the Courts\n\nThroughout its history, courts time and again have acknowledged the Firm\u2019s ability to vigorously pursue\nand successfully litigate actions on behalf of investors.\n\nU.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation\nsettlement in October 2019, stated:\n\n I commend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and\n thoughtful submissions during the motion practice aspect of this case . . . It\u2019s clear to me\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 17 of 70\n\n\n\n\n that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\n the settlement . . . This settlement appears to have been obtained through the hard work\n of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their efforts and not piggybacking on any other\n work that resulted in this settlement.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\nDistrict of New York wrote:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\nIn approving the $3 billion settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in June 2018, Judge Jed S.\nRakoff of the Southern District of New York wrote:\n\n [T]he Court finds that Class Counsel's performance was in many respects exceptional, with\n the result that, as noted, the class is poised to enjoy a substantially larger per share\n recovery [65%] than the recovery enjoyed by numerous large and sophisticated plaintiffs\n who separately settled their claims.\n\nAt the hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February\n2018, Judge Rakoff stated:\n\n [T]he lawyers in this case [are] some of the best lawyers in the United States, if not in the\n world.\n\nTwo years earlier, in certifying two Classes in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February 2016, Judge\nRakoff wrote:\n\n [O]n the basis not only of USS\u2019s counsel\u2019s prior experience but also the Court\u2019s\n observation of its advocacy over the many months since it was appointed Lead Counsel,\n the Court concludes that Pomerantz, the proposed class counsel, is \u201cqualified,\n experienced and able to conduct the litigation.\u201d . . . [T]he Pomerantz firm has both the\n skill and resources to represent the Classes adequately.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880, 2016\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 144133 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2016) Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote:\n\n Class Counsel has developed a reputation for zealous advocacy in securities class actions\n . . . The settlement amount of $24 million is an outstanding result.\n\nAt the May 2015 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in Courtney v. Avid Technology, Inc.,\nNo. 13-cv-10686 (D. Mass. May 12, 2015), following oral argument by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Judge William\nG. Young stated:\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 18 of 70\n\n\n\n\n This has been very well litigated. It is always a privilege. I don't just say that as a matter\n of form. And I thank you for the vigorous litigation that I've been permitted to be a part\n of. [Tr. at 8-9.]\n\nAt the January 2012 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in In re Chesapeake Energy Corp.\nShareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. Jan. 30, 2012), following\noral argument by Marc I. Gross, Judge Daniel L. Owens stated:\n\n Counsel, it\u2019s a pleasure, and I mean this and rarely say it. I think I\u2019ve said it two times in\n 25 years. It is an extreme pleasure to deal with counsel of such caliber. [Tr. at 48.])\n\nIn approving the $225 million settlement in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-\nCV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.) in June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis stated:\n\n As outlined above, the recovery in this case is one of the highest ever achieved in this type\n of securities action . . . The court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been\n impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s acumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough,\n clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has not taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts\n at any stage of the litigation.\n\nIn approving a $146.25 million settlement in In re Charter Communications Securities Litigation, No. 02-\nCV-1186, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14772 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2005), in which Pomerantz served as sole Lead\nCounsel, Judge Charles A. Shaw praised the Firm\u2019s efforts, citing \u201cthe vigor with which Lead Counsel . . .\ninvestigated claims, briefed the motions to dismiss, and negotiated the settlement.\u201d He further stated:\n\n This Court believes Lead Plaintiff achieved an excellent result in a complex action, where\n the risk of obtaining a significantly smaller recovery, if any, was substantial.\n\nIn approving a $24 million settlement in In re Force Protection, Inc., No. 08 CV 845 (D.S.C. 2011), Judge C.\nWeston Houk described the Firm as \u201cattorneys of great ability and great reputation\u201d and commended the\nFirm for having \u201cdone an excellent job.\u201d\n\nIn certifying a class in a securities fraud action against analysts in DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc.,\n228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Gerard D. Lynch stated that Pomerantz had \u201cably and zealously\nrepresented the interests of the class.\u201d\n\nNumerous courts have made similar comments:\n\n\u2022 Appointing Pomerantz Lead Counsel in American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, No 05-CV-0725\n (W.D. Mo.), a class action that involved a massive fraud and restatements spanning several years, the\n District Court observed that the Firm \u201chas significant experience (and has been extremely effective)\n litigating securities class actions, employs highly qualified attorneys, and possesses ample resources\n to effectively manage the class litigation and protect the class\u2019s interests.\u201d\n\u2022 In approving the settlement in In re Wiring Devices Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 331 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.\n 9, 1980), Chief Judge Jack B. Weinstein stated that \u201cCounsel for the plaintiffs I think did an excellent\n job . . . They are outstanding and skillful. The litigation was and is extremely complex. They assumed\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 19 of 70\n\n\n\n\n a great deal of responsibility. They recovered a very large amount given the possibility of no recovery\n here which was in my opinion substantial.\u201d\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 In Rauch v. Bilzerian, No. 88 Civ. 15624 (N.J. Sup. Ct.), the court, after trial, referred to Pomerantz\n partners as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel,\u201d and as having provided \u201ctop drawer, topflight\n [representation], certainly as good as I\u2019ve seen in my stay on this court.\u201d\n\n\n Corporate Governance Litigation\nPomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\ngood corporate citizenship. We strongly support policies and procedures designed to give shareholders\nthe ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. We vigorously pursue corporate governance reform,\nparticularly in the area of excess compensation, where it can address the growing disparity between the\nsalaries of executives and the workers of major corporations. We have successfully utilized litigation to\nbring about corporate governance reform in numerous cases, and always consider whether such reforms\nare appropriate before any case is settled.\n\nPomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance Practice Group, led by Partner Gustavo F. Bruckner, enforces\nshareholder rights and prosecutes actions challenging corporate transactions that arise from an unfair\nprocess or result in an unfair price for shareholders.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 20 of 70\n\n\n\n\nIn September 2017, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Julio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery\nDivision, approved Pomerantz\u2019s settlement in a litigation against Ocean Shore Holding Co. The settlement\nprovided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In so doing, Judge Mendez became the first New\nJersey state court judge to formally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521\nF.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). There has never before been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting\nout the factors a court must consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be\ndetermined to be fair and adequate. After conducting an analysis of each of the nine Girsh factors and\nholding that \u201cclass actions settlements involving non-monetary benefits to the class are subject to more\nexacting scrutiny,\u201d Judge Mendez held that the proposed settlement provided a material benefit to the\nshareholders.\n\nIn February 2018, the Maryland Circuit Court, Montgomery County, approved a $17.5 million settlement\nthat plaintiffs achieved as additional consideration on behalf of a class of shareholders of American\nCapital, Ltd. In re Am. Capital, Ltd. S\u2019holder Litig., C.A. No. 422598-V (2018). The settlement resolved\nPlaintiffs\u2019 claims regarding a forced sale of American Capital.\n\nPomerantz filed an action challenging the sale of American Capital, a Delaware corporation with its\nheadquarters in Maryland. Among other things, American Capital\u2019s board of directors (the \u201cBoard\u201d)\nagreed to sell the company at a price below what two other bidders were willing to offer. Worse, the\nmerger price was even below the amount that shareholders would have received in the company\u2019s\nplanned phased liquidation, which the company was considering under pressure from Elliott\nManagement, an activist hedge fund and holder of approximate 15% of American Capital stock. Elliott was\nnot originally named as a defendant, but after initial discovery showed the extent of its involvement in\nthe Board\u2019s breaches of fiduciary duty, Elliott was added as a defendant in an amended complaint under\nthe theory that Elliott exercised actual control over the Board\u2019s decision-making. Elliott moved to dismiss\non jurisdictional grounds and additionally challenged its alleged status as a controller of American Capital.\nIn June 2017, minutes before the hearing on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, a partial settlement was\nentered into with the members of the Board for $11.5 million. The motion to dismiss hearing proceeded\ndespite the partial settlement, but only as to Elliott. In July 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss,\nfinding that Elliott, \u201cby virtue solely of its own conduct, . . . has easily satisfied the transacting business\nprong of the Maryland long arm statute.\u201d The court also found that the \u201camended complaint in this case\nsufficiently pleads that Elliott was a controller with respect to\u201d the sale, thus implicating a higher standard\nof review. Elliott subsequently settled the remaining claims for an additional $6 million. Pomerantz served\nas Co-Lead Counsel.\n\nIn May 2017, the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon approved the settlement achieved by Pomerantz\nand co-counsel of a derivative action brought by two shareholders of Lithia Motors, Inc. The lawsuit\nalleged breach of fiduciary duties by the board of directors in approving, without any meaningful review,\nthe Transition Agreement between Lithia Motors and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder,\nCEO, and Chairman, who was stepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, Bryan DeBoer,\nnegotiated virtually all the material terms of the Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the\nsenior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car allowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits,\nin addition to the $200,000 per year that he would receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\nThe Lithia settlement extracted corporate governance therapeutics that provide substantial benefits to\nLithia and its shareholders and redress the wrongdoing alleged by plaintiffs. The board will now be\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 12\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 21 of 70\n\n\n\n\nrequired to have at least five independent directors\u2014as defined under the New York Stock Exchange\nrules\u2014by 2020; a number of other new protocols will be in place to prevent self-dealing by board\nmembers. Further, the settlement calls for the Transition Agreement to be reviewed by an independent\nauditor who will determine whether the annual payments of $1,060,000 for life to Sidney DeBoer are\nreasonable. Lithia has agreed to accept whatever decision the auditor makes.\n\nIn January 2017, the Group received approval of the Delaware Chancery Court for a $5.6 million\nsettlement it achieved on behalf of a class of shareholders of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. over an\nignored merger offer in 2012. In re Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch.).\n\nThe Group obtained a landmark ruling in Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch.), that fee-shifting\nbylaws adopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to shareholders affected by the transaction.\nThey were also able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the going private\ntransaction.\n\nIn Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Super. Ct.), the Group caused Implant Sciences to hold\nits first shareholder annual meeting in five years and put an important compensation grant up for a\nshareholder vote.\n\nIn Smollar v. Potarazu, C.A. No. 10287-VCN (Del. Ch.), the Group pursued a derivative action to bring about\nthe appointment of two independent members to the board of directors, retention of an independent\nauditor, dissemination of financials to shareholders and the holding of first ever in-person annual meeting,\namong other corporate therapeutics.\n\nIn Hallandale Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon athletica, Inc.,\nC.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch.), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, the Chancery Court ordered the\nproduction of the chairman\u2019s 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found that a stock trading plan\nestablished by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than the chairman himself,\nwould liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude potential liability for\ninsider trading.\n\nIn Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct.), the Group caused the Merger\nAgreement to be amended to provide a \u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for the holders of North State\nBancorp\u2019s common stock in connection with the shareholder vote on the merger. As a result of the Action,\ncommon shareholders could stop the merger if they did not wish it to go forward.\n\nPomerantz\u2019s commitment to advancing sound corporate governance principles is further demonstrated\nby the more than 26 years that we have co-sponsored the Abraham L. Pomerantz Lecture Series with\nBrooklyn Law School. These lectures focus on critical and emerging issues concerning shareholder rights\nand corporate governance and bring together top academics and litigators.\n\nOur bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor, provides institutional investors updates and insights\non current issues in corporate governance.\n\n\n Strategic Consumer Litigation\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 13\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 22 of 70\n\n\n\n\nPomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group, led by Partner Jordan Lurie, represents\nconsumers in actions that seek to recover monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of class members while\nalso advocating for important consumer rights. The attorneys in this group have successfully prosecuted\nclaims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song\nBeverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Song Beverly Credit Card Act. They have resolved data breach\nprivacy cases and cases involving unlawful recording, illegal background checks, unfair business practices,\nmisleading advertising, and other consumer finance related actions. All of these actions also have resulted\nin significant changes to defendants\u2019 business practices.\n\nPomerantz currently represents consumers in a nationwide class action against Facebook for mistargeting\nads. Plaintiff alleges that Facebook programmatically displays a material percentage of ads to users\noutside the defined target market and displays ads to \u201cserial Likers\u201d outside the defined target audience\nin order to boost Facebook\u2019s revenue. IntegrityMessageBoards.com v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Case No.\n4:18-cv-05286 PJH.\n\nPomerantz has pioneered litigation to establish claims for public injunctive relief under California\u2019s unfair\nbusiness practices statute. For example, Pomerantz has filed cases seeking to prevent major auto\nmanufacturers from unauthorized access to, and use of, drivers\u2019 vehicle data without compensation, and\nseeking to require the auto companies to share diagnostic data extracted from drivers\u2019 vehicles. The\nStrategic Consumer Litigation practice group is also prosecuting class cases against auto manufacturers\nfor failing to properly identify high-priced parts that must be covered in California under extended\nemissions warranties.\n\nOther consumer matters handled by Pomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group include\nactions involving cryptocurrency, medical billing, price fixing, and false advertising of various consumer\nproducts and services.\n\n\n Antitrust Litigation\nPomerantz has earned a reputation for prosecuting complex antitrust and consumer class actions with\nvigor, innovation, and success. Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust and Consumer Group has recovered billions of\ndollars for the Firm\u2019s business and individual clients and the classes that they represent. Time and again,\nPomerantz has protected our free-market system from anticompetitive conduct such as price fixing,\nmonopolization, exclusive territorial division, pernicious pharmaceutical conduct, and false advertising.\nPomerantz\u2019s advocacy has spanned across diverse product markets, exhibiting the Antitrust and\nConsumer Group\u2019s versatility to prosecute class actions on any terrain.\n\nPomerantz has served and is currently serving in leadership or Co-Leadership roles in several high-profile\nmulti-district litigation class actions. In December 2018, the Firm achieved a $31 billion partial settlement\nwith three defendants on behalf of a class of U.S. lending institutions that originated, purchased or held\nloans paying interest rates tied to the U.S. Dollar London Interbank Offered Rate (USD LIBOR). It is alleged\nthat the class suffered damages as a result of collusive manipulation by the LIBOR contributor panel banks\nthat artificially suppressed the USD LIBOR rate during the class period, causing the class members to\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 14\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 23 of 70\n\n\n\n\nreceive lower interest payments than they would have otherwise received. In re Libor Based Financial\nInstruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262.\n\nPomerantz represented baseball and hockey fans in a game-changing antitrust class action against Major\nLeague Baseball and the National Hockey League, challenging the exclusive territorial division of live\ntelevision broadcasts, internet streaming, and the resulting geographic blackouts. See Laumann v. NHL\nand Garber v. MLB (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\nPomerantz has spearheaded the effort to challenge harmful anticompetitive conduct by pharmaceutical\ncompanies\u2014including Pay-for-Delay Agreements\u2014that artificially inflates the price of prescription drugs\nby keeping generic versions off the market.\n\nEven prior to the 2013 precedential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Actavis, Pomerantz litigated and\nsuccessfully settled the following generic-drug-delay cases:\n\n \u2022 In re Flonase Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2008) ($35 million);\n \u2022 In re Toprol XL Antitrust Litig. (D. Del. 2006) ($11 million); and\n \u2022 In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2004) ($21.5 million).\n\nOther exemplary victories include Pomerantz\u2019s prominent role in In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust\nLitigation (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a settlement in excess of $1 billion for class members, one of the\nlargest antitrust settlements in history. Pomerantz also played prominent roles in In re Sorbates Direct\nPurchaser Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in over an $82 million recovery, and in In re\nMethionine Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in a $107 million recovery. These cases illustrate\nthe resources, expertise, and commitment that Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust Group devotes to prosecuting some\nof the most egregious anticompetitive conduct.\n\n\n A Global Advocate for Asset Managers\n and Public and Taft-Hartley Pension Funds\nPomerantz represents some of the largest pension funds, asset managers, and institutional investors\naround the globe, monitoring assets of over $9 trillion, and growing. Utilizing cutting-edge legal strategies\nand the latest proprietary techniques, Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights\nthrough our securities litigation services and portfolio monitoring program.\n\nPomerantz partners routinely advise foreign and domestic institutional investors on how best to evaluate\nlosses to their investment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct and how best to maximize their\npotential recoveries worldwide. In particular, Pomerantz Partners Jeremy Lieberman and Jennifer Pafiti\nregularly travel throughout the U.S. and across the globe to meet with clients on these issues and are\nfrequent speakers at investor conferences and educational forums in North America, Europe, and the\nMiddle East.\n\nPomerantz was honored by European Pensions with its inaugural 2020 Thought Leadership award in\nrecognition of significant contributions the Firm has made in the European pension environment.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 15\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 24 of 70\n\n\n\n\n Institutional Investor Services\nPomerantz offers a variety of services to institutional investors. Through the Firm\u2019s proprietary system,\nPomTrack\u00ae, Pomerantz monitors client portfolios to identify and evaluate potential and pending securities\nfraud, ERISA and derivative claims, and class action settlements. Monthly customized PomTrack\u00ae reports\nare included with the service. PomTrack\u00ae currently monitors assets of over $9.4 trillion for some of the\nmost influential institutional investors worldwide.\n\nWhen a potential securities claim impacting a client is identified, Pomerantz offers to analyze the case\u2019s\nmerits and provide a written analysis and recommendation. If litigation is warranted, a team of Pomerantz\nattorneys will provide efficient and effective legal representation. The experience and expertise of our\nattorneys\u2014which have consistently been acknowledged by the courts\u2014allow Pomerantz to vigorously\npursue the claims of investors, taking complex cases to trial when warranted.\n\nPomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\ngood corporate citizenship. The Firm strongly support policies and procedures designed to give\nshareholders the ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. Pomerantz has successfully utilized\nlitigation to bring about corporate governance reform, and always considers whether such reforms are\nappropriate before any case is settled.\n\nPomerantz provides clients with insightful and timely commentary on matters essential to effective fund\nmanagement in our bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor and regularly sponsors conferences\nand roundtable events around the globe with speakers who are experts in securities litigation and\ncorporate governance matters.\n\n\n Attorneys\n Partners\n\nJeremy A. Lieberman\n\nJeremy A. Lieberman is Pomerantz\u2019s Managing Partner. He became associated with the Firm in August\n2004 and was elevated to Partner in January 2010. The Legal 500, in honoring Jeremy as a Leading Lawyer\nand Pomerantz as a 2021 and 2022 Tier 1 Plaintiffs Securities Law Firm, stated that \u201cJeremy Lieberman is\nsuper impressive\u2014a formidable adversary for any defense firm.\u201d Among the client testimonials posted on\nThe Legal 500\u2019s website: \u201cJeremy Lieberman led the case for us with remarkable and unrelenting energy\nand aggression. He made a number of excellent strategic decisions which boosted our recovery.\u201d\nLawdragon has named Jeremy among the Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers in the United States each\nyear from 2019 to 2024. Super Lawyers\u00ae named him among the Top 100 Lawyers in the New York Metro\narea in 2021. In 2020, Jeremy won a Distinguished Leader award from the New York Law Journal. He was\nhonored as Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 2019 Plaintiff Attorney of the Year. In 2018, Jeremy was honored as a\nTitan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360 and as a Benchmark Litigation Star. The Pomerantz team that Jeremy\nleads was named a 2018 Securities Practice Group of the Year.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 16\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 25 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJeremy led the securities class action litigation In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, which arose from a\nmulti-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro\nS.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel. The biggest instance of corruption in the\nhistory of Brazil ensnared not only Petrobras' former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including\nformer president Lula da Silva and one-third of the Brazilian Congress. In January and February 2018,\nJeremy achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class\naction settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a\nforeign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the\nlargest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities\nclass action settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nJeremy also secured a significant victory for Petrobras investors at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,\nwhen the court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that\nhad been imposed by the Third Circuit Courts of Appeals. The ruling will have a positive impact on plaintiffs\nin securities fraud litigation. Indeed, the Petrobras litigation was honored in 2019 as a National Impact\nCase by Benchmark Litigation.\n\nJeremy was Lead Counsel in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF\n(S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm achieved a $110 million settlement for the class. Plaintiff alleged that Fiat\nChrysler concealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d\nsoftware designed to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had\naccused Fiat Chrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provided the class\nof investors with as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to\nhistorical statistics in class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between\n1.6% and 3.3%.\n\nIn November 2019, Jeremy achieved a critical victory for investors in the securities fraud class action\nagainst Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey\ncertified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the New York Stock Exchange and\nthe Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of institutional investors that purchased\nPerrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V. to tender Perrigo shares. This is the first\ntime since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a\nnon-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency necessary allow for class\ncertification.\n\nJeremy headed the Firm\u2019s individual action against pharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries\nLtd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together, \u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former\nemployees and officers, relating to alleged anticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva\nis a dual-listed company, and the Firm represents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased\nTeva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global\ninvestors when the district court agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims.\nClal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\nIn 2019, Jeremy achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile\nsecurities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 17\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 26 of 70\n\n\n\n\ninstitutional investors about the manipulation of the banking giant\u2019s so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems\nin order to provide a trading advantage to high-frequency traders over its institutional investor clients.\nThis case turned on the duty of integrity owed by Barclays to its clients. In November 2017, Jeremy\nachieved precedent-setting victories for investors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that\ndirect evidence of price impact is not always necessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the\npresumption of reliance, and that defendants seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by\na preponderance of the evidence rather than merely meeting a burden of production.\n\nJeremy led the Firm\u2019s securities class action litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., in which Pomerantz, as Lead\nCounsel, achieved an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case involved the biggest data\nbreaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were compromised. This was the first\nsignificant settlement to date of a securities fraud class action filed in response to a data breach.\n\nIn 2018 Jeremy achieved a $3.3 million settlement for the Class in the Firm\u2019s securities class action against\nCorinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in the country, for alleged\nmisrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable regulations, and enrollment\nstatistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a particularly noteworthy victory\nbecause Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had dismissed two prior lawsuits\nagainst Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (C.D. Cal.).\n\nJeremy led the Firm\u2019s litigation team that in 2018 secured a $31 million partial settlement with three\ndefendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, a closely watched multi-district\nlitigation, which concerns the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rigging scandal.\n\nIn In re China North East Petroleum Corp. Securities Litigation, Jeremy achieved a significant victory for\nshareholders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whereby the Appeals Court\nruled that a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective\ndisclosure did not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. The Second Circuit\u2019s decision was deemed\n\u201cprecedential\u201d by the New York Law Journal and provides critical guidance for assessing damages in a \u00a7\n10(b) action.\n\nJeremy had an integral role in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which he and his\npartners achieved a historic $225 million settlement on behalf of the Class, which was the second-largest\noptions backdating settlement to date.\n\nJeremy regularly consults with Pomerantz\u2019s international institutional clients, including pension funds,\nregarding their rights under the U.S. securities laws. Jeremy is working with the Firm\u2019s international clients\nto craft a response to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., which limited\nthe ability of foreign investors to seek redress under the federal securities laws.\n\nJeremy is a frequent lecturer worldwide regarding current corporate governance and securities litigation\nissues.\n\nJeremy graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2002. While in law school, he served as a\nstaff member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Upon graduation, he began his career at a major New\nYork law firm as a litigation associate, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 18\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 27 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJeremy is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern,\nEastern, and Western Districts of New York, United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern\nDistricts of Texas, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of\nWisconsin, and the Northern District of Illinois; United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third,\nFourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nGustavo F. Bruckner\n\nGustavo F. Bruckner heads Pomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance practice group, which enforces\nshareholder rights and prosecutes litigation challenging corporate actions that harm shareholders. Under\nGustavo\u2019s leadership, the Corporate Governance group has achieved numerous noteworthy litigation\nsuccesses. He has been quoted on corporate governance issues by The New York Times, The Wall Street\nJournal, Bloomberg, Law360, and Reuters, and was honored from 2016 through 2021 by Super Lawyers\u00ae\nas a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on no more than 5% of eligible\nattorneys in the New York Metro area. In 2023, he was included on Lawdragon\u2019s list of the 500 Leading\nPlaintiff Financial Lawyers. Gustavo regularly appears in state and federal courts across the nation.\nGustavo presented at the prestigious Institute for Law and Economic Policy conference.\n\nGustavo is a fierce advocate of aggressive corporate clawback policies that allow companies to recover\ndamages from officers and directors for reputational and financial harm. Most recently, in McIntosh vs\nKeizer, et al., Docket No. 2018-0386 (Del. Ch.), Pomerantz filed a derivative suit on behalf of Hertz Global\nHoldings, Inc. shareholders, seeking to compel the Hertz board of directors to claw back millions of dollars\nin unearned and undeserved payments that the Company made to former officers and directors who\nsignificantly damaged Hertz through years of wrongdoing and misconduct. Under pressure from plaintiff\u2019s\nligation efforts, the Hertz board of directors elected to take unprecedented action and mooted plaintiff\u2019s\nclaims, initiating litigation to recover tens of millions of dollars in incentive compensation and more than\n$200 million in damages from culpable former Hertz executives.\n\nPomerantz, through initiation and prosecution of a shareholder derivative action, forced the Hertz board\nto seek clawback from former officers and directors of the company, unjustly enriched after causing the\nCompany to file inaccurate and false financial statements leading to a $235 million restatement and $16\nmillion fee to the SEC.\n\nIn September 2017, Gustavo\u2019s Corporate Governance team achieved a settlement in New Jersey Superior\nCourt that provided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In approving the settlement, Judge\nJulio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery Division, became the first New Jersey state court judge to\nformally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975).\nNever before has there been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting out the factors a court\nmust consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be determined to be fair and\nadequate.\n\nGustavo successfully argued Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015), obtaining a landmark\nruling in Delaware that bylaws adopted after shareholders are cashed out do not apply to shareholders\naffected by the transaction. In the process, Gustavo and the Corporate Governance team beat back a fee-\nshifting bylaw and were able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 19\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 28 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u201cgoing private\u201d transaction. Shortly thereafter, the Delaware Legislature adopted legislation to ban fee-\nshifting bylaws.\n\nIn Stein v. DeBoer (Or. Cir. Ct. 2017), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance group achieved a settlement\nthat provides significant corporate governance therapeutics on behalf of shareholders of Lithia Motors,\nInc. The company\u2019s board had approved, without meaningful review, the Transition Agreement between\nthe company and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder, CEO, and Chairman, who was\nstepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, negotiated virtually all the material terms of\nthe Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the senior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car\nallowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits, in addition to the $200,000 per year that he\nwould receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\nIn Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance\ngroup, by initiating litigation, caused Implant Sciences to hold its first shareholder annual meeting in 5\nyears and to place an important compensation grant up for a shareholder vote.\n\nIn Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate\nGovernance team caused the North State Bancorp merger agreement to be amended to provide a\n\u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for common shareholders in connection with the shareholder vote\non the merger. As a result of the action, common shareholders had the ability to stop the merger if they\ndid not wish it to go forward.\n\nIn Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters\u2019 Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon Athletica,\nInc., C.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, Gustavo successfully\nargued for the production of the company chairman\u2019s Rule 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found\nthat a stock trading plan established by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than\nthe chairman himself, would liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude\npotential liability for insider trading.\n\nGustavo was Co-Lead Counsel in In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7328-VCN\n(Del. Ch. 2012), obtaining the elimination of stand-still provisions that allowed third parties to bid for\nGreat Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a third-party bidder and approximately $94 million\n(57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf shareholders.\n\nGustavo received his law degree in 1992 from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he served\nas an editor of the Moot Court Board and on the Student Council. Upon graduation, he received the award\nfor outstanding student service.\n\nAfter graduating law school, Gustavo served as Chief-of-Staff to a New York City legislator.\n\nGustavo is a Mentor and Coach to the NYU Stern School of Business, Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial\nStudies, New Venture Competition. He was a University Scholar at NYU where he obtained a B.S. in\nMarketing and International Business in 1988 and an MBA in Finance and International Business in 1989.\nGustavo is a Trustee and former Treasurer of the Beit Rabban Day School, and an arbitrator in the Civil\nCourt of the City of New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 20\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 29 of 70\n\n\n\n\nGustavo is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey; the United States District Courts for the\nEastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey; the Eastern District\nof Wisconsin; the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits; and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\nBrian Calandra\n\nBrian Calandra joined Pomerantz in June 2019 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in January 2023.\nHe has extensive experience in securities, antitrust, complex commercial, and white-collar matters in\nfederal and state courts nationwide. Brian has represented issuers, underwriters, and individuals in\nsecurities class actions involving the financial, telecommunications, real estate, and pharmaceutical\nindustries. He has also represented financial institutions in antitrust class actions concerning foreign\nexchange; supra-national, sub-sovereign and agency bonds; bonds issued by the government of Mexico;\nand credit card fees. In 2021, Brian was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation\nAttorney\u201d.\n\nBrian has written multiple times on developments in securities law and other topics, including co-\nauthoring an overview of insider trading law and enforcement for Practical Compliance & Risk\nManagement for the Securities Industry, co-authoring an analysis of anti-corruption compliance risks\nposed by sovereign wealth funds for Risk & Compliance, and authoring an analysis of the effects of the\n2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act on women in bankruptcy for\nthe Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Brian was a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP. Brian graduated\nfrom Rutgers School of Law-Newark in 2009, cum laude, Order of the Coif. While at Rutgers, Brian was co-\neditor-in-chief of the Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter and received the Justice Henry E. Ackerson Prize for\nDistinction in Legal Skills and the Carol Russ Memorial Prize for Distinction in Promoting Women\u2019s Rights.\n\nBrian is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York; the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the United\nStates Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Tenth Circuits; and the United States\nSupreme Court.\n\nJustin D. D\u2019Aloia\n\nJustin D. D\u2019Aloia is a Partner in Pomerantz\u2019s New York office, where he specializes in securities class action\nlitigation. He has extensive experience litigating high-profile securities cases in federal and state courts\nacross the country. Justin has represented issuers, underwriters, and senior executives in matters\ninvolving a range of industries, including the financial services, life sciences, real estate, technology, and\nconsumer retail sectors. His practice covers the full spectrum of proceedings from pre-suit demand\nthrough settlement.\n\nJustin joined Pomerantz as a Partner in October 2022. Before joining Pomerantz, Justin was counsel at a\nlarge international law firm where he focused on securities litigation and other complex shareholder class\naction litigation. He previously served as a law clerk to Judge Mark Falk of the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 21\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 30 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJustin received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the\nFordham International Law Journal. He earned his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University with a\nconcentration in Business and Economics.\n\nJustin is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the District of Colorado; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third,\nand Tenth Circuits.\n\nEmma Gilmore\n\nEmma Gilmore is a Partner at Pomerantz and is regularly involved in high-profile class-action litigation. In\n2024, Benchmark Litigation selected her as \u201cPlaintiff Litigator of the Year.\u201d In 2023, the National Law\nJournal named her a Plaintiffs\u2019 Attorney Trailblazer and Benchmark Litigation shortlisted her for Plaintiff\nLitigator of the Year. Emma was honored by Law360 in 2023 and in 2018 as an MVP in Securities Litigation,\npart of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\nearned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\nsix attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. In 2018, Emma was the\nfirst woman plaintiff attorney to receive this outstanding award since it was initiated in 2011. In 2021,\nEmma was awarded a spot on National Law Journal\u2019s prestigious Elite Women of the Plaintiffs Bar list. In\n2021 and 2020, she was named by Benchmark Litigation as one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation\u2014an\nhonor bestowed on only seven plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers in the U.S. those years. The National Law Journal and\nthe New York Law Journal honored her as a \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer.\u201d Emma has been honored since\n2018 as a Super Lawyer\u00ae. She has been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff\nFinancial Lawyers.\n\nEmma is regularly invited to speak about recent trends and developments in securities litigation. She\nserves on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Securities Litigation Committee. Emma regularly counsels\nclients around the world on how to maximize recoveries on their investments.\n\nEmma played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s class action case in the Southern District of New York against\nBrazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in\nwhich the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. In a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz achieved a historic\n$3 billion settlement with Petrobras. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a\ndecade but is the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest class\naction settlement ever achieved in the United States, and the largest settlement achieved by a foreign\nlead plaintiff. The biggest instance of corruption in the history of Brazil had ensnared not only Petrobras'\nformer executives but also Brazilian politicians, including former president Lula da Silva and one-third of\nthe Brazilian Congress. Emma traveled to Brazil to uncover evidence of fraud and drafted the complaint.\nShe deposed and defended numerous fact and expert witnesses, including deposing the former CEO of\nPetrobras, the whistleblower, and the chief accountant. She drafted the appellate brief, playing an\ninstrumental role in securing a significant victory for investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of\nAppeals, when the Court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class\ncertification that had been imposed by other circuit courts. She opposed defendants' petition for a writ\nof certiorari to the Supreme Court. Emma successfully obtained sanctions against a professional objector\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 22\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 31 of 70\n\n\n\n\nchallenging the integrity of the settlement, both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals for the\nSecond Circuit.\n\nEmma organized a group of twenty-seven of the foremost U.S. scholars in the field of evidence and\nspearheaded the effort to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on their behalf in a critical\nissue for investors. One of the two issues before the High Court in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al v.\nArkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. (No. 20-222) squarely affected investors\u2019 ability to pursue\nclaims collectively as a class: whether, in order to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the\nCourt in the landmark Basic v. Levinson decision, defendants bear the burden of persuasion, or whether\nthey bear only the much lower burden of production. The scholars argued that defendants carry the higher\nburden of persuasion. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Pomerantz and the scholars.\n\nEmma led the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Deutsche Bank and its executives, arising from the\nBank\u2019s improper anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer procedures. Plaintiffs alleged that,\ndespite the Bank\u2019s representations that it implemented a \u201crobust and strict\u201d Know Your Customer\nprogram with \u201cspecial safeguards\u201d for politically exposed persons (PEPs), defendants repeatedly\nexempted high-net-worth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, enabling their criminal\nactivities through the Bank\u2019s facilities. For example, Deutsche Bank continued \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d with\nJeffrey Epstein even after learning that 40 underage girls had come forward with testimony that he had\nsexually assaulted them. Deutsche Bank\u2019s former CEOs also onboarded, retained, and serviced Russian\noligarchs and other clients reportedly engaged in criminal activities, with little or no due diligence. On\nOctober 20, 2022, Emma secured for investors nearly 50% of recoverable damages, which reflects a\npremium for the palpable misconduct and is exceptionally high for securities class action settlements. The\nDeutsche Bank litigation and settlement serve as important legal precedents aimed to deter financial\ninstitutions from enabling the wealthy and powerful to commit crimes in return for financial benefits to\nthe institutions.\n\nEmma played a leading role in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action that alleged\nBarclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking giant\u2019s use of so-called\n\u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. She secured an important precedent-setting opinion from the Second Circuit.\nEmma organized a group of leading evidence experts who filed amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs\u2019 position\nin the Second Circuit.\n\nEmma secured a unanimous decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, benefiting\ndefrauded investors in Costa Brava Partnership III LP v. ChinaCast Education Corp. In an issue of first\nimpression, the Ninth Circuit held that imputation of the CEO's scienter to the company was warranted\nvis-a-vis innocent third parties, despite the fact that the executive acted for his own benefit and to the\ncompany's detriment.\n\nShe has also devoted a significant amount of time to pro bono matters. She played a critical role in securing\na unanimous ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court striking down as unconstitutional a state law banning\ncohabiting individuals from adopting children or serving as foster parents. The ruling was a relief for the\n1,600-plus children in the state of Arkansas who needed a permanent family. The litigation generated\nsignificant publicity, including coverage by the Arkansas Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York\nTimes.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 23\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 32 of 70\n\n\n\n\nShe was Lead Counsel in the Firm's class action litigation against Arconic, in which she secured a $74\nmillion settlement for the class. Arconic is the U.S. company that manufactured the highly flammable\naluminum cladding allegedly responsible for the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London that eradicated a\npublic housing block, killing 72 people and injuring 70 other tenants. Arconic repeatedly misrepresented\nto the market its safety protocols and the safety classification of its cladding products. When the truth\nabout Arconic\u2019s unsafe practices emerged, investors lost over $1 billion in damages.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Emma was a litigation associate with the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher\nand Flom, LLP, and Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP. She worked on the WorldCom Securities Litigation, which\nsettled for $2 billion.\n\nShe also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, former U.S. Chief Judge for the Eastern\nDistrict of New York.\n\nEmma graduated cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, where she served as a staff editor for the Brooklyn\nLaw Review. She was the recipient of two CALI Excellence for the Future Awards, in the subjects of\nevidence and discovery. She graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University, with a BA in\nFrench and a minor in Business.\n\nShe serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\nMichael Grunfeld\n\nMichael Grunfeld is a Partner at Pomerantz LLP. He has extensive experience in securities, derivative,\ncomplex commercial, and white-collar matters in both federal and state courts nationwide.\n\nHe has played a leading role in some of the Firm\u2019s significant class action litigation, including its case\nagainst Yahoo!, Inc. arising out of the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which the Firm, as Lead\nCounsel, achieved an $80 million settlement on behalf of the Class. This settlement made history as the\nfirst substantial shareholder recovery in a securities fraud class action related to a cybersecurity breach.\nMichael also plays a leading role in many of the Firm\u2019s other ongoing class actions.\n\nIn 2020 and 2022, Michael was included on Benchmark Litigation's 40 & Under Hot List, an honor granted\nto a few of the \u201cbest and brightest law firm partners [under 40 years old] who stand out in their practices.\u201d\nIn 2019, Law360 named him a Rising Star. Michael has been ranked by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Top-Rated\nSecurities Litigation Attorney from 2020 - 2024, and as a New York Metro Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.\n\nMichael also leads Pomerantz\u2019s litigation on behalf of the Colorado Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System\nas an intervenor in The Doris Behr 2012 Irrevocable Trust v. Johnson & Johnson. At issue is an activist\ninvestor\u2019s attempt to have Johnson & Johnson (\u201cJ&J\u201d) shareholders vote on a proxy proposal instituting a\ncorporate bylaw that would require all securities fraud claims against the company to be pursued through\nmandatory arbitration, and that would waive shareholder\u2019s rights to bring securities\nclass actions. In March 2022, the district court handed down an important victory for shareholders when\nit granted J&J\u2019s and the Intervenors\u2019 Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 24\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 33 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMichael co-authored a chapter on damages in securities class actions for the LexisNexis treatise, Litigating\nSecurities Class Actions.\n\nHis earlier career highlights include serving as a clerk for Judge Ronald Gilman of the Sixth Circuit Court of\nAppeals and as a foreign law clerk for Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme Court. Before joining\nPomerantz, he worked as a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,\nWharton & Garrison LLP.\n\nMichael graduated from Columbia Law School in 2008, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. He\ngraduated from Harvard University with an A.B. in Government, magna cum laude, in 2004.\n\nMichael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado; and the United States\nCourts of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.\n\nJ. Alexander Hood II\n\nJ. Alexander Hood II joined Pomerantz in June 2015 and was elevated to Of Counsel to the Firm in 2019.\nHe was elevated to Partner in 2022. Alex leads the Firm\u2019s case origination team, identifying and\ninvestigating potential violations of the federal securities laws. In 2023, Alex was selected as a Rising Star\nin the National Law Journal\u2019s Elite Trial Lawyers awards competition. This award honors lawyers under 40\nwho represent the next generation of legal leaders. He has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each\nyear since 2019.\n\nHe has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2019.FF\n\nAlex played a key role in securing Pomerantz\u2019s appointment as Lead Counsel in actions against Meta\nPlatforms, Inc., AT&T, Inc., Adobe, Inc., Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Yahoo!,\nInc., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Wynn Resorts Limited, Perrigo Company plc, among others.\n\nAlex also oversees the firm\u2019s involvement on behalf of institutional investors in non-U.S. litigations,\nassisting Pomerantz clients with respect to evaluating and pursuing recovery in foreign jurisdictions,\nincluding matters in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, and elsewhere.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Alex practiced at nationally recognized law firms, where he was involved in\ncommercial, financial services, corporate governance, and securities matters.\n\nAlex graduated from Boston University School of Law (J.D.) and from the University of Oregon School of\nLaw (LL.M.). During law school, he served as a member of the Boston University Review of Banking &\nFinancial Law and participated in the Thomas Tang Moot Court Competition. In addition, Alex clerked for\nthe American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and, as a legal extern, worked on the Center for Biological\nDiversity\u2019s Clean Water Act suit against BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.\n\nAlex is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern,\nWestern and Northern Districts of New York; the District of Colorado; the Eastern District of Michigan; the\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 25\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 34 of 70\n\n\n\n\nEastern District of Wisconsin; the Northern District of Illinois; the Northern District of Indiana; the\nSouthern District of Texas; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nOmar Jafri\n\nOmar Jafri is a Partner at Pomerantz. He represents defrauded investors in individual and class action\nsecurities litigation. Lawdragon has named him one of the country\u2019s Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers,\nand Super Lawyers\u00ae has recognized him as a Top-Rated Securities Litigator. Previously, Omar was\nrecognized by the National Law Journal as a Rising Star of the Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar. The National Law Journal\nselected lawyers who \u201cdemonstrated repeated success in cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs over\nthe last 18 months [and] possess a solid track record of client wins over the past three to five years.\u201d He\nwas also recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation between 2021 and 2023.\n\nOmar has played an integral role in numerous cases where the Firm achieved significant recoveries for\ndefrauded shareholders as Lead, Co-Lead or Additional Counsel, including: Roofer\u2019s Pension Fund v. Papa\net al. ($97 million recovery); In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Securities Litigation ($44 million\nrecovery); In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation ($24 million recovery); In re Aveo\nPharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation ($18 million recovery, which was more than four times larger\nthan the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in its parallel litigation); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million\nsettlement); Cooper v. Thoratec Corporation et al. ($11.9 million settlement following a reversal in the\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the lower court repeatedly dismissed the case);\nThomas v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. Securities Litigation ($6.2 million settlement with majority\nshareholder, Avenue Capital); Solomon v. Sprint Corporation et al. ($3.75 million settlement); In re\nPaysign, Inc. Securities Litigation ($3.75 million settlement); Schaeffer v. Nabriva Therapeutics plc et al.\n($3 million settlement); In re Sequans Communications S.A. Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement);\nTorres et al. v. Berry Corporation et al. ($2.5 million settlement); and Busic v. Orphazyme A/S et al. ($2.5\nmillion settlement).\n\nThrough vigorous litigation, Omar has helped shape important precedents for all investors. NantKwest\nwas the first case in the United States to recognize statistical proof of traceability. In Roofer\u2019s Pension\nFund v. Papa et al., the District Court independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a foreign\nexchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency to allow for class certification for the\nfirst time since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morrison. Nabriva was the first case in the Second Circuit\nto sustain a complaint based on the failure to disclose the FDA\u2019s serious criticisms identified in a Form 483\nletter. In Yan v. ReWalk Robotics et al., while the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit\ndisagreed on the merits, the Circuit held that it is erroneous to dismiss a case for lack of standing when a\nnamed plaintiff can be substituted with another class member, shutting the door on such defense tactics\nin any future case filed in that Circuit. In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation Securities Litigation was one\nof the first decisions in the country to conclude that the dissemination of a misleading emoji can be an\nactionable misrepresentation under the federal securities laws. And in Glazer Capital Management, L.P.\net al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al., Omar won a rare reversal in a securities fraud class action in\nthe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a published decision that reversed the dismissal\nin Forescout, the Ninth Circuit held that lower courts must not comingle the lower standard for falsity with\nthe higher standard for scienter in analyzing the sufficiency of a securities fraud complaint, and repudiated\nnumerous arguments concerning the testimony of Confidential Witnesses that the defense bar had\nconvinced many lower courts to erroneously endorse over the years.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 26\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 35 of 70\n\n\n\n\nOmar started his legal career at the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and has litigated major disputes\non behalf of institutional investors arising out of the credit crisis, including disputes related to\nCollateralized Debt Obligations, Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps and other\ncomplex financial investments. Omar also represented the Examiner in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy,\nthe largest in history at the time, and helped draft a report that identified colorable claims against\nLehman\u2019s senior executives for violating their fiduciary duties. He also has a robust pro bono criminal\ndefense practice and has represented indigent defendants charged with crimes that range from simple\nbattery to arson and murder.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Omar was a law clerk to Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. of the United States District\nCourt for the Northern District of Georgia, and an associate at an international law firm where he\nrepresented clients in a wide variety of matters, including securities litigation, complex commercial\nlitigation, white collar criminal defense, and internal investigations.\n\nOmar is a 2004 honors graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, and a 2008, magna cum laude,\ngraduate of the University of Illinois College of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and\nreceived the Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy. He is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.\n\nOmar is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois\n(Trial Bar) and the Northern District of Indiana; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,\nFifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nJordan L. Lurie\n\nJordan L. Lurie joined Pomerantz as a partner in the Los Angeles office in December 2018. Jordan heads\nPomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice. He was named a 2021 Southern California Super\nLawyer\u00ae.\n\nJordan has litigated shareholder class and derivative actions, complex corporate securities and consumer\nlitigation, and a wide range of fraud and misrepresentation cases brought under state and federal\nconsumer protection statutes involving unfair competition, false advertising, and privacy rights. Among\nhis notable representations, Jordan served as Lead Counsel in the prosecution and successful resolution\nof major nationwide class actions against Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Chrysler and General\nMotors. He also successfully preserved a multi-million dollar nationwide automotive class action\nsettlement by convincing the then Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit and his wife, who were also class\nmembers and had filed objections to the settlement, to withdraw their objections and endorse the\nsettlement.\n\nJordan has argued cases in the California Court of Appeals and in the Ninth Circuit that resulted in\npublished opinions establishing class members\u2019 rights to intervene and clarifying the standing\nrequirements for an objector to appeal. He also established a Ninth Circuit precedent for obtaining\nattorneys\u2019 fees in a catalyst fee action. Jordan has tried a federal securities fraud class action to verdict.\nHe has been a featured speaker at California Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminars and is a\ntrained ombudsman and mediator. In 2020, Jordan was recognized as a 2021 Southern California Super\nLawyer.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 27\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 36 of 70\n\n\n\n\nOutside of his legal practice, Jordan is an active educator and community leader and has held executive\npositions in various organizations in the Los Angeles community. Jordan participated in the first Wexner\nHeritage Foundation leadership program in Los Angeles and the first national cohort of the Board Member\nInstitute for Jewish Nonprofits at the Kellogg School of Management.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jordan was the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Weiss & Lurie\nand Senior Litigator at Capstone Law APC.\n\nJordan graduated cum laude from Yale University in 1984 with a B.A in Political Science and received his\nlaw degree in 1987 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, where he served as\nNotes Editor of the University of Southern California Law Review.\n\nJordan is a member of the State Bar of California and has been admitted to practice before the United\nStates District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern Districts of California, the Eastern\nand Western Districts of Michigan, and the District of Colorado.\n\nJennifer Pafiti\n\nJennifer Pafiti became associated with the Firm in April 2014 and was elevated to Partner in December\n2015. A dually qualified U.K. solicitor and U.S. attorney, she is the Firm\u2019s Head of Client Services and also\ntakes an active role in complex securities litigation, representing clients in both class and non-class action\nsecurities litigation.\n\nJennifer received the Innovative Leader Award in Corporate Counsel\u2019s 2024 Women, Influence, and Power\nin Law Awards. She has been recognized with inclusion in the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers\nlist and the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Leaders list. In 2023, Jennifer was one of only\nfour individuals to be honored with the New York Law Journal\u2019s Innovation Award, which recognizes\n\u201ccreative and inspiring approaches by forward-thinking firms and individuals.\u201d Jennifer was nominated as\na 2023 Lawyer of Distinction. In 2022, The Enterprise World named Jennifer as The Most Successful\nBusiness Leader to Watch. In 2021, Jennifer was selected as one of the \u201cWomen, Influence and Power in\nLaw\u201d honorees by Corporate Counsel, in the Collaborative Leadership\u2014Law Firm category. Lawdragon\nhas named Jennifer among the Leading 500 Lawyers in the United States every year since 2021. In 2020\nshe was named a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae and was recognized by Benchmark\nLitigation as a Future Star. Lawdragon has recognized Jennifer as a Leading Plaintiff Financial Attorney\nfrom 2019 through 2021. In 2019, she was also honored by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Southern California Rising\nStar in Securities Litigation, named to Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 40 & Under Hot List of the best young\nattorneys in the United States, and recognized by Los Angeles Magazine as one of Southern California\u2019s\nTop Young Lawyers. In 2018, Jennifer was recognized as a Lawyer of Distinction. She was honored by Super\nLawyers\u00ae in 2017 as both a Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California. In\n2016, the Daily Journal selected Jennifer for its \u201cTop 40 Under 40\u201d list of the best young attorneys in\nCalifornia.\n\nJennifer was an integral member of the Firm\u2019s litigation team for In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, a\ncase relating to a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme at Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo\nBrasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. She helped secure a significant victory\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 28\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 37 of 70\n\n\n\n\nfor investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, when the court rejected the heightened\nascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other Circuit courts\nsuch as the Third and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Working closely with Lead Plaintiff, Universities\nSuperannuation Scheme Limited, she was also instrumental in achieving the historic settlement of $3\nbillion for Petrobras investors. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\nbut is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\nsecurities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\nsettlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\nnot involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nJennifer was involved, among other cases, in the securities class action against rare disease\nbiopharmaceutical company, KaloBios, and certain of its officers, including CEO Martin Shkreli. In 2018,\nPomerantz achieved a settlement of $3 million plus 300,000 shares for defrauded investors\u2014an excellent\nrecovery in light of the company\u2019s bankruptcy. Isensee v. KaloBios. Jennifer also helped achieve a $10\nmillion recovery for the class in a securities litigation against the bankrupt Californian energy company,\nPG&E, which arose from allegedly false statements made by the company about its rolling power outages\nin the wake of the catastrophic wildfire incidents that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. Vataj\nv. Johnson, et al.\n\nJennifer earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology at Thames Valley University in England, prior\nto studying law. She earned her law degrees at Thames Valley University (G.D.L.) and the Inns of Court\nSchool of Law (L.P.C.) in the U.K.\n\nBefore studying law in England, Jennifer was a regulated financial advisor and senior mortgage\nunderwriter at a major U.K. financial institution. She holds full CeFA and CeMAP qualifications. After\nqualifying as a solicitor, Jennifer specialized in private practice civil litigation, which included the\nrepresentation of clients in high-profile cases in the Royal Courts of Justice. Prior to joining Pomerantz,\nJennifer was an associate with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in their San Diego office.\n\nJennifer regularly travels throughout the U.S. and Europe to advise clients on how best to evaluate losses\nto their investment portfolios attributable to financial fraud or other misconduct, and how best to\nmaximize their potential recoveries. Jennifer is also a regular speaker at events on securities litigation and\nfiduciary duty. In 2022, Thought Leaders 4 Disputes published Jennifer\u2019s article entitled \u201cThe Globalisation\nof Securities Litigation.\u201d\n\nJennifer served on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on\nspecific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and expands\neconomic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls.\n\nJennifer is a member of the National Association of Pension Fund Attorneys and represents the Firm as a\nmember of the California Association of Public Retirement Systems, the State Association of County\nRetirement Systems, the National Association of State Treasurers, the National Conference of Employee\nRetirement Systems, the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, and the\nU.K.'s National Association of Pension Funds.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 29\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 38 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJennifer is admitted to practice in England and Wales; California; the United States District Courts for the\nNorthern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit.\n\nJoshua B. Silverman\n\nJoshua B. Silverman is a partner in Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office. He specializes in individual and class action\nsecurities litigation.\n\nJosh was Lead Counsel in In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, achieving a $45 million settlement, one\nof the highest percentage recoveries in the Seventh Circuit. He was also Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in In re\nMannKind Corp. Securities Litigation ($23 million settlement); In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities\nLitigation ($18 million settlement, more than four times larger than the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in parallel\nlitigation); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (very favorable\nconfidential settlement); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Cheslock Bakker & Associates (summary\njudgment award in excess of $30 million); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million settlement); Bruce\nv. Suntech Power Holdings Corp. ($5 million settlement); In re AgFeed, Inc. Securities Litigation ($7 million\nsettlement); and In re Hemispherx BioPharma Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement). Josh also\nplayed a key role in the Firm's representation of investors before the United States Supreme Court\nin StoneRidge, and prosecuted many of the Firm's other class cases, including In re Sealed Air Corp.\nSecurities Litigation ($20 million settlement).\n\nJosh, together with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a critical victory for investors in the\nsecurities fraud class action against Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey certified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the\nNew York Stock Exchange and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of\ninstitutional investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V.\nto tender Perrigo shares. This is the first time since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed\nthe market of a security traded on a non-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market\nefficiency necessary allow for class certification.\n\nSeveral of Josh\u2019s cases have set important precedent. For example, In re MannKind established that\ninvestors may support complaints with expert information. New Mexico v. Countrywide recognized that\ninvestors may show Section 11 damages for asset-backed securities even if there has been no interruption\nin payment or threat of default. More recently, NantKwest was the first Section 11 case in the nation to\nrecognize statistical proof of traceability.\n\nIn addition to prosecuting cases, Josh regularly speaks at investor conferences and continuing legal\neducation programs.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Josh practiced at McGuireWoods LLP and its Chicago predecessor, Ross &\nHardies, where he represented one of the largest independent futures commission merchants in\ncommodities fraud and civil RICO cases. He also spent two years as a securities trader, and continues to\nactively trade stocks, futures, and options for his own account.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 30\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 39 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJosh is a 1993 graduate of the University of Michigan, where he received Phi Beta Kappa honors, and a\n1996 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.\n\nJosh is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;\nthe United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; and\nthe United States Supreme Court.\n\nBrenda Szydlo\n\nBrenda Szydlo joined Pomerantz in January 2016 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in 2022. She\nbrings to the Firm extensive experience in complex civil litigation in federal and state court on behalf of\nplaintiffs and defendants, with a particular focus on securities and financial fraud litigation, litigation\nagainst pharmaceutical corporations, accountants\u2019 liability, and commercial litigation. In 2020-2024,\nBrenda was recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d She was\nincluded on the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers list in 2022\u20132025 and was named New\nYork Metro Top Women 2024 for Securities Litigation.\n\nBrenda played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case in the Southern District of New York\nagainst Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\nscheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved a precedent-setting legal ruling and a historic\n$3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\nbut is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\nsecurities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\nsettlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\nnot involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nBrenda has represented investors in additional class and private actions that have resulted in significant\nrecoveries, such as In re Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was $486 million, and In re\nRefco, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was in excess of $407 million. She has also represented\ninvestors in opt-out securities actions, such as investors opting out of In re Bank of America Corp.\nSecurities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation in order to pursue their own securities action.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Brenda served as Senior Counsel in a prominent plaintiff advocacy firm, where\nshe represented clients in securities and financial fraud litigation, and litigation against pharmaceutical\ncorporations and accounting firms. Brenda also served as Counsel in the litigation department of one of\nthe largest premier law firms in the world, where her practice focused on defending individuals and\ncorporations in securities litigation and enforcement, accountants\u2019 liability actions, and commercial\nlitigation.\n\nBrenda is a graduate of St. John\u2019s University School of Law, where she was a St. Thomas More Scholar and\nmember of the Law Review. She received a B.A. in economics from Binghamton University.\n\nBrenda is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits; and the United States\nSupreme Court.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 31\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 40 of 70\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 32\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 41 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMatthew L. Tuccillo\n\nA Partner since 2013, Matthew L. Tuccillo joined Pomerantz in 2011. With 25+ years of experience, he is\nrecognized as a top national securities litigator.\n\nMatt serves as the Firm\u2019s lead litigator on high-stakes securities class action litigation in courts nationwide.\nHe closely advises his institutional clients, which are regularly appointed to serve as lead plaintiffs\noverseeing such lawsuits, which often have class-wide damages of $500 million - $1 billion+. Matt\u2019s\nrepresentative cases include:\n\n\u2022 In In re Emergent Biosolutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (D. Md.), arising from\n a company\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing failures, Matt investigated and prepared a robust\n amended complaint, then succeeded in overcoming Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in September\n 2023, in securing class certification in June 2024, and in leading the case is through discovery. Matt\n secured a $40 million class-wide settlement following a mediation and months of ensuring\n negotiations. The court granted preliminary in October 2024.\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\n bankruptcy. Matt led the case through discovery, securing court orders that required defendants to\n review for production 1.25 million+ documents identified via plaintiff-authored search terms on\n plaintiff-selected custodians, as a prelude to production of 450,000+ defense and third party\n documents and 40 party and non-party fact depositions. Matt secured an order partially certifying\n the class in June 2024, which both sides cross-appealed to the Fifth Circuit.\n\u2022 In Ramos v. Comerica, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-06843-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), securities class action claims arose\n from a bank\u2019s statements regarding certain government contract programs and related operating and\n financial metrics. After multiple fact-driven amendments and hard-fought litigation of two motions\n to dismiss, the case appears for appellate litigation before the Ninth Circuit.\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 further amended\n complaint will be filed after the court resolves a pending reconsideration motion regarding its dismiss\n rulings.\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 hard-\n fought litigation concerning underperforming, large-scale, fixed-bid projects through two motions to\n dismiss. A months-long mediation and negotiation process resulted in a court-approved $33 million\n settlement, which was a 37.5% recovery of the upheld claim value.\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 defendants\u2019 scienter\n (intent) was sufficiently pled, even though they bought, rather than sold, company stock during the\n period of alleged fraud. A successful mediation resulted in a court-approved $12.75 million\n settlement.\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\n spill by 125+ global institutional investors. Over 9 years, he successfully opposed three motions to\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 33\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 42 of 70\n\n\n\n\n dismiss, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million documents, led the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, was\n the sole interface with BP and the Court, and secured some of the Firm\u2019s most ground-breaking\n rulings. In a ruling of first impression, he successfully argued that investors asserted viable English\n law \u201cholder claims\u201d for losses due to retention of already-owned shares in reliance on a fraud, a theory\n barred under U.S. law since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). He\n successfully argued against forum non conveniens (wrong forum) dismissal of 80+ global institutions\u2019\n lawsuits - the first ruling after Morrison v. Nat\u2019l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), to permit\n foreign investors to pursue in U.S. court their foreign law claims for losses in a foreign company\u2019s\n securities traded on a foreign exchange. He successfully argued that the U.S. Securities Litigation\n Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), which extinguishes U.S. state law claims in deference to the\n U.S. federal law, should not extend to the foreign law claims of U.S. and foreign investors, a ruling that\n saved those claims from dismissal where U.S. federal law afforded no remedy after Morrison. In 2021,\n Matt achieved mediator-assisted, confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients\n including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and trusts from\n the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia. Notably, seven of these plaintiffs\n were Matt\u2019s institutional clients from the U.S., U.K., and Canada.\n\u2022 In In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01735 (D.N.J.), Matt pled a multi-\n year fraud arising at one of Canada\u2019s largest banks, based on extensive statements by former\n employees detailing underlying retail banking misconduct. Matt persuaded the court to reject a\n motion to dismiss in an order noteworthy because it validated the scienter (intent) pleading despite\n no witness speaking directly to the individual defendants\u2019 state of mind. The court approved a $13.25\n million class-wide settlement achieved after mediation.\n\u2022 In Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00755-AWT (D. Conn.), Matt persuaded the\n court, after an initial dismissal, to uphold a second amended complaint asserting five threads of fraud\n by an education funding company and its founders and to approve a $7.5 million class-wide\n settlement. Notably, the court held that the company\u2019s reported financial results violated SEC\n Regulation S-K, Item 303, for failure to disclose known trends and impacts from underlying misconduct\n \u2013 a rare ruling absent an accounting restatement.\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\u2022 In In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:12-cv-09456 (S.D.N.Y.), Matt worked with\n mining, accounting, damages, and market efficiency experts to survive a motion to dismiss by a\n Canadian company with mining operations in China and NYSE-traded stock. In approving the $14\n million settlement achieved after two mediations, Judge Rakoff called the case \u201cunusually complex,\u201d\n given the technical nature of mining metrics, the need to compare mining standards in Canada, China,\n and the U.S., and the volume of Chinese-language evidence.\n\nMatt was also on the multi-firm team that represented commercial real estate investors against the\nEmpire State Building\u2019s long-term lessees/operators regarding a consolidation, REIT formation, and IPO in\nIn re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which was resolve for\na $55 million cash/securities settlement fund, a $100 million tax benefit from restructured terms, remedial\ndisclosures, and deal protections.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 34\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 43 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMatt regularly counsels institutional investors, foreign and domestic, regarding pending or potential\ncomplex litigation in the U.S. He is skilled at identifying potential securities frauds early, regularly\nproviding clients with the first opportunity to evaluate and pursue their claims, and he has worked\nextensively with outside investment management firms retained by clients to identify a winning set of\nsupporting evidence. When litigation is filed, he fully oversees its conduct and resolution, counseling\nclients throughout every step of the process, while handling all significant motions and courtroom\narguments. These skills have enabled him to sign numerous institutional clients for litigation and portfolio\nmonitoring services, including public and private pension plans, investment management firms and\nsponsored investment vehicles, from both the U.S. and abroad. Matt\u2019s clients have spearheaded the\nFirm\u2019s litigation efforts in the BP, Fluor, McDermott, Emergent, Miniso, and Comerica litigations discussed\nabove.\n\nMatt takes great pride in representing union clients. He got his own union card as a teenager (United\nFood & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 371), following in the footsteps of his grandfather\n(International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 560).\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Matt worked at a large full-service firm then plaintiff-side boutique firms in\nBoston and Connecticut, litigating complex business disputes and securities, consumer, and employment\nclass actions. His pro bono work included securing Social Security benefits for a veteran with non-service-\nrelated disabilities.\n\nMatt graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1999, where he made the Dean\u2019s List. He\ngraduated from Wesleyan University in 1995, and among his various volunteer activities, he served as\nPresident of the Wesleyan Lawyers Association from 2017-2020.\n\nHis has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d (2016-present),\nLawdragon Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer (2019-present), Benchmark Litigation Star (2021-2023),\nLegal 500 Recommended Securities Litigator (2016, 2021), American Lawyer Top Rated Litigator (2023)\nand Northeast Trailblazer (2021), and a Martindale-Hubbell AV\u00ae Preeminent\u2122 peer-rated attorney (2014-\npresent). His advocacy has been covered by Bloomberg, Law360, the Houston Chronicle, the Hartford\nBusiness Journal, and other outlets.\n\nHe is a member of the Bars the Supreme Court of the United States; the State of New York; the State of\nConnecticut; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals; and\nthe United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York, Connecticut,\nMassachusetts, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Southern District\nof Texas. He is regularly admitted pro hac vice in state and federal courts nationwide.\n\nAustin P. Van\n\nAustin focuses his practice on securities class actions and other high-profile litigations. Austin has\nrepeatedly been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 35\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 44 of 70\n\n\n\n\nhas been named as a Recommended Lawyer by The Legal 500. From 2018\u20132024, Austin has been honored\nas a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star. In 2020, Austin was named an MVP in Securities Litigation by Law360, as\npart of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\nearned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\nsix attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. Austin was named to\nBenchmark Litigation\u2019s \u201c40 and Under Hotlist\u201d in 2020 and 2021.\n\nAustin represents clients in some of the largest class actions in the country:\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 Currently represents lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against GSX Techedu, n/k/a Gaotu\n Techedu, a Chinese online education company. Complaint alleges that GSX falsified half of its student\n enrollment and revenues and caused investors billions of dollars in losses when the truth became\n known. Successfully defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss. (D.N.J. 2023)\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 Represented certified class in a securities class action against TechnipFMC, a Fortune 500 oil and gas\n services company. Plaintiffs alleged TechnipFMC overstated its net income in its initial registration\n statement due to its use of incorrect foreign exchange rates. Successfully argued and defeated\n defendants \u2019motion to dismiss, argued and won lead plaintiffs\u2019 motion for class certification, and\n argued and defeated defendants \u2019motion for summary judgment, all before District Judge Alfred\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 36\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 45 of 70\n\n\n\n\n Bennett. Led the class through complete preparations for trial. The case settled for approximately\n $20 million. (S.D. Tex. 2020)\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Franklin Wireless Inc., a maker of\n wireless routers and communications devices. Based on the strength of the complaint, defendants\n declined to move to dismiss. Successfully obtained class certification and settled the matter on terms\n highly favorable for the class for $2.4 million. (S.D. Cal. 2021)\n\nAustin received a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale\nJournal of International Law. He has a B.A. from Yale University and an M.Sc. from the London School of\nEconomics. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Austin worked as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.\n\nAustin is admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Illinois, the\nSouthern District of Texas, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second and Ninth Circuits,\nand the United States Supreme Court.\n\nMurielle Steven Walsh\n\nMurielle Steven Walsh joined the Firm in 1998 and was elevated to Partner in 2007. In 2024 Murielle was\nnamed a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360, and in 2022 she was selected to participate on the\npublication\u2019s Securities Editorial Board. She was named a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the\nNational Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a handful of individuals from each practice area that\nare truly agents of change\u201d and was also honored as a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Trailblazer by the New York Law\nJournal. Murielle was honored in 2019, 2020 and 2021 as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\nLitigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on 5% of eligible attorneys in the New York Metro\narea. Lawdragon named her a Top Plaintiffs\u2019 Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020.\n\nDuring her career at Pomerantz, Murielle has prosecuted highly successful securities class action and\ncorporate governance cases. She was one of the lead attorneys litigating In re Livent Noteholders\u2019\nSecurities Litigation, a securities class action in which she obtained a $36 million judgment against the\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 37\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 46 of 70\n\n\n\n\ncompany\u2019s top officers, a ruling which was upheld by the Second Circuit on appeal. Murielle was also part\nof the team litigating EBC I v. Goldman Sachs, where the Firm obtained a landmark ruling from the New\nYork Court of Appeals, that underwriters may owe fiduciary duties to their issuer clients in the context of\na firm-commitment underwriting of an initial public offering.\n\nMurielle led Firm's high-profile securities class action against Wynn Resorts Ltd., where the Firm served\nas lead counsel. The litigation stemmed from the company\u2019s alleged cover-up of a prolonged pattern of\nsexual misconduct by its founder and former CEO, billionaire casino mogul Stephen Wynn. In January\n2025, Murielle secured final approval of a $70 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors. Wynn\nis widely regarded as the first high-profile executive whose misconduct was exposed by the #MeToo\nmovement. Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-cv-479 (D. Nev.)\n\nIn a securities class action against Ormat Technologies, Inc., Murielle achieved a $3.75 million settlement\non behalf of defrauded investors in January 2021. Ormat\u2019s securities are dual-listed on the NYSE and the\nTel Aviv Stock Exchange. Murielle persuaded the district court in exercise supplemental jurisdiction in\norder to apply U.S. securities law to the claims in the case, regardless of where investors purchased their\nsecurities.\n\nMurielle led the Firm\u2019s ground-breaking litigation that arose from the popular Pok\u00e9mon Go game, in which\nPomerantz was lead counsel. Pok\u00e9mon Go is an \u201caugmented reality\u201d game in which players use their\nsmart phones to \u201ccatch\u201d Pok\u00e9mon in real-world surroundings. GPS coordinates provided by defendants\nto gamers included directing the public to private property without the owners\u2019 permission, amounting\nto an alleged mass nuisance. In re Pok\u00e9mon Go Nuisance, No. 3:16-cv-04300 (N.D. Cal.)\n\nMurielle was co-lead counsel in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880 (S.D.\nFla.), a securities fraud class action challenging the defendants\u2019 representations that their lending\nactivities were regulatory-compliant, when in fact the company\u2019s key subsidiary engaged in rampant\nviolations of federal consumer financial protection laws, subjecting it to various government\ninvestigations and enforcement action by the CFPB and FTC. In 2016, the Firm obtained a $24 million\nsettlement on behalf of the class. She was also co-lead counsel in Robb v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 16-cv-00151\n(N.D. Cal.), a securities class action alleging that the defendants misrepresented that their key product\ndelivered \u201chighly accurate\u201d heart rate readings when in fact their technology did not consistently deliver\naccurate readings during exercise and its inaccuracy posed serious health risks to users of Fitbit\u2019s products.\nThe Firm obtained a $33 million settlement on behalf of the investor class in this action.\n\nIn 2018 Murielle, along with then-Senior Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a $3.3 million settlement\nfor the Class in the Firm\u2019s case against Corinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in\nthe country, for alleged misrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable\nregulations, and enrollment statistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a\nparticularly noteworthy victory because Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had\ndismissed two prior lawsuits against Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges,\nInc., No. 2:13-cv-07466 (C.D. Cal.).\n\nMurielle serves as a member and on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the non-profit\norganization Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children (\u201cCASA\u201d) of Monmouth County. She also\nserved on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on and\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 38\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 47 of 70\n\n\n\n\ndiscusses specific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and\nexpands economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. In the past, Murielle\nserved as a member of the editorial board for Class Action Reports, a Solicitor for the Legal Aid Associates\nCampaign, and has been involved in political asylum work with the Association of the Bar of the City of\nNew York.\n\nMurielle serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\nMurielle graduated cum laude from New York Law School in 1996, where she was the recipient of the\nIrving Mariash Scholarship. During law school, Murielle interned with the Kings County District Attorney\nand worked within the mergers and acquisitions group of Sullivan & Cromwell.\n\nMurielle is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern District of New\nYork; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits\n\nTamar A. Weinrib\n\nTamar A. Weinrib joined Pomerantz in 2008. She was Of Counsel to the Firm from 2014 through 2018 and\nwas elevated to Partner in 2019. In 2020, The Legal 500 honored her as a Next Generation Partner. Tamar\nwas named a 2018 Rising Star under 40 years of age by Law360, a prestigious honor awarded to a select\nfew \u201ctop litigators and dealmakers practicing at a level usually seen from veteran attorneys.\u201d Tamar has\nbeen recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a 2021 \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney;\u201d she was honored\nas a New York Metro Rising Star every year from 2014 to 2019.\n\nIn 2019, Tamar and Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class\nin Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\nPlaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking\ngiant\u2019s use of so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. This case turned on the duty of integrity owed by\nBarclays to its clients. In November 2016, Tamar and Jeremy achieved precedent-setting victories for\ninvestors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that direct evidence of price impact is not always\nnecessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the presumption of reliance, and that defendants\nseeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence rather than\nmerely meeting a burden of production. In 2018, Tamar successfully opposed Defendants\u2019 petition to the\nSupreme Court for a writ of certiorari.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\nDistrict of New York stated:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\nTamar headed the litigation of In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz\nachieved a settlement of $8,500,000 for the class. She successfully argued before the Second Circuit in In\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 39\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 48 of 70\n\n\n\n\nre China North East Petroleum Securities Litigation, to reverse the district court\u2019s dismissal of the\ndefendants on scienter grounds.\n\nAmong other securities fraud class actions that Tamar led to successful settlements are KB Partners I, L.P.\nv. Pain Therapeutics, Inc. ($8,500,000); New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. ($3,150,000);\nand Whiteley v. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. ($4,000,000).\n\nBefore coming to Pomerantz, Tamar had over three years of experience as a litigation associate in the\nNew York office of Clifford Chance US LLP, where she focused on complex commercial litigation. Tamar\nhas successfully tried pro bono cases, including two criminal appeals and a housing dispute filed with the\nHuman Rights Commission.\n\nTamar graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2004 and while there, won awards for\nsuccessfully competing in and coaching Moot Court competitions.\n\nTamar is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, and Ninth\nCircuits.\n\nMichael J. Wernke\n\nMichael J. Wernke joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in 2014 and was elevated to Partner in 2015. He was\nnamed a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the National Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a\nhandful of individuals from each practice area that are truly agents of change.\u201d\n\nMichael, along with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, led the litigation in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler\nAutomobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, achieved a\n$110 million settlement for the class. This high-profile securities class action alleges that Fiat Chrysler\nconcealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software\ndesigned to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat\nChrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors\nwith as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics\nin class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\nMichael led the securities class action Zwick Partners, LP v. Quorum Health Corp., et al., No. 3:16-cv-2475,\nachieving a settlement of $18 million for the class in June 2020. The settlement represented between\n12.7% and 42.9% of estimated recoverable damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendants misrepresented to\ninvestors the poor prospects of hospitals that the parent company spun off into a stand-alone company.\nIn defeating defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the complaint, Michael successfully argued that company\nfrom which Quorum was spun off was a \u201cmaker\u201d of the false statements even though all the alleged false\nstatements concerned only Quorum\u2019s financials and the class involved only purchasers of Quorum\u2019s\ncommon stock. This was a tremendous victory for plaintiffs, as cases alleging false statements of goodwill\nnotoriously struggle to survive motions to dismiss.\n\nAlong with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, Michael leads the Firm\u2019s individual action against\npharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together,\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 40\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 49 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former employees and officers, relating to alleged\nanticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva is a dual-listed company; the Firm\nrepresents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased Teva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock\nExchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global investors when the district court\nagreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims. Clal Insurance Company Ltd. v.\nTeva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\nIn December 2018, Michael, along with Pomerantz Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, secured a $31\nmillion partial settlement with three defendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust\nLitigation, a closely watched multi-district litigation, which concerns the LIBOR rigging scandal.\n\nIn October 2018, Michael secured a $15 million settlement in In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities\nLitigation, No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), a securities class action that alleges that, following an\naccounting fraud by prior management, Symbol\u2019s management misled investors about the state of its\ninternal controls and the Company\u2019s ability to forecast revenues.\n\nHe was Lead Counsel in Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., in which he achieved a $23.5 million\npartial settlement with certain defendants, securing the settlement despite an ongoing investigation by\nthe Securities and Exchange Commission and shareholder derivative actions. He played a leading role in\nIn re Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved a\nsettlement of $26 million in cash and 1,000,000 shares of Lumber Liquidators common stock for the Class.\nMichael also secured a $7 million settlement (over 30% of the likely recoverable damages) in the securities\nclass action Todd v. STAAR Surgical Company, et al., No. 14-cv-05263-MWF-RZ (C.D. Cal.), which alleged\nthat STAAR concealed from investors violations of FDA regulations that threatened the approval of\nSTAAR\u2019s long awaited new product.\n\nIn the securities class action In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-01836-RSM (W.D.\nWash.), Michael secured a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed the district court\u2019s\ndismissal of the complaint. The Ninth Circuit held that the CEO\u2019s public statements that the company\u2019s\nflagship product had been approved by the FDA were misleading despite the fact that the company\u2019s\npreviously filed registration statement stated that that the product did not, at that time, require FDA\napproval.\n\nDuring the nine years prior to coming to Pomerantz, Michael was a litigator with Cahill Gordon & Reindel\nLLP, with his primary focus in the securities defense arena, where he represented multinational financial\ninstitutions and corporations, playing key roles in two of only a handful of securities class actions to go to\njury verdict since the passage of the PSLRA.\n\nIn 2020 and 2021, Michael was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d\nIn 2014 and 2015, he was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae New York Metro Rising Star.\n\nMichael received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2004. He also holds a B.S. in Mathematics and a B.A.\nin Political Science from Ohio State University, where he graduated summa cum laude.\n\nHe serves on the Firm\u2019s Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 41\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 50 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMichael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Court for the Southern District of\nNew York; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Senior Counsel\n\nStanley M. Grossman\n\nStanley M. Grossman, Senior Counsel, is a former Managing Partner of Pomerantz. Widely recognized as\na leader in the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, he was honored in 2020 with a Lifetime Achievement award by\nthe New York Law Journal. Martindale Hubbell awarded Stan its 2021 AV Preeminent Rating\u00ae, \u201cgiven to\nattorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise,\ncommunication skills, and ethical standards by their peers.\u201d Stan was selected by Super Lawyers\u00ae as an\noutstanding attorney in the United States for the years 2006 through 2020 and was featured in the New\nYork Law Journal article Top Litigators in Securities Field\u2014A Who\u2019s Who of City\u2019s Leading Courtroom\nCombatants. Lawdragon named Stan a Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020, and in 2021,\nhe was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. In 2013, Brooklyn Law School honored Stan as an\nAlumnus of the Year.\n\nStan has primarily represented plaintiffs in securities and antitrust class actions, including many of those\nlisted in the Firm biography. See, e.g., Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970); Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d\n137 (2d Cir. 1971); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987); and In re Salomon Bros.\nTreasury Litig., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993). In 2008 he appeared before the United States Supreme Court to\nargue that scheme liability is actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). See StoneRidge\nInv. Partners, LLC v. Sci.-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (2008). Other cases where he was the Lead or Co-Lead\nCounsel include: In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litigation, No. 91 Civ. 5471 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ($100 million\ncash recovery); In re First Executive Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV-89-7135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n($100 million settlement); and In re Sorbates Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. C98-4886 (N.D. Cal.\n2000) (over $80 million settlement for the class).\n\nIn 1992, Senior Judge Milton Pollack of the Southern District of New York appointed Stan to the Executive\nCommittee of counsel charged with allocating to claimants hundreds of millions of dollars obtained in\nsettlements with Drexel Burnham & Co. and Michael Milken.\n\nMany courts have acknowledged the high quality of legal representation provided to investors by Stan. In\nGartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., No. 79 Civ. 3123 (S.D.N.Y.), where Stan was lead trial\ncounsel for plaintiff, Judge Pollack noted at the completion of the trial:\n\n [I] can fairly say, having remained abreast of the law on the factual and legal matters that\n have been presented, that I know of no case that has been better presented so as to give\n the Court an opportunity to reach a determination, for which the court thanks you.\n\nStan was also the lead trial attorney in Rauch v. Bilzerian (N.J. Super. Ct.) (directors owed the same duty\nof loyalty to preferred shareholders as common shareholders in a corporate takeover), where the court\ndescribed the Pomerantz team as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel.\u201d He headed the six week trial on\nliability in Walsh v. Northrop Grumman (E.D.N.Y.) (a securities and ERISA class action arising from\nNorthrop\u2019s takeover of Grumman), after which a substantial settlement was reached.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 42\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 51 of 70\n\n\n\n\nStan frequently speaks at law schools and professional organizations. In 2010, he was a panelist on\nSecurities Law: Primary Liability for Secondary Actors, sponsored by the Federal Bar Council, and he\npresented Silence Is Golden\u2014Until It Is Deadly: The Fiduciary\u2019s Duty to Disclose, at the Institute of\nAmerican and Talmudic Law. In 2009, Stan was a panelist on a Practicing Law Institute \u201cHot Topic Briefing\u201d\nentitled StoneRidge\u2014Is There Scheme Liability or Not?\n\nStan served on former New York State Comptroller Carl McCall\u2019s Advisory Committee for the NYSE Task\nForce on corporate governance. He is a former president of NASCAT. During his tenure at NASCAT, he\nrepresented the organization in meetings with the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission\nand before members of Congress and of the Executive Branch concerning legislation that became the\nPSLRA.\n\nStan served for three years on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Committee on Ethics, as well as on the\nAssociation\u2019s Judiciary Committee. He is actively involved in civic affairs. He headed a task force on behalf\nof the Association, which, after a wide-ranging investigation, made recommendations for the future of\nthe City University of New York. He was formerly on the board of the Appleseed Foundation, a national\npublic advocacy group.\n\nStan is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York, Central District of California, Eastern District of Wisconsin, District of Arizona,\nDistrict of Colorado; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Ninth and Eleventh\nCircuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nMarc I. Gross\n\nMarc I. Gross is Senior Counsel at Pomerantz LLP, where he has litigated securities fraud class actions for\nover four decades, serving as its Managing Partner from 2009 to 2016. His major lawsuits include SAC\nCapital (Steven Cohen\u2014insider trading); Chesapeake Energy (Aubrey McClendon\u2014insider bail out);\nCitibank (analyst Jack Grubman\u2014false AT&T stock recommendation); and Charter Communications (Paul\nAllen\u2014accounting fraud). He also litigated market efficiency issues in the firm\u2019s landmark $3 billion\nrecovery in Petrobras.\n\nMarc has also served as President of the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (\u201cILEP\u201d), which has\norganized symposiums each year where leading academics have presented papers on securities law and\nconsumer protection issues. These papers have been cited in over 200 cases, including several in the\nUnited States Supreme Court. http://www.ilep.org.\n\nMarc has addressed numerous forums in the United States on shareholder-related issues, including ILEP;\nLoyola-Chicago School of Law\u2019s Institute for Investor Protection Conference; the National Conference on\nPublic Employee Retirement Systems\u2019 (\u201cNCPERS\u201d) Legislative Conferences; PLI conferences on Current\nTrends in Securities Law; a panel entitled Enhancing Consistency and Predictability in Applying Fraud-on-\nthe-Market Theory, sponsored by the Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies, as well as securities law\nstudents at NYU and Georgetown Law schools.\n\nAmong other articles, Marc authored Cooking Books? The Valuation Treadmill, 50 Sec. Reg. L. Jrl. 363\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 43\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 52 of 70\n\n\n\n\n(2022); Reputation and Securities Litigation, 47 Sec. Reg. l Jrl. 99 (2019) Back to Basic(s): Common Sense\nTrumps Econometrics, N.Y.L.J. (Jan. 8, 2018) (with Jeremy Lieberman); and Class Certification in a Post-\nHalliburton II World, 46 Loyola-Chicago L.J. 485 (2015).\n\nMarc was honored in 2022 by T\u2019ruah, the Rabbinic Call to Human Rights, for his pro bono work in support\nof the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida in their battle for recognition by Wendy\u2019s Restaurants,\nand recently joined the Board of Mainchance, a homeless drop-in shelter operating in Manhattan.\n\nMarc is a graduate of NYU Law \u201976 and Columbia College \u201973.\n\nPatrick V. Dahlstrom\n\nPatrick Dahlstrom joined Pomerantz as an associate in 1991 and was elevated to Partner in January 1996.\nHe served as Co-Managing Partner with Jeremy Lieberman in 2017 and 2018 and is now Senior Counsel.\nPatrick heads the Firm\u2019s Chicago office. He was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\nLitigation Attorney\u201d from 2018\u20132021 in both Securities Litigation and Appellate matters. In 2021, Patrick\nwas inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.\n\nPatrick, a member of the Firm\u2019s Institutional Investor Practice and New Case Groups, has extensive\nexperience litigating cases under the PSLRA. He led In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,\nNo. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, recovered a $225 million settlement for\nthe Class\u2014the second-highest ever for a case involving back-dating options, and one of the largest\nrecoveries ever from an individual officer-defendant, the company\u2019s founder and former CEO. In\nComverse, the Firm obtained an important clarification of how courts calculate the \u201clargest financial\ninterest\u201d in connection with the selection of a Lead Plaintiff, in a manner consistent with Dura\nPharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005). Judge Garaufis, in approving the settlement, lauded\nPomerantz: \u201cThe court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s\nacumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough, clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has\nnot taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts at any stage of the litigation.\u201d\n\nIn DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Patrick obtained the first class\ncertification in a federal securities case involving fraud by analysts.\n\nPatrick\u2019s extensive experience in litigation under the PSLRA has made him an expert not only at making\ncompelling arguments on behalf of Pomerantz\u2019s clients for Lead Plaintiff status, but also in discerning\nweaknesses of competing candidates. In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation and Comverse\nare the most recent examples of his success in getting our clients appointed sole Lead Plaintiff despite\ncompeting motions by numerous impressive institutional clients.\n\nPatrick was a member of the trial team in In re ICN/Viratek Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 1997), which,\nafter trial, settled for $14.5 million. Judge Wood praised the trial team: \u201c[P]laintiffs counsel did a superb\njob here on behalf of the class . . . This was a very hard fought case. You had very able, superb opponents,\nand they put you to your task . . . The trial work was beautifully done and I believe very efficiently done.\u201d\n\nPatrick\u2019s speaking engagements include interviews by NBC and the CBC regarding securities class actions,\nand among others, a presentation at the November 2009 State Association of County Retirement Systems\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 44\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 53 of 70\n\n\n\n\nFall Conference as the featured speaker at the Board Chair/Vice Chair Session entitled: \u201cCleaning Up After\nthe 100 Year Storm. How trustees can protect assets and recover losses following the burst of the housing\nand financial bubbles.\u201d\n\nPatrick is a 1987 graduate of the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C.,\nwhere he was a Dean\u2019s Fellow, Editor in Chief of the Administrative Law Journal, a member of the Moot\nCourt Board representing Washington College of Law in the New York County Bar Association\u2019s Antitrust\nMoot Court Competition, and a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services/Public Interest\nLaw Clinic. Upon graduating, Patrick served as the Pro Se Staff Attorney for the United States District Court\nfor the Eastern District of New York and was a law clerk to the Honorable Joan M. Azrack, United States\nMagistrate Judge.\n\nPatrick is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Southern\nand Eastern Districts of New York, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Indiana, Eastern District\nof Wisconsin, District of Colorado, and Western District of Pennsylvania; the United States Courts of\nAppeals for the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits; and the United States Supreme\nCourt.\n\n Of Counsel\n\nSamuel J. Adams\n\nSamuel J. Adams became an Associate at Pomerantz in January 2012 and was elevated to Of Counsel to\nthe Firm in 2021. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cRising Star\u201d every year from 2015 through\n2021.\n\nSam focuses his practice on corporate governance litigation and has served as a member of the litigation\nteam in numerous actions that concluded in successful resolutions for stockholders. He was an integral\nmember of the litigation team that secured a $5.6 million settlement on behalf of a class of shareholders\nof Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. following an ignored merger offer. In re Physicians Formula Holdings,\nInc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.). Sam was also instrumental in achieving a settlement\nin Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. Ct.) which provided for a 25% price increase for\nmembers of the class cashed out in the going-private transaction and established that fee-shifting bylaws\nadopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to stockholders affected by the transaction.\nAdditionally, he was on the team of Pomerantz attorneys who obtained the elimination of stand-still\nprovisions that allowed third parties to bid for Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a\nthird-party bidder and approximately $94 million (57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf\nshareholders. In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7328-VCN (Del. Ch.).\n\nSam is a 2009 graduate of the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. While in law school,\nhe was a member of the National Health Law Moot Court Team. He also participated in the Louis D.\nBrandeis American Inn of Court.\n\nSam is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, and\nEastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Fifth Circuit.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 45\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 54 of 70\n\n\n\n\nAri Y. Basser\n\nAri Y. Basser joined Pomerantz as an associate in April 2019 and was elevated to Of Counsel in January\n2022. He focuses his practice on strategic consumer litigation by representing consumers in unfair\ncompetition, fraud, false advertising, and auto defect actions that recover monetary and injunctive relief\non behalf of class members while also advocating for important consumer rights. Ari has successfully\nprosecuted claims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies\nAct, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Ari was an associate at major litigation law firms in Los Angeles. Ari also worked\nas a Law Clerk in the Economic Crimes Unit of the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. Ari\nhas litigated antitrust violations, product defect matters, and a variety of fraud and misrepresentation\ncases brought under state and federal consumer protection statutes involving unfair competition and\nfalse advertising. He has also been deputized in private attorneys general enforcement actions to recover\ncivil penalties from corporations, on behalf of the State of California, for violations of the Labor Code.\n\nAri is a contributing author to the Competition Law Journal, the official publication of the Antitrust, UCL,\nand Privacy Section of the State Bar of California, where he has examined trends in antitrust litigation and\nthe regulatory authority of the Federal Trade Commission.\n\nAri received dual degrees in Economics and Psychology from the University of California, San Diego in\n2004. He earned his Juris Doctor in 2010 from Santa Clara University School of Law.\n\nSamantha Daniels\n\nSamantha brings years of commercial litigation experience to the Pomerantz team, joining the Firm as Of\nCounsel in 2024. Her practice involves representing aggrieved shareholders in securities litigation to\nrecover losses across a number of industries, including pharma, technology, and entertainment.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Samantha was an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, primarily in the\nfirm\u2019s renowned appellate practice, representing highly visible clients in a range of issues from securities\nlitigation, consumer deception, and labor and employment, to constitutional crises. Her former matters\ninclude resolving first impression questions of employment status for gig workers for Uber and Postmates,\nsecuring victory for Apple against allegations of consumer fraud regarding FaceTime, and helping win NML\nshareholders 2.1 billion in due Argentine bonds.\n\nSamantha earned her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School where she published her\nstudent comment on consumer protection. Before that, Samantha studied at Cornell University in Ithaca,\nNew York, earning degrees in Political Science and History.\n\nCheryl D. Hamer\n\nCheryl D. Hamer joined Pomerantz in 2003 as an associate, served as a partner from 2007 to 2015 and is\nnow Of Counsel to the Firm. She is based in San Diego.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 46\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 55 of 70\n\n\n\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, she served as counsel to nationally known securities class action law firms\nfocusing on the protection of investors rights. In private practice for over 20 years, she has litigated, at\nboth state and federal levels, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, Continuing Criminal\nEnterprise, death penalty and civil rights cases and grand jury representation. She has authored numerous\ncriminal writs and appeals.\n\nCheryl was an Adjunct Professor at American University, Washington College of Law from 2010\u20132011 and\nserved as a pro bono attorney for the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project. She was an Adjunct Professor at\nPace University, Dyson College of Arts and Sciences, Criminal Justice Program and The Graduate School of\nPublic Administration from 1996\u20131998. She has served on numerous non-profit boards of directors,\nincluding Shelter From The Storm, the Native American Preparatory School and the Southern California\nCoalition on Battered Women, for which she received a community service award.\n\nCheryl has been a member of the Litigation and Individual Rights and Responsibilities Sections of the\nAmerican Bar Association, the Corporation, Finance & Securities Law and Criminal Law and Individual\nRights Sections of the District of Columbia Bar, the Litigation and International Law Sections of the\nCalifornia State Bar, and the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA) and represents the\nFirm as a member of the Council of Institutional Investors (CII), the National Association of State\nTreasurers (NAST), the National Conference on Public Employees Retirement Systems (NCPERS), the\nInternational Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP), the State Association of County Retirement\nSystems (SACRS), the California Association of Public Retirement Systems (CALAPRS) and The Association\nof Canadian Pension Management (ACPM/ACARR).\n\nCheryl is a 1973 graduate of Columbia University and a 1983 graduate of Lincoln University Law School.\nShe studied tax law at Golden Gate University and holds a Certificate in Journalism from New York\nUniversity and a Certificate in Photography: Images and Techniques from The University of California San\nDiego.\n\nJonathan D. Park\n\nJonathan D. Park joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in April 2022. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was\nassociated with a prominent plaintiff-side litigation firm, where he represented clients in securities and\ninvestment litigation. He is regularly recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nJonathan focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is currently pursuing claims against Twitter\nconcerning its cybersecurity practices and user metrics. Jonathan was a key member of the litigation\nteams that obtained settlements in Poirier v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) and Lako v. loanDepot, Inc.\n(C.D. Cal.). Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was a member of the litigation team that obtained $19 million\nfor the class in In re Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, and he represented investors in\nIn re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, which arose from the \u201cLondon Whale\u201d scandal and was\nsettled for $150 million. He has also represented investors in opt-out securities actions against\npharmaceutical manufacturers and other companies.\n\nJonathan also has experience representing investors in breach of contract actions. He was the primary\nassociate representing institutional investors injured by the early redemption of bonds issued by CoBank,\nACB and AgriBank, FCB. In the litigation against CoBank, the plaintiffs secured a summary judgment ruling\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 47\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 56 of 70\n\n\n\n\non liability, and in the litigation against AgriBank, the plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, permitting\nthe claims to proceed though the plaintiffs were beneficial owners and not record holders of the bonds\nat issue. Both cases were resolved on confidential terms.\n\nAt the New York City Bar Association, Jonathan has served on the Task Force on Puerto Rico, the New\nLawyers Council, and the International Human Rights Committee. He also served on the board of his non-\nprofit running club, the Dashing Whippets Running Team.\n\nJonathan earned his J.D. in 2013 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the school\u2019s\nMoot Court Board as the Editor of the Jessup International Law Competition Team. During law school, he\nwas a Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights, received the Archibald R. Murray Public Service\nAward, and interned with a refugee law project in Cairo, Egypt. He received a B.A. in 2006 from Vassar\nCollege, where he majored in Africana Studies.\n\nBrian P. O\u2019Connell\n\nBrian P. O\u2019Connell joined Pomerantz as an associate in August 2021 and was elevated to Of Counsel in\nAugust 2024. Brian focuses his practice on securities and financial services litigation.\n\nBrian leads some of the Firm\u2019s most important securities class actions, winning decisions that expand\ninvestor rights. Among these is a case against Ginkgo Bioworks (\u201cGinkgo\u201d), a synthetic biology company\nthat merged with a special purpose acquisition company (\u201cSPAC\u201d). The case alleges that Ginkgo made\nfalse and misleading statements about its revenue, customers and value before the merger. Brian recently\nreached a settlement agreement with Ginkgo defendants for $17.75 million, representing favorable\nrecovery for the class of investors.\n\nIn March 2024, Brian survived a motion to dismiss another de-SPAC case against Grab Holdings, Inc.,\nknown as the Uber of Southeast Asia, giving the oral argument that sustained Section 11 of the Securities\nAct and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act claims. Brian also played an integral role in the\nlitigation and settlement of three Pomerantz cases that recently reached final approval of settlement:\ntelecommunications giant Sprint Corporation ($3.75 million), biopharmaceutical company Orphazyme A/S\n($2.5 million), and energy and oil company Berry Corporation ($2.5 million).\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Brian was an associate at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &\nSprengel LLP, where he specialized in antitrust and commodity futures litigation. Brian has successfully\nlitigated complex class actions involving securities, as well as manipulation of futures and options\ncontracts. Brian also previously worked at the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a contractor\nfocusing on options trading regulation. Following law school, Brian was a legal fellow at the chambers of\nJudge Marvin E. Aspen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.\n\nBrian is passionate about finance and securities law, having previously interned for the Chicago Board\nOptions Exchange and for Susquehanna International Group. Brian has served as a Vice Chair of the\nChicago Bar Association Securities Law Committee. Brian was recently recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae\nRising Star for 2024.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 48\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 57 of 70\n\n\n\n\nBrian earned his Juris Doctor from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. During his time there,\nhe had the opportunity to work at the Center on Wrongful Convictions, where he argued in court on behalf\nof a client serving a life sentence and was later exonerated. Brian also served as Executive Articles Editor\nfor the Journal of International Human Rights Law and as a teaching assistant for the Northwestern Center\non Negotiation and Mediation.\n\nA graduate of Stanford University, Brian majored in Political Science and minored in Economics. During\nhis senior year, he was Editor-in-Chief of The Stanford Review, where he had previously been a Features\nEditor and a staff writer.\n\nBrian is admitted to practice in Illinois and California, the United States District Courts for the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois, the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Ninth Circuit.\n\nLesley Portnoy\n\nLesley Portnoy joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in January 2020, bringing to the Firm more than a decade\nof experience representing investors and consumers in recovering losses caused by corporate fraud and\nwrongdoing. Lesley is based in Los Angeles.\n\nLesley has assisted in the recovery of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors, including the\nvictims of the Bernard M. Madoff bankruptcy. Courts throughout the United States have appointed him\nas Lead Counsel to represent investors in securities fraud class actions. Lesley has been recognized as a\nSuper Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star every year from 2017 through 2021.\n\nAs Co-Lead Counsel with Pomerantz in In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., a high-profile class action litigation\nagainst Yahoo!, Inc., Lesley helped achieve an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case\ninvolved the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were\ncompromised.\n\nOther securities fraud cases that Lesley successfully litigated include Parmelee v. Santander Consumer\nUSA Holdings, Inc.; In re Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc. Sec. Litig.; In re ITT Educational Services, Inc.\nSec. Litig.; In re Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Sec. Litig.; Elkin v. Walter Investment Management Corp.; In re\nCytRx Corporation Sec. Litig.; Carter v. United Development Funding IV; and In re Akorn, Inc. Sec. Litig.\n\nLesley received his B.A. in 2004 from the University of Pennsylvania. In 2009, he simultaneously received\nhis JD magna cum laude from New York Law School and his Masters of Business Administration from City\nUniversity of New York. At New York Law School, Lesley was on the Dean\u2019s List\u2014High Honors and an\nArticles Editor for the New York Law School Law Review.\n\nLesley is admitted to practice in New York and California; the United States District Courts for the Southern\nand Eastern Districts of New York, the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California and the\nNorthern District of Texas; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 49\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 58 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJennifer Banner Sobers\n\nJennifer Banner Sobers is Of Counsel to the Firm.\n\nIn 2021, Jennifer was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d. She was\nalso named a 2020 Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae, Law360, and the New York Law Journal, all separate\nand highly competitive awards that honor attorneys under 40 whose legal accomplishments transcend\ntheir age. After a rigorous nomination and vetting process, Jennifer was honored in 2019 and 2020 as a\nmember of the National Black Lawyers Top 100, an elite network of the top 100 African American\nattorneys from each state.\n\nJennifer played an integral role on the team litigating In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, in the Southern\nDistrict of New York, a securities class action arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\nscheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras. The Firm, as sole Lead\nCounsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement on behalf of investors in Petrobras securities. Among\nJennifer\u2019 contributions to the team\u2019s success were: managing the entire third-party discovery in the\nUnited States, which resulted in the discovery of key documents and witnesses; deposing several\nunderwriter bank witnesses; drafting portions of Plaintiffs\u2019 amended complaints that withstood motions\nto dismiss the claims and Plaintiffs\u2019 successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 appeal in the Second Circuit,\nwhich resulted in precedential rulings, including the Court rejecting the heightened ascertainability\nrequirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other circuit courts; and second\nchaired argument in the Second Circuit that successfully led to the Court upholding the award of sanctions\nagainst a professional objector challenging the integrity of the settlement.\n\nJennifer played a leading role in In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, an action in the District\nof New Jersey alleging a multi-year fraud arising from underlying retail banking misconduct by one of\nCanada\u2019s largest banks that was revealed by investigative news reports. Jennifer undertook significant\nwork drafting the briefing to oppose Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the claims, which the Court denied.\nShe oversaw the discovery in the action, which included, among other things, heading the complicated\nprocess of obtaining documents in Canada and being a principal drafter of the motion to partially lift the\nPSLRA stay in order to obtain discovery. Jennifer successfully presented oral argument which led to the\nCourt approval of a $13.25 million class-wide settlement.\n\nU.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the Toronto-Dominion Bank settlement, stated, \u201cI\ncommend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and thoughtful\nsubmissions during the motion practice aspect of this case. I paused on it because it was a hard case. I\npaused on it because the lawyering was so good. So, I appreciate from both sides your efforts.\u201d He added,\n\u201cIt\u2019s clear to me that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\nthe settlement.\u201d Singling out Pomerantz\u2019s role as lead counsel, the judge also said, \u201cThis settlement\nappears to have been obtained through the hard work of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their\nefforts and not piggybacking on any other work that resulted in this settlement.\u201d\n\nJennifer was a key member of the team litigating individual securities actions against BP p.l.c. in the\nNorthern District of Texas on behalf of institutional investors in BP p.l.c. to recover losses in BP\u2019s common\nstock (which trades on the London Stock Exchange), arising from BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. The actions were\nresolved in 2021 in a confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 50\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 59 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJennifer was a lead litigator in Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc. Jennifer was also a key member of the\nlitigation teams of other nationwide securities class action cases, including: In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.\nSec. Litig., an action in the Southern District of New York, for which Jennifer was one of the principal\ndrafters of the amended complaint\u2014the strength of which led the Court to deny permission to the\ndefendants to file a formal motion to dismiss it\u2014which secured a court-approved $15 million class-wide\nsettlement; In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, an action in the Northern District of\nCalifornia, which successfully secured settlements from the bankrupt company and its jailed CEO worth\nover $3.25 million for the Class that were approved by the Court as well as the bankruptcy court; Perez v.\nHigher One Holdings, Inc., an action in the District of Connecticut, for which Jennifer was one of the\nprincipal drafters of the successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, and which secured a\ncourt-approved $7.5 million class-wide settlement; Edwards v. McDermott Int\u2019l, Inc.; Chun v. Fluor Corp.;\nand Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jennifer was an associate with a prominent law firm in New York where her\npractice focused on complex commercial litigation, including securities law and accountants\u2019 liability. An\nadvocate of pro bono representation, Jennifer earned the Empire State Counsel honorary designation\nfrom the New York State Bar Association and received an award from New York Lawyers for the Public\nInterest for her pro bono work.\n\nJennifer received her B.A. from Harvard University (with honors), where she was on the Dean\u2019s List, a Ron\nBrown Scholar, and a recipient of the Harvard College Scholarship. She received her J.D. from University\nof Virginia School of Law where she was a participant in the Lile Moot Court Competition and was\nrecognized for her pro bono service.\n\nShe is a member of the Securities Litigation and Public Service Committees of the Federal Bar Council, and\nthe New York City Bar Association.\n\nJennifer is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits.\n\nNicolas Tatin\n\nFrench lawyer Nicolas Tatin joined Pomerantz in April 2017 as Of Counsel. He heads the Firm\u2019s Paris office\nand serves as its Director-Business Development Consultant for France, Benelux, Monaco and Switzerland.\nNicolas advises institutional investors in the European Union on how best to evaluate losses to their\ninvestment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct, and how best to maximize their potential\nrecoveries in U.S. and international securities litigations.\n\nNicolas was previously a financial lawyer at ERAFP, France\u2019s \u20ac24bn pension and retirement fund for civil\nservants, where he provided legal advice on the selection of management companies and the\nimplementation of mandates entrusted to them by ERAFP.\n\nNicolas began his career at Natixis Asset Management, before joining BNP Paribas Investment Partners,\nwhere he developed expertise in the legal structuring of investment funds and acquired a global and cross-\nfunctional approach to the asset management industry.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 51\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 60 of 70\n\n\n\n\nNicolas graduated in international law and received an MBA from IAE Paris, the Sorbonne Graduate\nBusiness School.\n\nChristopher Tourek\n\nChristopher Tourek focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Christopher was an associate at a prominent complex-\nlitigation firm and specialized in consumer protection, antitrust, and securities litigation. Christopher has\nsuccessfully litigated securities fraud, antitrust violations, and consumer protection violations on behalf\nof plaintiffs in state and federal court. His litigation experience has led to his being honored as a Super\nLawyers\u00ae Rising Star in Mass Torts litigation from 2016 through 2021, and in the area of Securities\nlitigation from 2022 through 2025.\n\nChristopher is currently pursuing claims concerning a novel pump-and-dump scheme involving emojis and\nTwitter that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation\nSecurities Litigation (D.D.C.). He is also a member of the team pursuing claims in In re: FTX Cryptocurrency\nExchange Collapse Litigation (S.D. Fla.). Finally, Christopher is representing investors in securities actions\nagainst home robotics manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other companies.\n\nChristopher graduated cum laude in 2013 from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he obtained\nhis pro bono notation, honors in legal research, and was a member of the Federal Civil Rights Clinic, in\nwhich he first chaired the case of Powers v. Coleman in the United States District Court for the Central\nDistrict of Illinois. He earned his bachelor\u2019s degree in Government & Law, with a minor in Anthropology &\nSociology, from Lafayette College in 2010.\n\nChristopher is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Courts for the District of\nColumbia, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan.\n\n Associates\n\nGenc Arifi\n\nGenc Arifi focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Genc was an associate with a prominent Chicago law firm\nand represented an expansive range of businesses in employment law matters as well as complex\ncommercial litigation in both state and federal courts. Genc\u2019s experience includes handling complex civil\nmatters, such as cases arising out of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),\nshareholder derivative lawsuits, and employment law matters. He has also advised technology start-up\nclients as well as established financial institutions with risk assessment and litigation strategies.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 52\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 61 of 70\n\n\n\n\nGenc earned his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law and his B.S. from Western Illinois\nUniversity, summa cum laude. He demonstrated strong academic credentials throughout law school; most\nnotably when he achieved the highest grade in Business Organizations, which earned him the CALI\nExcellence for the Future Award. Genc was a recipient of the Dean\u2019s Certificate of Service awarded to law\nstudents who provided 100 hours of community service. Genc participated in a criminal appeals clinic and\nsuccessfully reduced an indigent client's prison sentence.\n\nGenc is co-author of \u201cValuation,\u201d Chapter 6 in \u201cDisputes Involving Closely Held Companies 2020 Edition.\u201d\nPublished by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Feb. 2020, it is the essential guide for\nIllinois attorneys who represent closely held corporations, partnerships, or LLCs.\n\nGenc currently serves as the Secretary and board member of the Albanian-American Community of\nIllinois, a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is to preserve and promote Albanian culture, history, and\ntradition through civic engagement and educational initiatives.\n\nGenc is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Court for the Northern District of\nIllinois.\n\nBrandon M. Cordovi\n\nBrandon M. Cordovi focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Brandon was an associate at a law firm in New York that specializes in the\ndefense of insurance claims. Brandon\u2019s practice focused on the defense of transportation, premises, and\nconstruction liability matters.\n\nBrandon earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the Moot\nCourt Board and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at Fordham Law, Brandon\nparticipated in the Securities Litigation and Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\narbitration of claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. During his second summer of law\nschool, Brandon was a summer associate at a major plaintiff\u2019s securities firm.\n\nBrandon earned his B.S. from the University of Delaware where he double majored in Sport Management\nand Marketing.\n\nBrandon is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York.\n\nJessica N. Dell\n\nJessica Dell focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nShe has worked on dozens of cases at Pomerantz, including the Firm\u2019s securities fraud lawsuits arising\nfrom BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. Jessica has expertise in managing discovery and a nose for investigating\ncomplex fraud across many sectors, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and data security. True\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 53\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 62 of 70\n\n\n\n\nto her roots in public interest law, she has also worked in complex pro bono class action litigation at\nPomerantz.\n\nJessica graduated from CUNY School of Law in 2005. She was the recipient of an Everett fellowship for her\nwork at Human Rights Watch. She also interned at the Urban Justice Center and National Advocates for\nPregnant Women. While in the CUNY clinical program, she represented survivors of domestic violence\nfacing deportation and successfully petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act. She also\nsuccessfully petitioned for the release of survivors incarcerated as drug mules in Central America.\nAfter Hurricane Katrina, Jessica traveled to Louisiana to aid emergency efforts to reunite families and\nrestore legal process for persons lost in the prison system weeks after the flood.\n\nJessica is a member of the New York City and State Bar Associations and the National Lawyers Guild.\n\nZachary Denver\n\nZachary Denver focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Zachary worked at prominent New York firms where he litigated a variety of\ncomplex commercial matters, specializing in financial markets, securities, and bankruptcy.\n\nZachary graduated from New York University School of Law in 2013 and was a staff editor at the NYU\nJournal of Law and Liberty and a board member for the Suspension Representation Project. He earned a\ndouble bachelor\u2019s degree from the University of Massachusetts in Political Science and Communications.\nAfter undergrad, Zachary served as a Teach for America corps member in New York City and earned a\nmaster\u2019s degree in classroom teaching from PACE University.\n\nZachary also serves as a board member for the Legal Alliance of Pheonjong, a non-profit organization that\nprovides legal services to Tibetan asylum seekers in New York City, and he has served as lead counsel on\nseveral applications including two successful trials in immigration court.\n\nZachary is admitted to practice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\nDean P. Ferrogari\n\nDean P. Ferrogari focuses his practice on securities litigation. He was recognized in the 2024 and 2025\neditions of the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\u00ae in America publication for his work in securities litigation.\nHe was also recognized as a 2024 Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nDean earned his Juris Doctor in 2020 from Brooklyn Law School, where he served as an Associate\nManaging Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review. While in law school, Dean was initiated into the\nInternational Legal Honor Society of Phi Delta Phi and was an extern for the Brooklyn Volunteer Lawyers\nProject. He was recognized by the New York State Unified Court System\u2019s Office for Justice Initiatives for\nhis distinguished service in assisting disadvantaged civil litigants in obtaining due process in consumer\ncredit actions. Dean also authored the publication \u201cThe Dark Web: A Symbol of Freedom Not Cybercrime,\u201d\nNew York County Lawyers Association CLE Institute, Security in a Cyber World: Whistle Blowers, Cyber\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 54\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 63 of 70\n\n\n\n\nThreats, Domestic Terrorism, Financial Fraud, Policy by Twitter . . . and the Evolving Role of the Attorney\nand Firm, Oct. 4, 2019, at 321.\n\nDean earned his B.A. from the University of Maryland, where he majored in Economics and was awarded\nthe President\u2019s Transfer Scholarship.\n\nHe is admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of\nNew York.\n\nEmily C. Finestone\n\nEmily C. Finestone focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Emily was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in New York where she\nsuccessfully litigated matters pertaining to sports and entertainment law, copyright infringement, and\nemployment law. Emily previously worked at a prominent complex litigation firm specializing in consumer\nprotection, antitrust, whistleblower, and securities litigation. She also gained appellate experience as a\ntemporary law clerk and Staff Attorney at the Supreme Court of Virginia.\n\nIn 2022 \u2013 2024, Emily was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nEmily graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2015 and was a member of the Review of Banking\n& Financial Law. She received her B.A. from the University of Virginia in 2012, where she double majored\nin English and Spanish, and minored in Government.\n\nEmily is admitted to practice in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the United\nStates District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, District of\nConnecticut, District of Massachusetts, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\nJianan (Adam) Jiang\n\nJianan (Adam) Jiang focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Adam was a litigation associate at a full service Chicago law firm, where he\nlitigated commercial and construction cases in state and federal courts.\n\nAdam earned his J.D., cum laude, from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. During his time\nthere, he served as a Staff Editor for the Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Adam also\nparticipated in the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, where he represented indigent taxpayers to resolve tax\ndisputes with the Internal Revenue Service.\n\nAdam received his Bachelor of Engineering with Honors Class One (equivalent to summa cum laude) and\nthe University Medal from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Adam majored in Civil\nEngineering and worked as a geotechnical engineer before law school.\n\nAdam speaks Mandarin and went to high school in Beijing, China.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 55\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 64 of 70\n\n\n\n\nAdam is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois, and the United States District Court for the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois.\n\nJames M. LoPiano\n\nJames M. LoPiano focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is part of the Firm\u2019s case origination\nteam, identifying and investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws.\n\nJames has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2021.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, James served as a Fellow at Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., a non-profit\nlaw firm run by faculty of Fordham University School of Law.\n\nJames earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he was awarded the\nArchibald R. Murray Public Service Award, cum laude, and merit-based scholarship. While in law school,\nJames served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Stephen A. Bucaria of the Nassau County Supreme\nCourt, Commercial Division, of the State of New York. He also served as Senior Notes and Articles Editor\nof the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, and authored the publication\n\u201cPublic Fora Purpose: Analyzing Viewpoint Discrimination on the President\u2019s Twitter Account,\u201d Note, 28\nFordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 511 (2018). In addition, James completed legal internships at the\nAuthors Guild and Fordham University School of Law\u2019s Intellectual Property and Information Law Clinic,\nwhere he counseled clients and worked on matters related to Freedom of Information Act litigation,\ntrademarks, and copyrights.\n\nJames earned his B.A. from Stony Brook University, where he double majored in English and Cinema and\nCultural Studies, completed the English Honors Program, was inducted into the Stony Brook University\nchapter of the International English Honors Society, and was awarded the university\u2019s Thomas Rogers\nAward for best analytical paper in an English course by an undergraduate.\n\nJames is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York.\n\nDiego Martinez-Krippner\n\nDiego Martinez-Krippner focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Diego was a litigation associate at a large international law firm, where he\nlitigated cases in state and federal courts involving mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance,\nmultidistrict litigation, products liability, and commercial matters. He also served as a litigation associate\nat a boutique law firm where he was involved in disputes concerning art, investment instruments,\nintellectual property, fiduciary duties, and other commercial matters.\n\nDiego is a graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois College of Law. He began his\ncareer as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Theresa Lazar Springmann, United States District Court for\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 56\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 65 of 70\n\n\n\n\nthe Northern District of Indiana, and the Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe, United States Court of Appeals for\nthe Tenth Circuit.\n\nDiego is admitted to practice in Illinois.\n\nThomas H. Przybylowski\n\nThomas H. Przybylowski focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Thomas was an associate at a large New York law firm, where his practice\nfocused on commercial and securities litigation, and regulatory investigations. In 2020 and 2021, Thomas\nwas honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\nThomas earned his J.D. in 2017 from the Georgetown University Law Center. While in law school, Thomas\nserved as a Notes Editor for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics and authored the publication \u201cA Man\nof Genius Makes No Mistakes: Judicial Civility and the Ethics of the Opinion,\u201d Note, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics\n1257 (2016). Thomas earned his B.A. from Lafayette College in 2014, where he double majored in English\nand Philosophy.\n\nThomas is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\nEastern and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey.\n\nJared Rabinowitz\n\nJared Rabinowitz focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jared was a judicial law clerk for Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County\nSupreme Court Commercial Division.\n\nJared earned his J.D. in 2021 from New York Law School, where he served as a Senior Editor for the New\nYork Law School Law Review and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at New York Law\nSchool, Jared participated in the Securities Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\narbitration of securities claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. Prior to law school,\nJared worked as an institutional equity trader at a New York financial services firm.\n\nJared earned his B.S. from Hofstra University where he majored in Legal Studies in Business.\n\nJared is admitted to practice in New York and United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York.\n\nAnkita Sangwan\n\nAnkita Sangwan focuses her practice on corporate governance matters.\n\nShe graduated in 2022 from the LL.M. program at Columbia Law School as a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.\nPrior to attending Columbia Law School, Ankita worked for four years in the Commercial Litigation Team\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 57\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 66 of 70\n\n\n\n\nof a prominent law firm in Bombay, India, at which she focused her practice on complex commercial and\ncivil disputes. Ankita assisted in arguments before various courts in India, including the Supreme Court.\n\nIn 2017, Ankita graduated with Honors from the B.A. LL.B. program at Jindal Global Law School, India. She\nwas a member of the university\u2019s Moot Court Society, which finished as semi-finalists at the World Rounds\nof the International Investment Moot Court Competition, held in Frankfurt, Germany (2016). Ankita\u2019s\nmoot court experience was recognized by her university; she was awarded the \u201cOutstanding Contribution\nto Moot Court\u201d prize upon graduation.\n\nAnkita is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\nVilli Shteyn\n\nVilli Shteyn focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nVilli worked on individual securities lawsuits concerning BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which\nproceeded in In re BP p.l.c. Secs Litig., No. 4:10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.) and were resolved in 2021 in a\nconfidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients, including public and private pension\nfunds, money management firms, partnerships, and investment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K.,\nFrance, the Netherlands, and Australia. He also worked on a successful 2021 settlement for investors in a\ncase against Chinese company ChinaCache.\n\nVilli pursued claims against Deutsche Bank for its lending activities to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein\nand was involved in the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Arconic, arising from the deadliest U.K. fire in\nmore than a century. He also represented investors in a case against AT&T for widespread fraud relating\nto their rollout of DirecTVNow, and against Frutarom for fraud related to widespread bribery in Russia\nand Ukraine. He represented Safra Bank in a class action against Samarco Minera\u00e7\u00e3o S.A., in connection\nwith the Fundao dam-burst disaster, which is widely regarded as the worst environmental disaster in\nBrazil\u2019s history. He represented investors against Recro Pharma in relation to their non-opioid pain-relief\nproduct IV Meloxicam, and against online education companies 2U and K12. Villi also worked on a\nconsumer class action against Apple, Inc. in relation to alleged slowdowns of the iPhone product.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Villi was employed by a boutique patent firm, where he worked on patent\nvalidity issues in the wake of the landmark Alice decision and helped construct international patent\nmaintenance tools for clients and assisted in pursuing injunctive relief for a patent-holder client against a\nlarge tech company.\n\nVilli has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star from 2021 through 2023.\n\nVilli graduated from The University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 2017). In 2014, he graduated summa cum\nlaude from Baruch College with a Bachelor of Science in Public Affairs.\n\nVilli is admitted to practice in New York, and the United States District Courts for the Southern District of\nNew York and the Eastern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\nCircuit.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 58\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 67 of 70\n\n\n\n\nStephanie Weaver\n\nStephanie Weaver focuses her practice on securities litigation. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Stephanie was\nan associate at a boutique securities litigation firm, focused on securities litigation, antitrust and\nbankruptcy matters.\n\nStephanie graduated from St. John\u2019s University School of Law cum laude in 2021. While in law school, she\nserved as Managing Director of the Moot Court Honor Society and won the Best Brief Award at the 2020\nElaine Jackson Stack Moot Court Competition. She was also a member of the school\u2019s New York\nInternational Law Review. She was also honored as a New York State Court of Appeals Fellow in 2019. She\nearned her bachelor\u2019s degree summa cum laude from St. John\u2019s University in 2018.\n\nStephanie is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\nGuy Yedwab\n\nGuy Yedwab focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nGuy graduated from Rutgers Law School summa cum laude in 2023, while also receiving a Master\u2019s Degree\nin Public Affairs and Policy from the Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.\nWhile in law school, he won awards with the National Appellate Advocacy Team and was an editor at the\nJournal of Law and Public Policy, in which he published a note on constitutional law. He was honored with\nthe Marsha Wenk Fellowship at the A.C.L.U. of New Jersey, and the Eagleton Institute\u2019s Henry J. Raimondo\nLegislative Fellowship.\n\nGuy serves as a board member for the League of Independent Theater, a 501(c)(6) trade association for\nsmall-sized cultural institutions in New York City. As such, he consults with policymakers on fostering small\nbusiness in the city.\n\nGuy is admitted to practice in New York State's First Appellate Department.\n\n Staff Attorneys\n\nJay Douglas Dean\n\nJay Dean focuses on class action securities litigation. He has been a commercial litigator for more than 30\nyears.\n\nJay has been practicing with Pomerantz since 2008, including as an associate from 2009\u20132014, interrupted\nby a year of private practice in 2014\u20132015. More recently, he was part of the Pomerantz teams\nprosecuting the successful Petrobras and Yahoo actions. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he served as an\nAssistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, most\nrecently in its Pensions Division. While at Pomerantz, in the Corporation Counsel\u2019s office and previously\nin large New York City firms, Jay has taken leading roles in trials, motions and appeals.\n\nJay graduated in 1988 from Yale Law School, where he was Senior Editor of the Yale Journal of\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 59\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 68 of 70\n\n\n\n\nInternational Law.\n\nJay is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Jay has also earned\nthe right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 60\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 69 of 70\n\n\n\n\nTimor Lahav\n\nTimor Lahav focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nTimor participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras,\narising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel,\nachieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings. Timor also\nparticipated in the firm\u2019s landmark litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., for the massive security breach that\ncompromised 1.5 billion users' personal information.\n\nTimor received his LL.B. from Tel Aviv University School of Law in Israel, following which he clerked at one\nof Israel\u2019s largest law firms. He was an associate at a law firm in Jerusalem, where, among other\nresponsibilities, he drafted motions and appeals, including to the Israeli Supreme Court, on various civil\nmatters.\n\nHe received his LL.M. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. There, Timor received the\nUriel Caroline Bauer Scholarship, awarded to exceptional Israeli law graduates.\n\nTimor brings to Pomerantz several years\u2019 experience as an attorney in New York, including examining local\nSOX anti-corruption compliance policies in correlation with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and analysis\nof transactions in connection with DOJ litigation and SEC enforcement actions.\n\nTimor was a Captain in the Israeli Defense Forces. He is a native Hebrew speaker and is fluent in Russian.\n\nHe is admitted to practice in New York and Israel.\n\nLaura M. Perrone\n\nLaura M. Perrone focuses on class action securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Laura worked on securities class action cases at Labaton Sucharow. Preceding\nthat experience, she represented plaintiffs at her own securities law firm, the Law Offices of Laura M.\nPerrone, PLLC.\n\nAt Pomerantz, Laura participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil\ncompany, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as\nsole Lead Counsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal\nrulings.\n\nLaura has also represented bondholders against Citigroup for its disastrous investments in residential\nmortgage-backed securities, shareholders against Barclays PLC for misrepresentations about its dark pool\ntrading system known as Barclays LX, and shareholders against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for\nmisrepresentations about its recalls and its diesel emissions defeat devices.\n\nLaura graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was on the editorial staff of\nCardozo\u2019s Arts and Entertainment Law Journal and was the recipient of the Jacob Burns Merit Scholarship.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 61\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-5 Filed 10/01/25 Page 70 of 70\n\n\n\n\nLaura is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nAllison Tierney\n\nAllison Tierney focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nAllison brings to Pomerantz her 10 years\u2019 expertise in large-scale securities class action litigation. She\nparticipated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising\nfrom a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved\na historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Allison worked on securities class action cases at several top New York law\nfirms, representing institutional investors. She has represented plaintiffs in disputes related to antitrust\nviolations, corporate financial malfeasance, and residential mortgage-backed securities fraud.\n\nAllison earned her law degree from Hofstra University School of Law, where she served as notes and\ncomments editor for the Cyberlaw Journal. She received her B.A. in Psychology from Boston University,\nwhere she graduated magna cum laude.\n\nAllison is conversant in Spanish and studying to become fluent.\n\nAllison is admitted to practice in New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 62\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:43:13.159629-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311109","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D (J Park Dec ISO Fees) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664870/","id":483664870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/6/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:53.346793-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:44:09.288484-07:00","sha1":"c93db792557499a479ed769cc99837cf104bd9b4","page_count":35,"file_size":687412,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 35\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT E\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 35\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n DECLARATION OF BRIAN B.\n ALEXANDER REGARDING\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n I, Brian B. Alexander, hereby declare and state, under penalty of perjury, that the following\n\nis true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:\n\n 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in New York and before this Court. I\n\nam a Partner at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cRosen Law\u201d), court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for Co-\n\nLead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class in this litigation (the \u201cAction\u201d). I have personal knowledge\n\nof the matters set forth herein and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto.\n\n 2. A copy of Rosen Law\u2019s firm resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n 3. Rosen Law has been involved in the Action since its appointment on January 19,\n\n2024, continuing throughout all other aspects of the Action.\n\n 4. Rosen Law rendered the following legal services, along with Co-Lead Counsel\n\nPomerantz LLP, in connection with the prosecution of the Action: (i) conducted a thorough and wide-\n\nranging investigation that included a review and analysis of publicly available information, as well\n\nas interviews with numerous former GigaCloud employees; (ii) consulted with experts regarding\n\naccounting, market efficiency, loss causation, and damages issues; (iii) prepared and filed a detailed\n\nAmended Class Action Complaint (the \u201cAmended Complaint\u201d) that identified numerous alleged\n\nmisrepresentations by Defendants and contained allegations derived from four former GigaCloud\n\nemployees; (iv) analyzed Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; (v) following the\n 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 35\n\n\n\npublication of a report by Grizzly Research LLC, conducted an additional investigation concerning\n\nmatters raised therein; (vi) prepared and filed a detailed Second Amended Class Action Complaint\n\n(the \u201cSecond Amended Complaint\u201d) that identified additional alleged misrepresentations by\n\nDefendants and contained allegations derived from five additional former GigaCloud employees;\n\n(vii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s\n\nmotion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in\n\npart; (viii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Defendant Chen\u2019s separate motion to dismiss\n\nthe Second Amended Complaint, which the Court denied in full; (ix) undertook extensive efforts to\n\nserve pleadings on Defendants, several of whom are believed to reside in the People\u2019s Republic of\n\nChina; (x) following the Court\u2019s order sustaining the Second Amended Complaint, in part, engaged\n\nin discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel regarding the scope of discovery and a schedule for the\n\nAction; (xi) engaged in discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel over a period of several weeks\n\nregarding a potential negotiated resolution of the Action, leading to the proposed Settlement; (xii)\n\ndrafted the preliminary approval motion, Notice, Summary Notice, Postcard Notice, Claim Form, and\n\nall other supporting documents and declarations; (xiii) oversaw the implementation of the judicially\n\napproved notice process to Settlement Class Members; and (xiv) prepared the Final Approval Motion,\n\nalong with all supporting documents and declarations.\n\n 5. Rosen Law does not charge its clients an hourly rate and works exclusively on a\n\ncontingency fee basis. To determine appropriate hourly rates for use in a lodestar calculation, Rosen\n\nLaw relied on a compendium of hourly rates charged by complex litigation counsel for work\n\nperformed in connection with bankruptcy proceedings and approved by bankruptcy courts in 2023\n\nattached hereto as Exhibit B. This compendium is based on research and work performed by Labaton\n\nKeller Sucharow, and filed in Chen v. MissFresh Ltd, 22-cv-09836-JSR (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. No. 149-\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 35\n\n\n\n9). The compendium lists the hourly rates approved by Courts for partners, counsel, associates, staff\n\nattorneys and paralegals. The rates are further categorized according to three tiers, median of lowest\n\n25%, median, and median of highest 25%.\n\n 6. To calculate Rosen Law\u2019s rates, Exhibit B takes the average of the 25th percentile,\n\nmedian, and 75th percentile hourly rates for each law firm in the compendium, and calculates the\n\naverage of those rates for each tier, without adjustment for inflation. Then, Rosen Law applies a 15%\n\ndiscount to each of those figures, for the sake of conservatism. Rosen Law then assigns hourly rates\n\nfor associates, counsel, and partners based on experience level. Associates with three years of\n\nexperience or less are assigned the discounted 25th percentile rate, associates with four to six years of\n\nexperience are assigned the discounted median rate, and associates with seven or more years of\n\nexperience are assigned the discounted 75th percentile rate. For counsel and partners, attorneys with\n\n15 years of experience or less are assigned the 25th percentile rate, attorneys with 16 to 22 years of\n\nexperience are assigned the median rate, and attorneys with more than 22 years of experience are\n\nassigned the 75th percentile rate. The chart below is a summary of time expended by attorneys and\n\nparalegals at Rosen Law on the Action through August 31, 2025, and the lodestar calculation based\n\non the method discussed in the preceding paragraph. The chart was prepared from contemporaneous,\n\ndaily time records regularly prepared and maintained by my firm.\n\n Years in\n Professional (position)* Hourly Rate Hours Worked Lodestar\n Practice\n Larry Rosen (P) 37 $1,512 15 $22,680.00\n Phillip Kim (P) 23 $1,512 6 $9,072.00\n Brian Alexander (P) 17 $1,403 707 $991,921.00\n Jing Chen (P) 14 $1,273 6.9 $8,783.70\n Erica Stone (C) 12 $1,119 0.6 $671.40\n Scott (Ha-Sung) Kim (A) 8 $932 0.7 $652.40\n Ryan Hedrick (A) 6 $826 21 $17,346.00\n Christie Buzzetti (A) 3 $717 0.8 $573.60\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5 of 35\n\n\n\n Eric Bi (A) 1 $717 13 $9,321.00\n Henry Bloxenheim (A) 2 $717 37 $26,529.00\n Julia Shimizu (PL) n/a $383 0.5 $191.50\n Zachary Stanco (PL) n/a $383 28 $10,724.00\n TOTALS 836.5 $1,098,465.60\n* Partner (P), Counsel (C), Associate (A), Paralegal (PL)\n\n 7. My firm performed a total of 836.5 professional work hours in the prosecution of\n\nthe Action. The total lodestar amount for my firm is $1,098,465.60.\n\n 8. Rosen Law expended a total of $43,626.53 in un-reimbursed expenses in connection\n\nwith the prosecution of the Action broken down as follows:\n\n Category Amount\n Document Translation and Interpreter Fees $5,403.02\n Investigator Fees $23,000\n Service of Process/Hague Convention Fees $855\n Online Legal Research and Document Retrieval Fees $958.65\n Press Release / Notice to Class Member Fees $12,720\n Court Filing, Messenger, Transcripts, Pro Hac Vice $176.65\n Postage and FedEx Fees $513.21\n TOTAL EXPENSES $43,626.53\n\n 9. The expenses set forth above are reflected in counsel\u2019s books and records. These\n\nbooks and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and financial statements\n\nprepared in the normal course of business for my firm and are an accurate record of the expenses\n\nincurred in the prosecution of the Action.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing facts are true and correct.\n\n Executed this Thursday, September 4, 2025, at New York, New York.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 35\n\n\n\n /s/ Brian B. Alexander\n BRIAN B. ALEXANDER\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit A\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8 of 35\n\n\n\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.\n BIOGRAPHY\n\nI. ATTORNEYS\n\nLAURENCE ROSEN \u2013 MANAGING PARTNER\n\n Laurence Rosen is a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law. He earned an\n\nM.B.A. in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and\n\na B.A. in Economics from Emory University. Mr. Rosen served as a law clerk to the Honorable\n\nStanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Rosen\n\nentered private practice as an associate at the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in\n\nNew York City where he participated in a number of complex securities class action and derivative\n\nlitigation matters. He later served as an associate at McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey\n\nwhere he specialized in securities and business litigation.\n\n After practicing general securities and commercial litigation in New York City with Solton\n\nRosen & Balakhovsky LLP, Mr. Rosen founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent investors\n\nexclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation. Mr. Rosen is admitted to practice\n\nlaw in Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Mr. Rosen is also admitted to\n\npractice before numerous United States District Courts throughout the country and the United\n\nStates Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-2024 Lawdragon named Mr. Rosen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\nLawyers. Mr. Rosen was also named by law360 as Titan of Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar for 2020. Mr. Rosen\n\nwas selected to Super Lawyers in 2017-2024.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 9 of 35\n\n\n\n\nPHILLIP KIM \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Kim graduated from Villanova University School of Law in 2002. He received a B.A.\n\nin Economics from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in 1999. Prior to joining\n\nThe Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Kim served as Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York\n\nin the Special Federal Litigation Division. In that position, Mr. Kim defended a number of class\n\naction lawsuits, litigated numerous individual actions, and participated in more than seven trials.\n\nMr. Kim focuses his practice on securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Mr.\n\nKim is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the Southern,\n\nEastern, Northern and Western Districts of New York, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District\n\nof Wisconsin, the Eastern District of Michigan, and United States Court of Appeals for the Second,\n\nSixth and Ninth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-2024 Lawdragon named Mr. Kim as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\nLawyers. In 2023-2024 Mr. Kim was selected to Super Lawyers. Mr. Kim was recognized by Best\n\nLawyers in The Best Lawyers of America 2024-2025.\n\nJACOB A. GOLDBERG \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Goldberg is a 1988 graduate of Columbia University. Mr. Goldberg received his J.D.,\n\ncum laude, from the Temple University School of Law in 1992. For over 23 years, Mr. Goldberg\n\nhas litigated complex cases at the highest levels, championing the rights of investors, employees\n\nand consumers. Mr. Goldberg has recovered over $200 million for investors in securities class\n\nactions. In addition to serving in leadership roles in securities class actions, Mr. Goldberg has\n\nlitigated many cases under state corporations laws, against faithless boards of directors both on\n\nbehalf of shareholders, in the mergers and acquisitions context, and, derivatively, on behalf of\n\ncorporations, to remedy harm to the corporation itself. Mr. Goldberg is admitted to practice law\n\nin the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, New York, the United States Supreme Court, the United\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10 of 35\n\n\n\n\nStates Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits, and various United States\n\nDistrict Courts across the country.\n\n In 2019-2024 Lawdragon named Mr. Goldberg as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff\n\nFinancial Lawyers.\n\nJONATHAN A. SAIDEL \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Saidel has had a long and distinguished career in Pennsylvania politics, as well as in\n\nthe roles of attorney, accountant and author. He served as Philadelphia city controller for four\n\nconsecutive terms, each time earning reelection by a wide margin, and enacting financial reforms\n\nthat have saved taxpayers upwards of $500 million. Later, in 2010 he went on to campaign for\n\nlieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, where he was runner-up to Scott Conklin by only a few\n\nthousand votes out of almost 1 million cast. A Lifelong resident of Northeast Philadelphia, Mr.\n\nSaidel\u2019s tireless dedication to fiscal discipline reduced the city's tax burden and spurred economic\n\ndevelopment. Mr. Saidel also pushed for important business tax incentives and expanded minority\n\nand small business lending, all of which have revitalized the city, helping it prosper and come back\n\nfrom the brink of bankruptcy in the early 1990's to become one of the most vibrant cities on the\n\nEast Coast.\n\n Mr. Saidel\u2019s book, \"Philadelphia: A New Urban Direction\", is widely considered an\n\nessential guide for effective government and corporate governance and is required reading at many\n\ncolleges and universities.\n\n Mr. Saidel received his JD from the Widener University of Law and is a graduate of Temple\n\nUniversity. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of\n\nGovernment, and Drexel University's MBA Program. In addition to being a Certified Public\n\nAccount, Jonathan is a recipient of the National Association of Local Government Auditor's\n\nKnighton Award, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Award for Excellence,\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11 of 35\n\n\n\n\nmultiple special project awards from the National Association of Local Government Auditors, and\n\nthe \"Controller of the Year\" award, a peer recognition presented by the Pennsylvania City\n\nControllers Association.\n\nSARA FUKS \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Fuks graduated from Fordham University School of Law, cum laude, in February\n\n2005, where she was a member of Fordham Law Review. She received her B.A. in Political\n\nScience, magna cum laude, from New York University in 2001. Ms. Fuks began her practice at\n\nDewey Ballantine, LLP where she focused on general commercial litigation and then went on to\n\nprosecute numerous ERISA and securities class actions as an associate at Milberg LLP. Ms. Fuks\n\nis admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District\n\nCourts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of\n\nMichigan. Ms. Fuks was selected to SuperLawyers in 2021-2024 and SuperLawyers Rising Stars\n\nin 2017-2019.\n\nJONATHAN HORNE \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Horne is a 2009 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he received\n\nthe 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\nMr. Horne specializes in securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in New York and the\n\nUnited States District Courts for the District of Colorado and the Southern and Eastern Districts\n\nof New York. Mr. Horne was named a Super Lawyer \u2013 Rising Star for the New York Metro Area\n\nevery year since 2015.\n\nYU SHI \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Shi received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2011 and his B.A., cum laude,\n\nfrom Columbia University in 2008. In 2024, Lawdragon recognized Mr. Shi as one of the 500\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12 of 35\n\n\n\n\nLeading Plaintiffs Financial Lawyers. In 2022, Law360 named Mr. Shi as one of the nation\u2019s top\n\nsecurities attorneys under the age of 40. He has been selected to Super Lawyers each year since\n\n2018. Mr. Shi began his career as a Special Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New York City\n\nLaw Department\u2019s Economic Development Division. Mr. Shi joined The Rosen Law Firm in 2012\n\nand focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in the State of New\n\nYork, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, Southern Districts of\n\nNew York, and the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\n\nCircuit.\n\nJONATHAN STERN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Stern graduated from New York University School of Law in May of 2008, where he\n\nwas a Development Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law. He received his B.A. in\n\nPhilosophy with Honors from McGill University. Mr. Stern began his practice in the litigation\n\ndepartment of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and then went on to practice at the litigation\n\nboutique of Simon & Partners LLP, where he participated in a Federal trial. Mr. Stern is admitted\n\nto the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Southern and\n\nEastern District Courts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nfor the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nJING CHEN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Chen received a Juris Doctor degree from Pace University School of Law in 2011,\n\nJuris Master degree from China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, China and\n\nB.A. in English Literature and Linguistics from Shandong University in Jinan, China. She is\n\nadmitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and China. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm,\n\nMs. Chen practiced corporate law, commercial transactions and arbitration for over two years.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13 of 35\n\n\n\n\nBRIAN ALEXANDER \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Alexander graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 2008. He received a\n\nB.A. from Cornell University, magna cum laude, in 2003. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm,\n\nMr. Alexander practiced complex commercial litigation at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and other\n\nprominent law firms in New York. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond J.\n\nDearie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is admitted to\n\npractice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\nNew York, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Alexander was\n\nrecognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025.\n\nDANIEL TYRE-KARP \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm in May 2018, Mr. Tyre-Karp was a senior associate\n\nin the securities litigation and corporate governance group at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where he\n\nadvised corporate and individual clients on a variety of high-stakes regulatory and litigation\n\nmatters in state and federal courts. Mr. Tyre-Karp\u2019s extensive experience includes working on\n\nseveral of the largest recent shareholder class action litigations (In re American International\n\nGroup, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, Docket No. 08-CV-4772 (S.D.N.Y.) and related opt-out\n\nactions; In re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Docket No. 6949 (Del. Ch.)),\n\nparticipating in complex business and bankruptcy litigations (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings,\n\nInc., et al, Docket No. 1:08-bk-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), and advising numerous clients facing\n\nFINRA and SEC investigations. Mr. Tyre-Karp graduated with honors from Wesleyan University\n\nin 2003 and received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2009, where he served\n\nas Senior Notes Editor of the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. He is admitted to practice\n\nin New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\n\nYork. Mr. Tyre-Karp was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025.\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 14 of 35\n\n\n\n\nROBIN BRONZAFT HOWALD \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Howald is a graduate of Stanford Law School where she was a member of the Stanford\n\nLaw Review. Ms. Howald earned her BA from Barnard College, magna cum laude. Ms. Howald\n\njoined the firm in 2021 and focuses her practice on securities litigation. For the last 15 years, Ms.\n\nHowald has prosecuted major securities litigations. She was one of the lead attorneys in cases that\n\nachieved settlements of $250 million for injured investors, including Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d\n\n679 (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\nmillion), In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) ($20 million), In re\n\nMusicmaker.com Securities Litigation, 2001 WL 34062431 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ($13.75 million), In\n\nre Puda Coal Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) ($8.6 million following reconsideration of grant\n\nof summary judgment), Jenson v. Fiserv Trust Co., 256 F. App\u2019x. 924 (9th Cir. 2007) ($8.5 million\n\nrecovered for victims of a Ponzi scheme). Ms. Howald is admitted to the bars of California, New\n\nYork, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the\n\nCentral, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\nGONEN HAKLAY \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Haklay graduated from Stanford University School of Law in 1995. He received a\n\nB.A. in Political Science from The University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1992. After several\n\nyears as an associate at a large Philadelphia law firm, Mr. Haklay joined the Philadelphia District\n\nAttorney\u2019s office. As a prosecutor, he tried over 100 criminal jury cases and handled both capital\n\nand non-capital homicide cases. After 12 years as prosecutor, Mr. Haklay joined a prominent\n\nplaintiffs\u2019 firm where he tried over ten asbestos cases, recovering millions of dollars for his clients.\n\nAs a young man, Mr. Haklay served as an infantryman in the Israel Defense Forces. Mr. Haklay\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 15 of 35\n\n\n\n\nis admitted to the bars of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United\n\nStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Third Circuit\n\nCourt of Appeals. Mr. Haklay was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\n\n2025.\n\nERICA STONE \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Stone graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2013. She received\n\nher B.A. in Political Science and Communications, cum laude, from the University of\n\nPennsylvania in 2009. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States\n\nDistrict Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, the District of New\n\nJersey, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2024, Ms. Stone\n\nwas selected to Super Lawyers. Ms. Stone was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones\n\nto Watch 2025.\n\nJOSHUA BAKER \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Baker graduated from the New York University School of Law in 2013. He received\n\na B.A. from the University of Maryland in 2009. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Baker\n\npracticed complex commercial litigation for a New York firm. He is admitted to practice in New\n\nYork, Massachusetts, and United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\nNew York and the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Baker was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best\n\nLawyers: Ones to Watch 2025.\n\nMICHAEL COHEN \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Cohen focuses his practice on securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Prior to\n\njoining The Rosen Law Firm in 2021, Mr. Cohen was an associate in the litigation practice of\n\nKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, where he advised corporate and individual clients on a\n\nwide variety of litigation and regulatory matters in federal and state courts. He has also served as\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 16 of 35\n\n\n\n\na law clerk to the Honorable Corinne Beckwith of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Mr.\n\nCohen is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Eastern\n\nand Southern Districts of New York. Mr. Cohen was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\nOnes to Watch 2023-2025.\n\nLEAH 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\nUniversity of Pennsylvania. Ms. Heifetz-Li served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia S.\n\nKern, New York State Supreme Court, New York County. She has extensive experience in class\n\naction litigation, having previously practiced at a large class action firm representing shareholders\n\nin merger and acquisition litigation as well as shareholder derivative actions. Ms. Heifetz-Li has\n\nworked on case teams that secured significant financial recoveries for stockholders as well as\n\ncorporate governance reforms in the Delaware Court of Chancery and other courts throughout the\n\ncountry.\n\nHENRY BLOXENHEIM \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Bloxenheim graduated from Columbia Law School in 2023. Mr. Bloxenheim received\n\nhis B.A. in Political Science, summa cum laude, from Brooklyn College. Mr. Bloxenheim is\n\nadmitted to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Southern District\n\nand Eastern District of New York.\n\nCHRISTIE BUZZETTI \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Buzzetti graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2022. She received her B.A. in\n\nPolitical Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2016. Ms. Buzzetti is admitted\n\nto practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern\n\nDistrict of New York.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 17 of 35\n\n\n\n\nYITZCHOK (IZZY) FISHBACH \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Fishbach received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2022, where he\n\nserved as the Articles Editor of the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review. He received\n\nhis B.A. in Political Science from Binghamton University in 2019. Mr. Fishbach is admitted to\n\npractice in New York, Tennessee, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and\n\nSouthern Districts of New York.\n\nLUKE FOLEY \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Foley received his J.D. from the William and Mary Law School in 2022. He received\n\nhis B.A. in History and Citizenship & Civic Engagement from Syracuse University in 2016. Prior\n\nto joining the Rosen Law Firm in September 2023, Mr. Foley was the Law Clerk to the Hon.\n\nBarbara Buono Stanton of the New Jersey Superior Court, Passaic County. Mr. Foley is admitted\n\nto practice in Maryland.\n\nRYAN HEDRICK \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Hedrick received his J.D. from the University of Chicago in 2019. He received his\n\nB.A. in Linguistics and Political Science, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University in\n\n2015. Mr. Hedrick joined the Rosen Law Firm in August 2019. Mr. Hedrick is admitted to practice\n\nin New York, New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts\n\nof New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Colorado, and United States Court of\n\nAppeals for the Ninth Circuit.\n\nHA 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\nmagna cum laude, from Wheaton College in 2013. Mr. Kim joined the Rosen Law Firm in January\n\n2020. Mr. Kim is admitted to practice in New York.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 18 of 35\n\n\n\n\nIAN MCDOWELL \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. McDowell graduated cum laude from the University of Richmond School of Law in\n\n2022. He received his B.A. from James Madison University in 2016. Mr. McDowell is admitted\n\nto practice in Pennsylvania and Maryland as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern\n\nDistrict of Pennsylvania.\n\nOLIVIA SIMKINS \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Simkins is a 2024 graduate of Tulane University School of Law. She earned her B.A.\n\nin Linguistics and English cum laude from Tulane University in 2017. Ms. Simkins is admitted to\n\npractice in Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\n\nPennsylvania.\n\nERIC JUN BI \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Bi is a 2024 graduate of Cornell Law School. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from\n\nYanching Institute of Technology in 2020. Mr. Bi is fluent in Mandarin. Mr. Bi is admitted to\n\npractice in New York and Pennsylvania.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 19 of 35\n\n\n\n\nII. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n \u2022 Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $250 million.\n\n \u2022 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $110 million.\n\n \u2022 Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, (N.Y. Supreme). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $48\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Silver Wheaton Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $41.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $30.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $29.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n $28.75 million.\n\n \u2022 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 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\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 12\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 20 of 35\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (Shareholder Derivative) (Del. Ch.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel. $12.5 million.\n\n \u2022 The RealReal, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11 million.\n\n \u2022 Full Truck Alliance Co. (E.D.N.Y.) and (NY. Sup.). Rosen Federal Lead Counsel. $10.25\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Quest Energy Partners LP, (W.D. Okla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $10.1 million all classes.\n\n \u2022 Prosper Marketplace, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Class Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 PG&E Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 comScore, Inc. (Shareholder Derivative), Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $9.5\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Uxin Limited, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Concordia International Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.25 million.\n\n \u2022 PPDAI Group Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9 million.\n\n \u2022 Puda Coal, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $8.7 million.\n\n \u2022 RINO International Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8,685,000.\n\n \u2022 Acer Therapeutics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8.35 million.\n\n \u2022 Montage Technology Group Limited, (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7.25 million.\n\n \u2022 AgFeed Industries, (M.D. Tenn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Sundial Growers, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Akazoo S.A., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $6.51 million.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 13\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 21 of 35\n\n\n\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 pending Court approval.\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\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 14\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 22 of 35\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 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 \u2022 Roka Bioscience, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.275 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 15\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 23 of 35\n\n\n\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, pending Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Sequans Communications, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Akari Therapeutics PLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 16\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 24 of 35\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Electric Last Mile Solutions, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Growlife, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million (cash and stock).\n\n \u2022 Tangoe, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.5 million, pending\n\n Court approval.\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 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 pending Court approval.\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\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 17\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 25 of 35\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, $1,985,000, pending Court\n\n approval.\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 Corrrevio Pharma Corp.,(S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Delstaff LLC (Merger Litigation), (Cal. Superior). $1.6425 million.\n\n \u2022 Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc, (Cal. Superior). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $1.615 million.\n\n \u2022 Alliance MMA, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Lightinthebox Holding Co., Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Nutracea, Inc., (D. Ariz.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Kraton Corporation, (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 RMG Networks Holding Corporation (Merger Litigation), (Del. Ch.). $1.5 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 18\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 26 of 35\n\n\n\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 \u2022 M.H. Meyerson & Co., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 19\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 27 of 35\n\n\n\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\nIII. SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. IS CURRENTLY\nLEAD COUNSEL\n\n In re Maiden Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-5296-RMB-JS (D.N.J.)\n\nRosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Sec. Litig., No. CV 12-4621- JFW (PLAx) (C.D.\n\nCal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Kasillingam v. Tilray, Inc., No. 20-CV-3459 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-1424 (NGG) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\nClass Counsel.\n\n Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc., No. 21-CV-3070 (ARR)(TAM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\nLead Counsel.\n\n Handal v. Tenet Fintech Group, Inc., No. 21-cv-6461 (PKC)(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\nLead Counsel.\n\n Atery v. Astra Space, Inc., No. 22-cv-737 (NM)(MMH) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Hoang v. ContextLogic, Inc., No. 21-cv-3930-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 20\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 28 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Mallozzi v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., No. 22-cv-2359-EP-JRA (D.N.J.).\n\nRosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., No. 22-cv-3925 (AGS) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., No. 21-CV-1987-FLA-A (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Walmart Secs. Litig., No. 21-cv-55-CFC (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Sanchez v. Arrival SA, No. 220cv0172 (DG)(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re VEON Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 15-cv-8672 (ALC)(OTW) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n In re Volkswagen AG Sec. Litig., No. 22-cv-45-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n In re DiDi Global Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-CV-5807 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Patterson v. TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd., No. 22-cv-3600-TLT (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Diaz v. The Gap, Inc., No. 22-cv-7371 (DG)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Armbruster v. Gaia, Inc., No. 22-CV-3267 (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Pang v. Levitt (Core Scientific, Inc.), No. 22-CV-1191-LY (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Goodman v. Wheels Up Experience, Inc., No. 23-cv-2900 (OEM)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.).\n\nRosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Enovix Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-71-SI (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Gambrill v. CS Disco, Inc., No. 23-cv-8270 (LAK)(SN) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 21\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 29 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Lewandowski v. Tal Education Group, No. 23-cv-1769 (MEF) (JRA) (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n HRSA-ILA Funds v. adidas AG, No. 23-CV-629-IM (D. Or.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Tan v. PacWest Bancorp., No. CV-23-1685 (JWH)(ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Maschhoff v. Polished.com, No. 22-cv-6605(NGG)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\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\nLead Counsel.\n\n Glantz v. James River Group Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-10000 (LJL). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv-4565 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Sigman v. Nuscale Power Corp., No. 23-cv-1689-IM (D. Or.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Spitzer v. Flexon, No. 23-cv-8659-HDV (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Jaar v. Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp., No. 24-cv-2155 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\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 Dorin v. Exscientia PLC, No. 24-cv-5692-RMD-AMD (D.N.J.). 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 In re Altimmune, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-1315-ABA (D. Md.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc., No. 24-cv-12119-LTS (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 22\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 30 of 35\n\n\n\n\n In re Avis Budget Group Inc., Sec. Litig., No. 2:25-cv-03332-MEF-CLW (D.N.J.). Rosen\n\nCo-Lead Counsel\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 23\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 31 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 32 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Akin Gump Strauss Hauer\nPartners 1 & Feld LLP 42 $1,135 $1,440 $1,775 $1,995 $1,995\nPartners 2 Jones Day LLP 2 $1,200 $1,250 $1,300 $1,350 $1,400\nPartners 3 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 184 $1,035 $1,343 $1,495 $1,795 $2,255\n Kramer Levin Naftalis &\nPartners 4 Frankel LLP 4 $1,665 $1,680 $1,688 $1,718 $1,800\nPartners 5 Latham & Watkins LLP 18 $1,018 $1,390 $1,620 $1,716 $2,035\nPartners 6 Milbank LLP 10 $1,495 $1,785 $1,895 $2,008 $2,045\nPartners 7 Morrison & Foerster LLP 10 $1,200 $1,219 $1,538 $1,713 $2,050\nPartners 9 Paul Hasting LLP 24 $1,375 $1,510 $1,663 $1,739 $1,935\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nPartners 10 Wharton & Garrison LLP 18 $1,605 $1,929 $2,095 $2,175 $2,175\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nPartners 11 & Sullivan LLP 21 $1,150 $1,385 $1,593 $1,770 $2,130\n Skadden Arps Slate\nPartners 12 Meagher & Flom LLP 23 $1,196 $1,460 $1,526 $1,607 $1,960\n Weil Gotshall & Manges\nPartners 13 LLP 48 $1,450 $1,595 $1,710 $1,898 $2,095\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher\nPartners 14 LLP 17 $1,380 $1,625 $1,750 $1,875 $2,050\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nPartners 15 Hale and Dorr LLP 11 $1,205 $1,350 $1,455 $1,550 $1,920\nAverage $1,497 $1,650 $1,779\nDiscount to market rate 85%\n 25th Median 75th\nPartner $1,273 $1,403 $1,512\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 33 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Akin Gump Strauss Hauer\nOf Counsel 1 & Feld LLP 37 $990 $1,120 $1,320 $1,380 $1,500\n\nOf Counsel 2 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 1 $1,585 $1,585 $1,585 $1,585 $1,585\n Kramer Levin Naftalis &\nOf Counsel 3 Frankel LLP 2 $1,280 $1,285 $1,290 $1,295 $1,300\nOf Counsel 4 Latham & Watkins LLP 6 $1,300 $1,340 $1,460 $1,460 $1,575\nOf Counsel 5 Milbank LLP 4 $1,320 $1,320 $1,320 $1,346 $1,425\nOf Counsel 6 Morrison & Foerster LLP 4 $1,050 $1,106 $1,163 $1,331 $1,725\nOf Counsel 8 Paul Hasting LLP 9 $1,025 $1,485 $1,510 $1,550 $1,785\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nOf Counsel 9 Wharton & Garrison LLP 6 $1,650 $1,650 $1,650 $1,650 $1,650\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nOf Counsel 10 & Sullivan LLP 6 $950 $1,215 $1,283 $1,350 $1,350\n Skadden Arps Slate\nOf Counsel 11 Meagher & Flom LLP 15 $975 $1,058 $1,269 $1,294 $1,790\n Weil Gotshall & Manges\nOf Counsel 12 LLP 16 $1,250 $1,375 $1,375 $1,406 $1,425\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nOf Counsel 13 Hale and Dorr LLP 2 $1,250 $1,265 $1,280 $1,295 $1,310\nAvg $1,317 $1,375 $1,412\nMedian $1,303 $1,320 $1,365\nDiscount to market rate 85%\n 25th Median 75th\nCounsel Avg $1,119 $1,169 $1,200\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 34 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Akin Gump Strauss Hauer\nAssociates 1 & Feld LLP 57 $535 $790 $905 $1,045 $1,250\nAssociates 2 Jones Day LLP 1 $725 $725 $725 $725 $725\nAssociates 3 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 281 $540 $795 $935 $1,115 $1,395\n Kramer Levin Naftalis &\nAssociates 4 Frankel LLP 3 $840 $975 $1,110 $1,113 $1,115\nAssociates 5 Latham & Watkins LLP 47 $650 $830 $1,065 $1,140 $1,295\nAssociates 6 Milbank LLP 19 $695 $860 $860 $1,023 $1,200\nAssociates 7 Morrison & Foerster LLP 10 $810 $830 $930 $1,074 $1,135\nAssociates 9 Paul Hasting LLP 36 $505 $841 $930 $1,164 $2,016\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nAssociates 10 Wharton & Garrison LLP 37 $825 $825 $1,125 $1,270 $1,380\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nAssociates 11 & Sullivan LLP 30 $575 $842 $905 $1,104 $1,315\n Skadden Arps Slate\nAssociates 12 Meagher & Flom LLP 51 $495 $833 $1,017 $1,148 $2,019\n Weil Gotshall & Manges\nAssociates 13 LLP 112 $690 $910 $1,065 $1,178 $1,345\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher\nAssociates 14 LLP 21 $575 $1,030 $1,185 $1,250 $1,350\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nAssociates 15 Hale and Dorr LLP 17 $680 $730 $850 $1,005 $1,195\nAverage $844 $972 $1,097\n\nDiscount to Market Rate 85% 25th Median 75th\n Avg $717 $826 $932\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-6 Filed 10/01/25 Page 35 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nStaff Attorney 1 Wharton & Garrison LLP 15 $595 $595 $595 $595 $625\n\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nStaff Attorney 2 & Sullivan LLP 2 $446 $446 $446 $446 $446\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nStaff Attorney 3 Hale and Dorr LLP 1 $695 $695 $695 $695 $695\n $579 $579 $579\n\nDiscount to Market Rate 85% $491.87\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:43:21.191118-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"127038311110","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E (B Alexander Dec ISO Fees) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483664871/","id":483664871,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/146/7/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T23:41:53.439298-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:41:41.735972-07:00","sha1":"655cd96015117e3802fd0a5c90a5fd60d5663036","page_count":19,"file_size":9939131,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.146.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-7 Filed 10/01/25 Page1of19\n\nEXHIBIT F\nPart 1 of 2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JM\n\nNJ NERA\n\nRECENT TRENDS IN\nSECURITIES CLASS\n\nACTION LITIGATION:\n2024 FULL-YEAR REVIEW\n\nEdward Flores and Svetlana Starykh\u2019\n\nFilings Flat Relative to 2023, Standard Filings\nIncrease for Second Straight Year\n\nResolutions Rise, Led by Increase\nin Dismissals\n\n22 January 2025\n\fx@):d=41,)(0),40\n\nTeak, coll kore MKOR-ar-] aM ot 10-6 C1010 Talo asi 0] a ia( Less than 1 Year\n6% 2%\n\nA a (1 63\nYiu)\n\ner (og)\n\nPas\n\nThe median time (for decisions on motions\nfor class certification) is about 2.7 years.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f20\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5of 20\n\nTRENDS IN SETTLEMENT VALUES\"\n\nIn 2024, aggregate settlements totaled $3.8 billion, nearly matching the inflation-adjusted total\nof $4.0 billion from 2023 (see Figure 18). After excluding cases involving merger objections,\ncrypto unregistered securities, or settlements of $0 to the class, around 42% of settlements\nhad a recovery of less than $10 million, another 40% had a settlement between $10 million\nand $49.9 million, and 18% settled for $50 million or more, largely mirroring the distribution of\nsettlement values from 2023 (see Figure 19). The average settlement value was $43 million,\n\na roughly 7% decline relative to the 2023 inflation-adjusted average settlement value of $46\nmillion (see Figure 20).\"4\n\nFigure 18. Aggregate Settlement Value\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\nprrnnnn5 H Nominal$ \u00a9 Inflation Adjustment m+\u2018: $ Adjusted for Inflation\n\nAggregate Settlement Value ($Billion)\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 20\n\nFigure 19. Distribution of Settlement Values\nExcludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2020-December 2024\n\n60% ..\n\n2020 M2021 M2022 M 2023 HM 2024\n\n50% -\n\n40% |\n\n30% -\n\n20% |\n\nPercentage of Settled Cases\n\n10% |\n\n0% .\nLess than $10 $10-$19.9 $20-$49.9 $50-$99.9 $100 or Greater\n\nSettlement Size ($Million)\n\nFigure 20, Average Settlement Value\nExcludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n100 , 58 H Nominal $ \u00a9 Inflation Adjustment +i: $ Adjusted for Inflation\nto $87\n= 8. Pt ot\n& P|\no : t\n2 60) |\n~ | $52,\no tot $46\n5 1 ot naa $43\n+ 40 | Pr rons\nwn cy) $34\n\u00ae $29 Py\ng it $24\n< 4 Ryle} ro Ryn)\n20, er\n23)\nLy) cya\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 20\n\nWhile 2023 saw a $1 billion settlement by Wells Fargo & Company,\"5 there were no settlements\nof $1 billion or higher in 2024, and the average settlement value excluding such cases was also\n$43 million (see Figure 21). The median settlement value was $14.0 million, roughly in line with\nthe inflation-adjusted median settlement values in 2022 and 2023 (see Figure 22).\n\nFigure 21. Average Settlement Value\nExcludes Settlements of $1 Billion or Higher, Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities,\nand Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n69\n\n70, 569. HB Nominal$ \u00a9! Inflation Adjustment m+! $ Adjusted for Inflation\n\n60) $60\n<- tt 1 ot\n2 rot if\n= 50. 1 4\nv $43\n0 40\nS 40. $39 $40\n\u00bb wees 1 '\n5 i gag S88 $35\n= 30) $29 Por\nwo ! c'_ a i =e\na \u00b00 20) teen! oo\nZ ee\n\n10 | YZ roa\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com ===\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8 of 20\n\nFigure 22. Median Settlement Value\nExcludes Settlements of $1 Billion or Higher, Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities,\nand Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n18. B Nominal$ \u00a9) Inflation Adjustment \u2122+!J $ Adjusted for Inflation\n\n16 J $16 $16 $15\n\neeee= lS\n\n12, $11\n\n10 |\n\npecs\n\nmeses\n\nBSE.\n\nMedian Settlement Value ($Million)\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nThe median settlement value was $14.0 million,\nroughly in line with the inflation-adjusted\nmedian settlement values in 2022 and 2023.\n\n23 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com ===\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 9 of 20\n\nTOP SETTLEMENTS\n\nThe 10 largest settlements in 2024 ranged from $85 million to $490 million and collectively\naccounted for 60% of the $3.8 billion aggregate settlement amount. There were four\nsettlements of at least $200 million, which include suits against Uber Technologies, Inc. ($200\nmillion) over alleged misrepresentations in connection with its initial public offering,\u2019 Alphabet\nInc. ($350 million) in a case involving a data privacy breach,!\u201d Under Armour, Inc. ($434 million)\nover claims the company hid declining demand of its products,\"\u00ae and Apple Inc. ($490 million) in\na matter over alleged misrepresentations involving iPhone sales in China.?? The Third and Ninth\nCircuits each accounted for four suits in the top 10 largest settlements. See Table 1.\n\nTable 1. Top 10 2024 Securities Class Action Settlements\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019\nTotal Attorneys\u2019 Fees\nFiling Settlement Settlement and Expenses Economic\nRank Defendant Date Date Value ($Million) Value ($Million) Circuit Sector\n1 Apple Inc. 16 Apr 17 Sep $490.0 $110.5 9th Electronic\n2019 2024 Technology\n2 Under Armour, Inc. 10 Feb 7 Nov $434.0 $116.3 Ath Consumer\n2017 2024 Non-Durables\n3 Alphabet, Inc. 11 Oct 24 Sep $350.0 $68.0 9th Technology\n2018 2024 Services\n4 Uber Technologies, Inc. 4 Oct 5 Dec $200.0 $61.2 9th Transportation\n2019 2024\n5 Rite Aid Corporation 2 Nov 7 Feb $192.5 $59.2 3rd Retail Trade\n2018 2024\n6 TuSimple Holdings, Inc. 31 Aug 2 Dec $189.0 $47.6 9th Consumer\n2022 2024 Durables\n7 Envision Healthcare 4 Aug 21 Mar $177.5 $54.8 \u00e9th Health\nCorporation 2017 2024 Services\n8 Pattern Energy Group Inc. 25 Feb 3 May $100.0 $29.8 3rd Utilities\n2020 2024\n9 Perrigo Company plc 18 May 5 Sep $97.0 $22.5 3rd Health\n2016 2024 Technology\n10 Becton, Dickinson 27 Feb 22 Apr $85.0 $22.1 3rd Health\nand Company 2020 2024 Technology\nTotal $2,315.0 $592.0\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10 of 20\n\nTable 2 lists the 10 largest federal securities class action settlements through 31 December\n2024. Since the Valeant Pharmaceuticals partial settlement of $1.2 billion in 2020, this list has\nremained unchanged, with settlements ranging from $1.1 to $7.2 billion.\n\nTable 2. Top 10 Federal Securities Class Action Settlements (As of 31 December 2024)\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019\nAttorney\u2019s\nFees\nTotal Financial Accounting and\nSettlement \u2014 Institutions Firms Expenses\nFiling Settlement Value Value Value Value Economic\nRank Defendant Date Year(s) ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) Circuit Sector\n1 ENRON Corp. 22 Oct 2003- $7,242 $6,903 $73 $798 5th Industrial\n2001 2010 Services\n2 WorldCom, Inc. 30 Apr 2004- $6,196 $6,004 $103 $530 2nd Communications\n2002 2005\n3 Cendant Corp. 16Apr 2000 $3,692 $342 $467 $324 3rd Finance\n1998\n4 Tyco 23 2007 $3,200 No $225 $493 1st | Producer\nInternational, Aug codefendant Manufacturing\nLtd. 2002\n5 Petroleo 8 Dec 2018 $3,000 $0 $50 $205 2nd Energy\nBrasileiro 2014 Minerals\nS.A-Petrobras\n6 AOL Time 18 July 2006 $2,650 No $100 $151 2nd Consumer\nWarner Inc. 2002 codefendant Services\n7 Bank of 21 Jan 2013 $2,425 No No $177 2nd Finance\nAmerica Corp. 2009 codefendant codefendant\n8 Household 19 2006- $1,577 Dismissed Dismissed $427 7th Finance\nInternational, Aug 2016\nInc. 2002\n9 Valeant 22 Oct 2020 $1,210 $0 $0 $160 3rd Health\nPharmaceuticals 20415 Technology\nInternational,\nInc*\n10 Nortel 2 Mar 2006 $1,143 No $0 $94 2nd Electronic\nNetworks 2001 codefendant Technology\nTotal $32,334 $13,249 $1,017 $3,358\n\n* Denotes a partial settlement, which is included here due to its sizeable amount. Note that this case is not included in any of our\nresolution or settlement statistics.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f26\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11 of 20\n\nNERA-DEFINED INVESTOR LOSSES\n\nTo estimate the potential aggregate loss to investors as a result of investing in the defendant\u2019s\nstock during the alleged class period, NERA has developed a proprietary variable, NERA-\nDefined Investor Losses, using publicly available data. The NERA-Defined Investor Loss\nmeasure Is constructed assuming investors had invested in stocks during the class period\nwhose performance was comparable to that of the S&P 500 Index. Over the years, NERA has\nreviewed and examined more than 2,000 settlements and found, of the variables analyzed, this\nproprietary variable to be the most powerful predictor of settlement amount.2\u00b0\n\nA statistical review reveals that although settlement values and NERA-Defined Investor Losses\nare highly correlated, the relationship is not linear. The ratio is higher for cases with lower NERA-\nDefined Investor Losses than for cases with higher Investor Losses. For instance, in cases with\nless than $20 million in Investor Losses, the median settlement value comprises 24% of Investor\nLosses, while for cases with $100 million or more in Investor Losses, the median settlement\nvalue is at or under 3.0% of Investor Losses. See Figure 23.\n\nFigure 23. Median Settlement Value as a Percentage of NERA-Defined Investor Losses\nBy Level of Investor Losses\nCases Settled January 2015-December 2024\n\n25%\n\nN\n\u00b0\nxXx\n\nBE\nui\nxs\n\nBe\n\u00b0\nXx\n\nSettlement Value as a Percentage of Investor Losses\n\nInvestor Losses ($Million)\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\n5%\n10,\n3.0% 79%\n1.6% 1.7% 1.3%\n0.4%\n\n0%\n\n9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 \u2018\n\n5V sf ss) a es i ot ft A ye\n\n< \u00a3 Sg s * s e\np - wv f se ss Fs\n\f27\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12 of 20\n\nSince 2015, annual median Investor Losses have ranged from a low of $358 million to a high\nof $1.76 billion. For cases settled in 2024, the median Investor Losses were $1.76 billion, the\nhighest recorded value over the past 10 years. The median ratio of settlement amount to\nInvestor Losses was 1.2% in 2024, a notable decline from the 1.8% median ratio seen over\n2021-2023. See Figure 24.\n\nFigure 24, Median NERA-Defined Investor Losses and Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\nby Settlement Year\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n1,800 . $1,757 . 3.0%\n1,700. @ Median Investor Losses ~-\u00ae Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n1,600 |\n1,500. 73% 2.4%\n1,400 |\n1,300 |\n1,200 | 2.0%\n1,100 | 17% 1.8% 1.8% 18%\n1,000 | $984\n$923\n\n900 | 16% 1.6% 15%\n800) 15% $739\n700 | $668 $705\n600 |\n500 |\n400 |\n300 |\n200 |\n\n100 |\n\nNv\nun\nx\n\n. 1.0%\n\nMedian Investor Losses ($Million)\nMedian Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n\n\u00b0o\nui\n&\n\n0.0%\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f28\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nDocument 146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13 of 20\n\nNERA has identified the following key factors as driving settlement amounts:\n\ne NERA-Defined Investor Losses;\n\ne The market capitalization of the issuer immediately after the end of the class period;\n\ne The types of securities (in addition to common stock) alleged to have been affected\n\nby the fraud;\n\ne Variables that serve as a proxy for the merit of plaintiffs\u2019 allegations (e.g., whether the\ncompany has already been sanctioned by a government or regulatory agency or paid a fine in\nconnection with the allegations);\n\ne The stage of litigation at the time of settlement; and\n\nWhether an institution or public pension fund is named lead plaintiff (see Figure 25).\n\nAmong cases settled between January 2012 and December 2024, these factors in NERA\u2018s\nstatistical model can explain more than 70% of the variation observed in actual settlements.\n\nFigure 25. Predicted vs. Actual Settlements\nInvestor Losses Using S&P 500 Index\nCases Settled January 2012-December 2024\n\n$10BB -\nz \u00b0\n\u00a7 $1pB, . o 0\nwu\n= \u00b0 o%s \u00a2 \u201c\n= \u20ac e\n% $100MM. $ 4% wate ce .\n7 oe % 8 fo ge \u00b0\n< e o2\u00a2 o 2% \u00b0\n9 ~1,000\n17.7% 0.7% >500 and <1,000\n23,3% 1.3% >100 and <500\n26.9% 1.9% >25 and <100\n32.7% 2.7% >10 and <25\n33.7% 3.7% >5 and <10\n35.0% 5.0% Ener 5\n\nNote: Component values may not add to total value due to rounding.\n\ni Median Fees i Median Expenses\n\nPercentage of Settlement Value\n2015-2024\n\n|\n\nnO) 0.6% 18.6%\n\nMAS 0.6% 17.6%\n\nVay 1.2% 26.2%\n\nVeo. 1.7% 26.7%\n\nVe Boy 2.0% 29.5%\n\nKeke). 2.2% 32.2%\n\n3.0% 36.0%\n\n|\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fSa\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document146-8 Filed 10/01/25 Page 16 of 20\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFilings of federal securities class actions remained flat in 2024, with 229 suits filed. Of these,\nthere were 198 suits with Rule 10b-5-only claims, a 10-year high, while there were only 16 suits\nwith Section 11 and/or Section 12 claims, a 10-year low. After a dip in 2023, the percentage of\nfilings against companies in the technology and healthcare sectors increased to 30% and 26%,\nrespectively. The percentage of filings against foreign companies continues to decline, with only\n16.8% targeting foreign companies. While suits with Al-related allegations doubled in 2024 to 13\nfilings, there were no suits related to banking turmoil, a category that saw 11 filings in 2023.\n\nThe number of resolved cases increased by nearly 17% from 186 in 2023 to 217 in 2024, ending\na six-year decline in resolutions dating back to 2017. This increase in resolutions, consisting of\n\n93 settlements and 124 dismissals, was mostly driven by an increase in the number of dismissed\ncases. For dismissed cases, the median time to dismissal increased from 1.4 years in 2021 to 2.0\nyears in 2024, while the percentage of voluntary dismissals declined from 35% to 24% over that\nsame period. For settled cases in 2024, the average and median settlement values were $43\nmillion and $14 million, respectively, a slight decline over their 2023 inflation-adjusted values.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-8\n\nNOTES\n\n1 This edition of NERA's report on \u201cRecent Trends\nin Securities Class Action Litigation\u201d expands on\nprevious work by our colleagues Lucy P. Allen,\nDr. Vinita Juneja, Dr. Denise Neumann Martin,\nDr. Jordan Milev, Robert Patton, Dr. Stephanie\nPlancich, Janeen Mcintosh, and others. The authors\nthank Dr. David Tabak and Benjamin Seggerson\nfor helpful comments on this edition. We thank\nVlad Lee, Daniel Klotz, and other researchers from\nNERA\u2019s securities and finance capability for their\nvaluable assistance. These individuals receive credit\nfor improving this report; any errors and omissions\nare those of the authors. NERA\u2019s proprietary\nsecurities class action database and all analyses\nreflected in this report are limited to US federal\ncase filings and resolutions.\n\n2 NERAtracks securities class actions that have been\nfiled in US federal courts. Most of these cases\nallege violations of federal securities laws; others\nallege violations of common law, including breach\nof fiduciary duty, as with some merger-objection\ncases; still others are filed in federal court under\nforeign or state law. If multiple actions are filed\nagainst the same defendant, are related to the same\nallegations, and are in the same circuit, we treat\nthem as a single filing. The first two actions filed\nin different circuits are treated as separate filings.\n\nIf cases filed in different circuits are consolidated,\nwe revise our count to reflect the consolidation.\nTherefore, case counts for a particular year may\nchange over time. Different assumptions for\nconsolidating filings would probably lead to counts\nthat are similar but may, in certain circumstances,\nlead observers to draw a different conclusion about\nshort-term trends in filings. Data for this report\nwere collected from multiple sources, including\nInstitutional Shareholder Services, Dow Jones\nFactiva, Bloomberg Finance, FactSet Research\nSystems, Nasdaq, Intercontinental Exchange, US\nSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings,\ncomplaints, case dockets, and public press reports.\nIPO laddering cases are presented only in Figure 1.\n\n3 Federal securities class actions that allege\nviolations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or\nSection 12 have historically dominated federal\nsecurities class action dockets and have often\nbeen referred to as \u201cstandard\u201d cases. In the\nanalyses of this report, standard cases involve\nregistered securities and do not include cases\ninvolving crypto unregistered securities, which are\nconsidered a separate category.\n\n4 IPO figures taken from Stock Analysis, accessed\n13 January 2025, available at https://stockanalysis.\ncom/ipos/statistics/.\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\nFiled 10/01/25 Page 17 of 20\n\nIn this study, crypto cases consist of two mutually\nexclusive subgroups: (1) crypto shareholder class\nactions, which include a class of investors in\ncommon stock, American depositary receipts/\nAmerican depositary shares (ADR/ADS), and/or\nother registered securities, along with crypto- or\ndigital-currency-related allegations; and (2) crypto\nunregistered securities class actions, which do not\nhave class investors in any registered securities that\nare traded on major exchanges (New York Stock\nExchange, Nasdaq). We include crypto shareholder\nclass actions in all our analyses that include\nstandard cases. Crypto unregistered securities class\nactions are excluded from some analyses, which is\nnoted in the titles of our figures.\n\nMost securities class action complaints include\nmultiple allegations. For this analysis, all\nallegations from the complaint are included and\nthus the total number of allegations exceeds the\ntotal number of filings.\n\nHere, a company is considered a foreign\ncompany based on the location of its principal\nexecutive office.\n\nSPAC IPO figures taken from SPAC Data,\naccessed 13 January 2025, available at https://\nwww.spacdata.com.\n\nSee Figure 8 of NERA\u2019s 2024 midyear report\n\u201cRecent Trends in Securities Class Action\nLitigation: 2024 H1 Update,\u201d 6 August 2024,\navailable at https://www.nera.com/insights/\npublications/2024/recent-trends-in-securities-\nclass-action-litigation--2024-h1-upd.html.\n\nSarah Jarvis, \u201cRELX Hit with Proposed\nGreenwashing Class Action,\u201d Law360.com, 7 August\n2024, available at https://www.law360.com/\narticles/1867368/.\n\nJordan Robertson and Evan Gorelick, \u201cCrowdStrike\nand the Global IT Outage, Explained,\u201d Bloomberg,\n19 July 2024, available at https://www.\nbloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-19/\ncrowdstrike-microsoft-it-outage-what-caused-it-\nwhat-comes-next.\n\nHere \u201cdismissed\u201d is used as shorthand for all class\nactions resolved without settlement; it includes\ncases in which a motion to dismiss was granted (and\nnot appealed or appealed unsuccessfully), voluntary\ndismissals, cases terminated by a successful\n\nmotion for summary judgment, and an ultimately\nunsuccessful motion for class certification.\n\nFor our settlement analyses, NERA includes\nsettlements that have had the first settlement-\napproval hearing. We do not include partial\nsettlements or tentative settlements that have\nbeen announced by plaintiffs and/or defendants.\nAs aresult, although we include the 2020 Valeant\nPharmaceuticals partial settlement in Table 2 due\nto its size, this case is not included in any of our\nresolution, settlement, or attorney fee statistics.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f33\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nNOTES\n\n14 While annual average settlement values can\n\n45\n\n16\n\nbe ahelpful statistic, these values may be\naffected by one or a few very high settlement\namounts. Unlike averages, the median settlement\nvalue is unaffected by these very high outlier\nsettlement amounts. To understand what more\ntypical cases look like, we analyze the average\nand median settlement values for cases with\n\na settlement amount under $1 billion, thus\nexcluding these outlier settlement amounts. For\nthe analysis of settlement values, we limit our\ndata to non-merger objection and non-crypto\nunregistered securities cases with settlements of\nmore than $0 to the class.\n\nJon Hill and Jessica Corso, \u201cWells Fargo Inks $1B\nDeal to End Investors\u2019 Compliance Suit,\u201d Law360.\ncom, 16 May 2023, available at https:/Awww.\nlaw360.com/articles/1677976/,\n\nBonnie Eslinger, \u201cUber Investors\u2019 Attys Awarded\n$58M In $200M IPO Suit Deal,\u201d Law360.com, 4\nDecember 2024, available at https:/Awww.law360.\ncom/articles/2269355.\n\nDocument 146-8\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\nFiled 10/01/25 Page 18 of 20\n\nBonnie Eslinger, \u201cGoogle Investors\u2019 Attys Snag\n$66.5M In $350M Privacy Deal,\u201d Law360.com,\ndated 30 September 20724, available at https://\nwww.law360.com/articles/1884117,\n\nHailey Konnath, \u201cUnder Armour to Pay $434M to\nEnd Securities Fraud Claims,\u201d Law360.com, dated\n21 June 2024, available at https:/Awww.law360.\ncom/articles/1850514.\n\nDorothy Atkins, \u201cApple\u2019s $490M Deal Over China\nSales OK\u2019ed, Attys Get $110M,\u201d Law360.com,\n\n19 September 20724, available at https:/Awww.\nlaw360.com/articles/1880634.\n\nNERA-Defined Investor Losses is only calculable\nfor cases involving allegations of damages to\ncommon stock based on one or more corrective\ndisclosures moving the stock price to its alleged\ntrue value. As a result, we have not calculated this\nmetric for cases such as merger objections.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 146-8\n\nRELATED EXPERTS\n\nEdward Flores, MA\n\nDirector\n\nNew York City: +1 212 345 2955\nedward.flores@nera.com\n\nSvetlana Starykh, MA\n\nAssociate Director,\n\nSecurities Class Actions Database\nNew York City: +1 914 563 6761\nsvetlana.starykh@nera.com\n\nFiled 10/01/25 Page 19 of 20\n\nSLU] S S1O1N |=] =\n\nTo receive publications, news, and\ninsights from NERA, please visit\nwww.nera.com/subscribe.\n\nThe opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of NERA or any other NERA consultant.\n\nPAN 1@] 00 | Sao yAN\n\noy] aKa Loe WN] od YAW at-lou o]me)Yi(e(=1oM Bla] er-]e-]|(=)(-1e B40] (or-]p(acee)amaal=mnalescimmlanlele)an-|almanl-|a Colm\n(e=42) Melero Ma ct-40] F-1Ke)aYael Ula. 1a (e)atcwe)mag(okel-\\/@)0] m''e)e @al-ecial-]e\\ere Male lUina(oce-lalem ere) i(atg\n\nFe] qolelavemdac=m\u2019i(e)a (opm @L0) am al=) (otal (=t-10 [alsa =).40\\-1ance-] ale Ko(=(=] 0X\u00bb \u00a20\\-1a(-1a1eoe-] 10) Am Kome)ae)'i(el=\nlat=Xo gel UKcH-lar-I NA) coe ae) [FcLe) (oe =>. ole] a mm Koso) Mi nace lana] ale Rol-li- by ole) u/c) clem ole) (ava aarxe)anlanls)acer-1 ale lal\nice)amda-mW'co) (eu (-r-lel]ayca (-\\\" Mala tacce-lalemae)a olele-lalelace-smn (<1) 6-ea-t40) -1k0) eee] ale\n\njoie] gal tals) n leon \u00a9] 0] mm =,401e1 a (-)a(Kcm lal kat-4 @inVAr-|acem=reo)ace)eal(omlar:\nS *, .\n% *Seneey wet\u201d Q\n\n\u201cty OF wew oo\n\nHt\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-2 Filed 09/04/25 Page 15of18\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nIN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC SECURITIES LITIGATION | No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\nTHIS DOCUMENT RELATESTO: ALLACTIONS\nSUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION\nFOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES.\n\nTo: All persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary shares of\nGigaCloud Technology Inc (\u201cGigaCloud\u201d) during the dvdr from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both\ndates inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), and were all tt by (the \u201cSettl t Class\").\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs, on\nbehalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and GigaCloud, Larry Lei Wu, Xin Wan,\nKwok Hei David Lau, Zhiwu Chen, Thomas Liu, and Aegis Capital Corp (collectively, the \u201cSettling Defendants\u201d),\nhave reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the \u201cAction\u201d) in the\namount of $2,750,000 (the \u201cSettlement\u2019).\n\nA hearing will be held remotely on October 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman of\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d) to determine\nwhether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss\nthe Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 16, 2025: (iii)\napprove the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the \u201cNet Settlement\nFund\u201d) to Settlement Class Members: and (iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The\nCourt may change the date of the Settlement Hearing or change it to an in-person hearing without providing\nanother written notice. Information about the hearing, including instructions for remote access, will be posted\nat www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a\ndistribution from the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nIF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY\nTHE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have\nnot yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting\nwww.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at:\n\nIn re GigaCloud Technology inc Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063\n(866) 274-4004\ninfo@strategicclaims.net\nInquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead\n\nCounsel:\nPOMERANTZ LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\nJeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.\nJonathan D. Park, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq.\n600 Third Avenue, 20\" Floor, NewYork, NY 10016 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10016\nwww. pomlaw.com www. rosenlegal.com\n(212) 661-1100 (212) 686-1060\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,\nyou must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no fater than October 6, 2025. If you area\nSettlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the\ndistribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered\nby the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must\nsubmit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is\nreceived no later than September 18, 2025. |f you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you\nwill not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable\nor unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nAny objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel\u2019s Fee and Expense Application, and/or the\nproposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person or, for users of the Court's\nElectronic Case Filing system, by that system, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the\ninstructions in the Notice, such that they are received no fater than September 18, 2025.\n\nPLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS\u2019 COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.\nDATED: JUNE 20, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\fCase Al228oGW2tQ645-JMF MORMUAWAGND PERFORMANCE 09/04/25 = Pago. Of 18\n\nie To ei | ie Ta -\u00ab |ae Ta ee | ie Dm \u00abie Ta ee | Tm @ |ie Ta ee | Wi @\nPeters, ix ieat ie leet WE % iar dena WT | Reiners ide eon | Paterna 5 we dae ar | Ferranes % ie oat | Patras Sir leo et | Ferrans % it ot KY\nRang | Ford | Cg hCag RoBi ley Chg | Rang [Fond [Chg Chg Rca} ate | Chg | Rang | Ferd [hg hChglTortin) tw Chg | Rating [Fond [Chg ChgiRerEm] Pak Chg | Rar [Ferd |hg hg farm] Woep| Chg | Rang 1 Fomd Chg [Chg farsa] Toke Chg | Radng [Rad 1 Cy Hty eriin| ele 1ehg | Rang [Fond | Chg Chg aco abn Cig\nA Copp | +5+17+12 a G49] A Fim Ll \u00ab241912 1255 O04 Aa a wee 662 OA | A Focused = e212 MLE O52 | D+ShortTermB+d+1 +2 9.19 000 | A MOG) = +1222 +10 12048 1.07 | Vanguard Feds bow C-SmCoOpy -3e1d 9 B70 OA\nAMidCap | +712+10 441 a2 a bed ah Od AMUDG AR 4 AN OF CeMC\u00a5I e4eT1-11 6350 O66 | $1617 DU BOD 462-7799 \u2018Victory Mic Won |\n\nH-SWMBad \u00ab2st \u00ab5 1700 008 jdet7s11 1270 Wd osu 00 455 A None H+19 9 8 OB ReMCpL Bb 030MM 206 | A DIVEnty \u2014 -J6Ag-11 Set 038 | gona peo\n\nPSMOne seth MO G40 Aci eit 9 26M, UG (ASK oe of BB OT |etdn ee a A E Allnprm 2-0 2 ib) Osa 0k of ZO |p vacua et\nA-SAMSH A B15 of 2419-019 | AeLg-Coptro lQeZ7+14 34.Mo 025 | AvLCGrO \u2014_+7e2he11 TBAT O12 | Tomchatons Fonds Gen $24uloN 2-779 E MVLngTim 20 +1 1050-002 | A GCap lye \u00ab15-15 15 Be O07 Trt\nPrincipal Fens ieat Ae MCTTKALE +116 +11 25.60 0.14 | Thlvont Fume $ $4301 O58 ON? fe tangy ood AZ 6 | E PALng-Tim 240 +1 1020-008 | Ae GID Egy +1622 \u00ab9 A10ln 04 $25b1 020-194\nSeduion nase A SRPSOD kh, B01 $2: O82 ssstiaman ans Be MiCap 21 ok SGD Oot | elineLgeake +244) \u00ab10 447% OM |B PacStk \u2014lGeld 4 10Gb O55 |B Ind Emir =Zh1G 8 197% O19\n542 0 TION [CHSC oN) 9 36H OM eld 3 a ou fartton snag i UneSetero +f+10-+10 36:74 0.90 RAE eyed ML 069 | int'Val \u2014\nGlobeNewswire Release Distribution Confirmation: Pomerantz LLP\n\n1 message\n\ndonotreply@globenewswire.com Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 9:01 AM\n\nTo: mcraig@strategicclaims.net\nCc: jbravata@strategicclaims.net, mcraig@strategicclaims.net\n\nF notified\n\nBoost the trust and credibility of your next press release. Get CLEAR Verified by GlobeNewswire\n\nRelease Distribution Confirmation\n\nPomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announce\nProposed Class Action Settlement on Behalf of Purchasers\nof Class A Ordinary Shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc \u2014\nGCT\n\nCross time: 07/21/25 09:00 AM ET: Eastern Time - View release on\nGlobeNewswire.com\n\nThis email message serves as a formal confirmation that your release was transmitted\non GlobeNewswire's distribution network as requested, including any fax or email\nbroadcasts.\n\nIf you have any questions, comments or concerns, please reply to this message, contact\nyour account manager, or call our Customer Service Center at 800-307-6627, or\n310-642-6930\n\nThis message was distributed by GlobeNewswire.\n2321 Rosecrans Ave. Ste 2200, El Segundo, CA, 90245, USA. +1-800-307-6627. www.globenewswire.com\n\nYou received this email because you have an account with GlobeNewswire.\n\nIf you have any questions, please send an email to support@globenewswire.com or Contact Us\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-2 ~~ Filed 09/04/25\n\n\u00a9 | \"Gaieyeronie\n\nShare\n\nR@&s\n\nPemerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announce Proposed Class...\n\nPomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announce\nProposed Class Action Settlement on Behalf of Purchasers of\nClass A Ordinary Shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc \u2014 GCT\n\nJuly 21, 2025 09:00 ET | Source: Pomerantz LLP &>\n\nNEW YORK, July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerartz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announce that the United States District\nCourt for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that woulc\n\nbenefit purchasers of Class A ordinary shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc (NASDAQ: GCT)\n\nSUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS\nACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\nTo: All persons and entitles who or that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc (\"GigaCloud\")\nduring the period fram August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive {the \u201cClass Period\"), and were allegedly damaged thereby {the\n\u201cSettlement Class\").\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for\nthe Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves ard all members of the proposec\nSettlement Class, and GigaCloud, Larry Lei Wu, Xin Wan, Kwok Hei David Lau, Zhiwu Chen, Thomas Liu, ard Aegis Capital Corp (collectively\nthe \u201cSettling Defendants\"), have reached a proposec settlement of the claims in the above-captioned cass action (the \u201cAction\") in the amount\n\nof $2,750,000 (the \u201cSettlement\u201d}\n\nA hearing will be held remotely on October 9, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for\n\nthe Southern District of New York, (the \u201cSettlement Hearing\u201d) to determine whether the Court should: {i} approve the proposed Settlement as\n\nfair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Sti ion and Ag of Settlement, dated June\n16, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement [the \u201cNet Settlement Fund\u201d) te\nSettlement Class Members; and f{iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the\nSettlement Hearing or change it to an in-person hearing without providing another written notice. Infcrmation about the hearing, including\n\ninstructions for remote access, will be posted at www.gigacl com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing\n\nto receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund,\n\nIF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU\nMAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these\n\ndocuments by visiting www.gi .corr or by contacting the Claims Administrator at:\n\ninte GigaCloud Technology Ine Securities Settlement\nStrategic Claims Services\nP.O. Box 23C\n600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205\nMedia, PA 19063.\n(866) 274-4004\n\ninfo@strategicclaims.net\n\nInquiries, other than requests for information abott the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:\n\nPOMERANTZ LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\nJeremy A. Lieberman, Esq Laurence M. Rosen, Esq\nJonathan D. Park, Esq Brian B. Alexander, Esq\n600 Third Avenue, 20 Floor 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\nNew York, NY 1001\u20ac New York, NY 1001\u20ac\nwww.pomlaw.cor www rosenleg:\n(212) 661-110C (212) 686-106C\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligibe to share in the distribution of the Net Settlemert Fund, you must submit a Claim Form\npostmarked or submitted online ne later then October 8, 2025. \\f you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Clair\nForm, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will revertheless be bound by all judgments or\n\norders entered by the Court relating to the Settierrent, whether favorable or unfavorable.\n\nIf you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusior\nin accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than September 18, 2025. \\f you properly exclude\nyourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether\n\nfavorable or unfavorable, and you will not be elig ble to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.\n\nAny objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be\nfiled with the Court, either by mail or in person cr, for users of the Court\u2019s Electronic Case Filing system, by that system, and be mailed te\ncounsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no ister than September 18, 2025.\n\nPLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR\nDEFENDANTS\u2019 COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.\n\nDATED: JUNE 20, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nGlass Action\n\nPage 18 of 18\n\nCompany Profile\n\nPomerantz LLP\nIndustry: Industrial Goods & Services\n\nPrass Release Actions\n\nPrint\nDownload PDF\n\n\u2018on via RES\nSubscribe via ATOM\nJavascript\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:44:00.287916-07:00","document_number":"145","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127038156207","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A Part 2 (M Craig Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/451601082/","id":451601082,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/145/3/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-09-08T12:54:49.990261-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:43:11.299830-07:00","sha1":"1bce2859bb94c5673cebc9f9f573e2590a8427df","page_count":4,"file_size":457815,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-3 Filed 09/04/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-3 Filed 09/04/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DECLARATION OF\n SASHI RAJAN\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\nI, Sashi Rajan, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of final approval of the settlement\n\nof this Action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration.\n\n 2. I am 54 years old, a software engineer, and have been investing in the securities\n\nmarkets for over 15 years. My hourly rate, as a software engineer, is $140.\n\n 3. I have been involved in the prosecution of this case since my filing of a lead plaintiff\n\nmotion on December 4, 2023. On January 19, 2024, the Court appointed me and Meir Spear as\n\nCo-Lead Plaintiffs. ECF No. 54.\n\n 4. As Co-Lead Plaintiff, I have worked closely with Pomerantz LLP Pomerantz ,\n\nto prosecute this Action. In particular, I: (a) communicated with my attorneys regarding the case,\n\nas well as strategy; (b) reviewed information about the case; (c) produced information and\n\ndocuments to my attorneys; (d) reviewed significant filings in the Action; (e) consulted with my\n\nattorneys regarding the settlement negotiations; and (f) evaluated and approved the proposed\n\nSettlement.\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-3 Filed 09/04/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 5. I have evaluated the risks of continued litigation and trial, including the risk of no\n\nrecovery at all, and, in light of that evaluation, authorized the attorneys at Pomerantz to settle the\n\nAction on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. I believe the Settlement is fair and reasonable,\n\nrepresents an exceptional result, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, I\n\nstrongly endorse approval of the Settlement by the Court.\n\n 6. I believe that Co-Lead\n\namount of 33.4% of the $2,750,000 Settlement Amount is fair and reasonable in light of the result\n\nand work Co-Lead Counsel performed on behalf of the Settlement Class. I have evaluated Co-\n\nLead\n\nSettlement Class, and the risks of continued litigation, and have authorized this fee request for the\n\n .\n\n 7. I further believe that the litigation expenses that Co-Lead Counsel have requested\n\nreimbursement for are reasonable, and represent costs and expenses necessary for the prosecution\n\nand resolution of the claims in the Action. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with my\n\nobligation to the Settlement Class to obtain the best result at the most efficient cost, I fully support\n\nCo-Lead request\n\nexpenses.\n\n 8.\n\nexpenses is authorized under the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4). For this reason, in connection\n\nwith Co-Lead litigation expenses, I am seeking\n\nreimbursement for the costs and expenses that I incurred directly relating to my representation of\n\nthe Settlement Class in the Action.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-3 Filed 09/04/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 9. The time that I devoted to the representation of the Settlement Class in this Action\n\nwas time that I otherwise would have spent working as a software engineer. I seek reimbursement\n\nin the amount of $7,500 for the time I devoted to participating in the Action. I make this request\n\nbased on the conservative effort that I devoted over 25 hours to the litigation-related activities\n\ndescribed above. It is my belief that this request for reimbursement is fair and reasonable.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n Executed on September ___, 2025, in ______________________________.\n\n\n\n Sashi Rajan\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:43:59.978968-07:00","document_number":"145","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127038156208","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B (S Rajan Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/451601084/","id":451601084,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/145/4/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-09-08T12:54:50.305986-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:05:11.717153-07:00","sha1":"37c5fb7ae37eecf7876f491a40360fe3e27946ba","page_count":4,"file_size":463932,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-4 Filed 09/04/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-4 Filed 09/04/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DECLARATION OF\n MEIR SPEAR\n ALL ACTIONS\n\n\n\n\nI, Meir Spear, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of final approval of the settlement\n\nof this Action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration.\n\n 2. I am a CPA and CEO of Spear CPA CFP, as well as a resident of New York. I am\n\na sophisticated investor with over 25 years of experience. My hourly rate, as CEO, is $500.00.\n\n 3. I have been involved in the prosecution of this case since my filing of a lead plaintiff\n\nmotion on December 4, 2023. On January 19, 2024, the Court appointed me and Sashi Rajan as\n\nCo-Lead Plaintiffs. ECF No. 54.\n\n 4. As Co-Lead Plaintiff, I have worked closely with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.\n\n Rosen Law , to prosecute this Action. In particular, I: (a) communicated with my attorneys\n\nregarding the case, as well as strategy; (b) reviewed information about the case; (c) produced\n\ninformation and documents to my attorneys; (d) reviewed significant filings in the Action;\n\n(e) consulted with my attorneys regarding the settlement negotiations; and (f) evaluated and\n\napproved the proposed Settlement.\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-4 Filed 09/04/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 5. I have evaluated the risks of continued litigation and trial, including the risk of no\n\nrecovery at all, and, in light of that evaluation, authorized the attorneys at Rosen Law to settle the\n\nAction on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. I believe the Settlement is fair and reasonable,\n\nrepresents an exceptional result, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, I\n\nstrongly endorse approval of the Settlement by the Court.\n\n 6. I believe that Co-Lead\n\namount of 33.4% of the $2,750,000 Settlement Amount is fair and reasonable in light of the result\n\nand work Co-Lead Counsel performed on behalf of the Settlement Class. I have evaluated Co-\n\nLead\n\nSettlement Class, and the risks of continued litigation, and have authorized this fee request for the\n\n .\n\n 7. I further believe that the litigation expenses that Co-Lead Counsel have requested\n\nreimbursement for are reasonable, and represent costs and expenses necessary for the prosecution\n\nand resolution of the claims in the Action. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with my\n\nobligation to the Settlement Class to obtain the best result at the most efficient cost, I fully support\n\nCo-Lead request\n\nexpenses.\n\n 8.\n\nexpenses is authorized under the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(4). For this reason, in connection\n\nwith Co-Lead litigation expenses, I am seeking\n\nreimbursement for the costs and expenses that I incurred directly relating to my representation of\n\nthe Settlement Class in the Action.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-4 Filed 09/04/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 9. The time that I devoted to the representation of the Settlement Class in this Action\n\nwas time that I otherwise would have spent working. I seek reimbursement in the amount of $7,500\n\nfor the time I devoted to participating in the Action. I make this request based on the conservative\n\neffort that I devoted over 30 hours to the litigation-related activities described above. It is my belief\n\nthat this request for reimbursement is fair and reasonable.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\n Executed on ________________, in Woodmere, New York.\n\n\n\n Meir Spear\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:44:01.039082-07:00","document_number":"145","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"127038156209","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C (M Spear Declaration) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/451601085/","id":451601085,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/145/5/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-09-08T12:54:50.403464-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:36:38.495042-07:00","sha1":"fd021c4724fb4011e6c81823c12783a4761643d1","page_count":70,"file_size":804259,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 1 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT D\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 2 of 70\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n\n\n THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DECLARATION OF\n JONATHAN D. PARK REGARDING\n ALL ACTIONS ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n I, Jonathan D. Park, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am Of Counsel with the law firm Pomerantz LLP (\u201cPomerantz\u201d). I submit this\n\ndeclaration in support of Plaintiffs\u2019 application for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees in connection with\n\nservices rendered in the Action, as well as for reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred in\n\nconnection with the Action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called\n\nupon, could and would testify thereto.\n\n 2. Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, was involved in all aspects of the Action and its\n\nsettlement, as set forth in the Declaration of Jonathan D. Park in Support of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motions for\n\n(I) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and (II) for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees,\n\nReimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs.\n\n 3. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a detailed summary indicating the amount of time\n\nspent by attorneys and professional support staff of my firm who, from inception of the Action\n\nthrough and including August 31, 2025, billed to the Action, and the lodestar calculation for those\n\nindividuals based on my firm\u2019s current billing rates. Exhibit A does not include time spent on the\n\nMotion for an Award of Attorneys\u2019 Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards to\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 3 of 70\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiffs. For personnel who are no longer employed by my firm, the lodestar calculation is based\n\nupon the billing rates for such personnel in his or her final year of employment by my firm. The\n\nschedule was prepared from contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and\n\nmaintained by my firm.\n\n 4. I am the attorney who oversaw or conducted the day-to-day activities in the Action\n\nand I reviewed these daily time records in connection with the preparation of this declaration. The\n\npurpose of this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the records as well as the necessity for,\n\nand reasonableness of, the time committed to the litigation. Based on this review, I believe that the\n\ntime of Pomerantz attorneys and staff reflected in Exhibit A was reasonable and necessary for the\n\neffective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the Action.\n\n 5. The hourly rates for the attorneys and professional support staff in my firm included\n\nin Exhibit A are consistent with the rates approved by courts in other securities or shareholder\n\nlitigation when conducting a lodestar cross-check.\n\n 6. The total number of hours reflected in Exhibit A is 830.49 hours. The total lodestar\n\nreflected in Exhibit A is $644,589.00.\n\n 7. My firm\u2019s lodestar figures are based upon the firm\u2019s billing rates, which rates do\n\nnot include charges for expense items. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are\n\nnot duplicated in my firm\u2019s billing rates.\n\n 8. As detailed in Exhibit B, my firm is seeking reimbursement of a total of $57,568.63\n\nin expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this Action.\n\n 9. The litigation expenses incurred in the Action are reflected on the books and records\n\nof my firm. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 4 of 70\n\n\n\n\nother source materials and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred. The expenses reflected\n\nin Exhibit B are the expenses actually incurred by my firm.\n\n 10. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is the firm resume of Pomerantz LLP.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th\n\nday of September 2025.\n\n\n /s/ Jonathan D. Park\n Jonathan D. Park\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 5 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\n\n In re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation\n Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\n Pomerantz LLP\n\n LODESTAR REPORT\n FROM INCEPTION THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025\n\n\n Hourly\n Professional Title Hours Worked Lodestar\n Rate\nJeremy Lieberman Managing Partner $1,375 4.50 $ 6,187.50\nAlex Hood Partner $1,050 2.30 $2,415.00\nJonathan D. Park Of Counsel $825 658.70 $543,427.50\nJames LoPiano Associate $600 33.59 $20,154.00\nThomas Przybylowski Associate $650 2.80 $1,820.00\nJared Rabinowitz Associate $575 111.80 $64,285.00\nSimon Hall Paralegal $375 16.80 $6,300.00\nTOTALS 830.49 $644,589.00\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 6 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\n In re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation\n Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\n Pomerantz LLP\n\n EXPENSE REPORT\n FROM INCEPTION THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025\n\n\n Category Amount\n Expert and Consulting Fees $29,106.00\n Investigator Fees $19,099.00\n Process Server Fees $1,276.00\n Filing Fees $402.00\n Online Legal Research $2,317.49\n Press Release / Notice to Class Member Fees $3,100.00\n Postage and FedEx Fees $233.26\n Travel, Transportation, Hotel, Meals $913.40\n Clerical Overtime $921.36\n Photocopying $200.12\n TOTAL EXPENSES $57,568.63\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 7 of 70\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 8 of 70\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 9 of 70\n\n\n\n\nHistory Pomerantz LLP is one of the most respected law firms in the United States dedicated\nto representing investors. The Firm was founded in 1936 by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,\nwidely regarded as a legal pioneer and \u201cdean\u201d of the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, who helped secure\nthe right of investors to bring class and derivative actions.\n\nLeadership Today, led by Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, the Firm maintains the\ncommitments to excellence and integrity passed down by Abe Pomerantz.\n\nResults Pomerantz achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for defrauded investors in 2018\nas well as precedent-setting legal rulings, in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation. Pomerantz\nconsistently shapes the law, winning landmark decisions that expand and protect investor rights\nand initiating historic corporate governance reforms.\n\nGlobal Expertise Beyond its three American offices, the Firm has offices in Paris,\nLondon, and Tel Aviv. Pomerantz also partners with an extensive network of prominent law firms\nacross the globe to assist clients, wherever they are situated, in recovering monies lost due to\ncorporate misconduct and securities fraud. Our team of attorneys is collectively fluent in English,\nArabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish,\nand Ukrainian.\n\nPractice Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights through our\nsecurities litigation services and portfolio monitoring service. The Firm represents some of the\nlargest and most influential pension funds, asset managers and institutional investors around the\nglobe, monitoring assets of over $9.4 trillion and growing. Pomerantz\u2019s practice includes\ncorporate governance, antitrust, and strategic consumer litigation.\n\nRecognition Pomerantz has been recognized as a top tier firm by The Legal 500, Benchmark\nLitigation, and Chambers USA, among others. In 2020, Pomerantz was named the Plaintiff Firm of\nthe Year by Benchmark Litigation and honored with European Pensions\u2019 inaugural Thought\nLeadership Award. Courts across the country have noted the quality of our legal work, and\nPomerantz attorneys regularly receive praise from their peers. The 2024 Benchmark Litigation\nguide describes Pomerantz\u2019s \u201cprodigious capacity for cases and its tenacity to keep pursuing\nthem\u201d as well as the Firm\u2019s work on litigation \u201cwith more meaningful angles.\u201d The Firm\u2019s attorneys\nhave been recognized by major industry publications, including The National Law Journal, The\nNew York Law Journal, Law360, and Lawdragon. Among the prestigious honors received by\nPomerantz attorneys are the Benchmark Litigation Plaintiff Litigator of the Year Award (Jeremy\nLieberman, 2019; Emma Gilmore 2024), New York Law Journal Innovation Award (Jennifer Pafiti,\n2023), 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\nwww.pomlaw.com 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 10 of 70\n\n\n\n\n Securities Litigation\n Significant Landmarks\n\nIn re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\nOn January 3, 2018, in a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz, as sole Lead Counsel for the class,\nalong with Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (\u201cUSS\u201d), achieved a historic $2.95\nbillion settlement with Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A. (\u201cPetrobras\u201d) and its related entity, Petrobras International\nFinance Company, as well as certain of Petrobras\u2019 former executives and directors. On February 2, 2018,\nPomerantz and USS reached a $50 million settlement with Petrobras\u2019 auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers\nAuditores Independentes, bringing the total recovery for Petrobras investors to $3 billion.\n\nThis is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever\nin a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever\nachieved in the United States, the largest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead\nPlaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of\nfinancial reports.\n\nThe class action, brought on behalf of all purchasers of common and preferred American Depositary\nShares (\u201cADSs\u201d) on the New York Stock Exchange, as well as purchasers of certain Petrobras debt,\nprincipally alleged that Petrobras and its senior executives engaged in a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar\nmoney-laundering and bribery scheme, which was concealed from investors.\n\nIn addition to the multi-billion-dollar recovery for defrauded investors, Pomerantz secured precedent-\nsetting decisions when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals squarely rejected defendants\u2019 invitation to\nadopt the heightened ascertainability requirement promulgated by the Third Circuit, which would have\nrequired plaintiffs to demonstrate that determining membership in a class is \u201cadministratively feasible.\u201d\nThe Second Circuit\u2019s rejection of this standard is not only a victory for bondholders in securities class\nactions, but also for plaintiffs in consumer fraud class actions and other class actions where\ndocumentation regarding Class membership is not readily attainable. The Second Circuit also refused to\nadopt a requirement, urged by defendants, that all securities class action plaintiffs seeking class\ncertification prove through direct evidence (i.e., an event study) that the prices of the relevant securities\nmoved in a particular direction in response to new information.\n\nPirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\nIn August 2019, Pomerantz, as Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $110 million settlement for the\nClass in this high-profile securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Fiat Chrysler concealed from\ninvestors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software designed to cheat\nNOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat Chrysler of\nviolating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors with as much\nas 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics in class action\nsettlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 11 of 70\n\n\n\n\nIn addition to creating precedent-setting case law in successfully defending the various motions to dismiss\nthe Fiat Chrysler litigation, Pomerantz also significantly advanced investors\u2019 ability to obtain critically\nimportant discovery from regulators that are often at the center of securities actions. During the litigation,\nPomerantz sought the deposition of a former employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety\nAdministration (\u201cNHTSA\u201d). The United States Department of Transportation (\u201cUSDOT\u201d), like most federal\nagencies, has enacted a set of regulations\u2014known as \u201cTouhy regulations\u201d\u2014governing when its\nemployees may be called by private parties to testify in court. On their face, USDOT\u2019s regulations apply to\nboth \u201ccurrent\u201d and \u201cformer\u201d employees. In response to Pomerantz\u2019s request to depose a former\nemployee of NHSTA that interacted with Fiat Chrysler, NHTSA denied the request, citing the Touhy\nregulation. Despite the widespread application, and assumed appropriateness, of applying these\nregulations to former employees throughout the case law, Pomerantz filed an action against USDOT and\nNHTSA, arguing that the statute pursuant to which the Touhy regulations were enacted speaks only of\n\u201cemployees,\u201d which should be interpreted to apply only to current employees. The court granted\nsummary judgment in favor of Pomerantz\u2019s clients, holding that \u201cUSDOT\u2019s Touhy regulations are unlawful\nto the extent that they apply to former employees.\u201d This victory will greatly shift the discovery tools\navailable, so that investor plaintiffs in securities class actions against highly regulated entities (for\nexample, companies subject to FDA regulations) will now be able to depose former employees of the\nregulators that interacted with the defendants during the class period to get critical testimony concerning\nthe company\u2019s violations and misdeeds.\n\nKarimi v. Deutsche Bank AG, 1:22-cv-02854 (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nOn September 27, 2022, Pomerantz reached a $26.25 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors\nin a securities class action against Deutsche Bank AG. The settlement represents over 49% of estimated\nrecoverable damages, far in excess of the 1.8% median recovery in similar cases.\n\nThe complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank failed to properly adhere to its own Know Your Customer\n(\u201cKYC\u201d) policies when dealing with customers it considered high-risk, such as accused sex offender Jeffrey\nEpstein, Russian oligarchs and politically exposed persons (\u201cPEPs\u201d) reportedly engaged in criminal\nactivities. The Bank repeatedly assured investors that it had \u201cdeveloped effective procedures for assessing\nclients and processes for accepting new clients in order to facilitate comprehensive compliance\u201d with\nthese policies. In reality, however, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly exempted high net-\nworth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, further enabling their crimes through the\nuse of the Bank\u2019s facilities.\n\nFor example, in 2013, Deutsche Bank took on Jeffrey Epstein as a client, despite his previous convictions\nfor and new allegations of child sex trafficking and abuse. Because Epstein was regarded as a \u201chigh-risk\u201d\ncustomer, he should have been subject to the strict due diligence required by the Bank\u2019s KYC program;\nhowever, he was instead classified as an \u201cHonorary PEP,\u201d and his activities within the Bank were allowed\nto continue, largely due to the business he could generate for the Bank. Prior to his onboarding as a client,\n\u201c40 underage girls had come forward with testimony of Epstein sexually assaulting them,\u201d and despite\nthese allegations, Deutsche Bank remained \u201ccomfortable with things continuing.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 12 of 70\n\n\n\n\nHoward v. Arconic et al., No. 2:17-cv-01057 (W.D.Pa.)\n\nIn August 2023, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $74 million settlement on\nbehalf of defrauded investors in a securities class action against the American industrial company Arconic.\n\nOn June 14, 2017, a devastating fire broke out in the Grenfell Tower block of flats in London, United\nKingdom, resulting in the deaths of 72 people and injuries to more than 70 other tenants. In the wake of\nthe tragedy, numerous investigations were conducted, ultimately revealing that, while an electrical fault\nwithin the building instigated the blaze, Arconic\u2019s Reynobond PE panels, which covered the outside of the\nbuilding, likely acted as an accelerant, contributing to the rapid spread of the flames to the floors above.\n\nIn August 2017, Pomerantz filed a securities class action against Arconic alleging that its stock price was\nartificially inflated during the Class Period by the company\u2019s misstatements about the safety of its\nReynobond PE insulating panels. Following a partial dismissal, Pomerantz filed a second amended\ncomplaint, which cited numerous instances in which Arconic sold Reynobond PE panels for use in other\nhigh-rise towers in the UK and across the globe.\n\nNotably, despite the United States\u2019 near universal ban of combustible Reynobond for buildings taller than\ntwelve meters (40 feet), plaintiffs found that Arconic had sold these panels for use in the construction of\nnumerous structures measuring twelve meters or higher throughout the country, including a terminal at\nthe Dallas/Fort Worth airport and Ohio\u2019s Cleveland Browns stadium. The complaint also pointed to at\nleast eighteen other instances in which deadly fires had spread through exterior wall assemblies, most of\nwhich involved high-rise buildings. The new allegations included in the second amended complaint\nconvinced Chief U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak to not only change his mind on many of the claims he\nhad previously dismissed, but also to make new law in plaintiffs favor on several significant issues,\nincluding the element of scienter, i.e., intent to deceive investors.\n\nThe $74 million settlement represents approximately 22% of recoverable damages for defrauded Arconic\nshareholders, an amount far exceeding the 1.8% median recovery for all securities class action settlements\nin 2022.\n\nKaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P, No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y.)\nIn May 2017, Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved final approval of a $135 million recovery for the\nClass in this securities class action that stemmed from what has been called the most profitable insider\ntrading scheme in U.S. history. After years of vigorous litigation, billionaire Steven A. Cohen's former\nhedge fund, S.A.C. Capital Advisors LP, agreed to settle the lawsuit by investors in the drug maker Elan\nCorp, who said they lost money because of insider trading by one of his portfolio managers.\n\nIn re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2185 (S.D. Tex.)\nBeginning in 2012, Pomerantz pursued ground-breaking individual lawsuits for institutional investors to\nrecover losses in BP p.l.c.\u2019s London-traded common stock and NYSE-traded American Depository Shares\n(ADSs) arising from its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Over nine years, Pomerantz briefed and argued every\nsignificant dispute on behalf of 125+ institutional plaintiffs, successfully opposed three motions to dismiss,\nwon other contested motions, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million party and non-party documents, led\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 13 of 70\n\n\n\n\nthe Individual Action Plaintiffs Steering Committee, served as sole Liaison with BP and the Court, and\nworked tirelessly with our clients\u2019 outside investment management firms to develop crucial case evidence.\n\nA threshold challenge was how to litigate in U.S. court given the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Morrison\nv. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), which barred recovery for losses in foreign-traded\nsecurities under the U.S. federal securities laws. In 2013 and 2014, Pomerantz won significant victories in\ndefeating BP\u2019s forum non conveniens arguments, which sought to force dismissal of the English common\nlaw claims from U.S. courts for refiling in English courts, first as regards U.S. institutions and, later, foreign\ninstitutions. Pomerantz also defeated BP\u2019s attempt to extend the U.S. federal Securities Litigation Uniform\nStandards Act of 1998 to reach, and dismiss, these foreign law claims in deference to non-existent\nremedies under the U.S. federal securities laws. These rulings paved the way for 125+ global institutional\ninvestors to pursue their claims and marked the first time, post-Morrison, that U.S. and foreign investors,\npursuing foreign claims seeking recovery for losses in a foreign company\u2019s foreign-traded securities, did\nso in a U.S. court. In 2017, Pomerantz earned an important victory that expanded investor rights under\nEnglish law, permitting certain BP investors to pursue a \u201cholder claim\u201d theory seeking to recover losses in\nsecurities held, rather than purchased anew, in reliance on the alleged fraud\u2014a theory barred under the\nU.S. federal securities laws since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). This win\nwas significant, given the dearth of precedent from anywhere recognizing the viability of a \u201cholder claim\u201d\nunder any non-U.S. law and holding that a given plaintiff alleged facts sufficiently evidencing reliance and\ndocumenting the resulting retention of an identifiable amount of shares on a date certain.\n\nIn Q1 2021, Pomerantz secured confidential, favorable monetary settlements from BP for our nearly three\ndozen clients, including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and\ninvestment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia.\n\nIn re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.)\nIn June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York\ngranted final approval of a $225 million settlement proposed by Pomerantz and Lead Plaintiff the Menora\nGroup, with Comverse Technology and certain of Comverse\u2019s former officers and directors, after four\nyears of highly contested litigation. The Comverse settlement is one of the largest securities class action\nsettlements reached since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d).1 It is the\nsecond-largest recovery in a securities litigation involving the backdating of options, as well as one of the\nlargest recoveries\u2014$60 million\u2014from an individual officer-defendant, Comverse\u2019s founder and former\nCEO, Kobi Alexander.\n\n Other Significant Settlements\n\nEven before the enactment of the PSLRA, Pomerantz represented state agencies in securities class actions,\nincluding the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (recovered $100 million) against a major\ninvestment bank. In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litig., No. 91-cv-5471 (S.D.N.Y.).\n\nPomerantz recovered $50 million for the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey and several New Jersey\npension funds in an individual action. This was a substantially higher recovery than what our clients would\n\n1 Institutional Shareholder Services, SCAS Top 100 Settlements Quarterly Report (Sept. 30, 2010).\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 14 of 70\n\n\n\n\nhave obtained had they remained in a related federal class action. Treasurer of State of New Jersey v. AOL\nTime Warner, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., Mercer Cty.).\n\nPomerantz has litigated numerous cases for the Louisiana School Employees\u2019 Retirement System. For\nexample, as Lead Counsel, Pomerantz recovered $74.75 million in a securities fraud class action against\nCitigroup, its CEO Sanford Weill, and its now infamous telecommunications analyst Jack Grubman. In re\nSalomon Analyst AT&T Litig., No. 02-cv-6801 (S.D.N.Y.) Also, the Firm played a major role in a complex\nantitrust and securities class action which settled for over $1 billion. In re NASDAQ Market-Makers\nAntitrust Litig., MDL No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.). Pomerantz was a member of the Executive Committee in In re\nTranskaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165 (D. Mass.), helping to win a $50\nmillion settlement for the class.\n\nIn 2008, together with Co-Counsel, Pomerantz identified a substantial opportunity for recovery of losses\nin Countrywide mortgage-backed securities (\"MBS\") for three large New Mexico funds (New Mexico State\nInvestment Council, New Mexico Public Employees' Retirement Association, and New Mexico Educational\nRetirement Board), which had been overlooked by all of the firms then in their securities litigation pool.\nWe then filed the first non-class lawsuit by a public institution with respect to Countrywide MBS. See N.M.\nState Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct.). In Fall 2010,\nwe negotiated for our clients an extremely favorable but confidential settlement.\n\nOver its long history, Pomerantz has achieved significant settlements in numerous cases, a sampling of\nwhich appears below:\n\n\u2022 In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)\n $3 billion settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y)\n $110 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel\n\u2022 In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-00373 (N.D. Cal. 2018)\n $80 million settlement of securities class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel\n\u2022 In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262\n $31 million partial settlement with three defendants in this multi-district litigation in which Pomerantz\n represents the Berkshire Bank and the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico\n\u2022 Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)\n $135 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was Co-Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 In re Groupon, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 12-cv-02450 (N.D. Ill. 2015)\n $45 million settlement of class action in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel.\n\u2022 In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-2860 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)\n $75 million settlement in class action arising out of alleged accounting manipulations.\n\u2022 In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Stockholders Litig., No. 00-cv-736-17 (D.S.C. 2004)\n $54.5 million in total settlements in class action alleging accounting manipulations by corporate\n officials and auditors; last settlement reached on eve of trial.\n\u2022 Duckworth v. Country Life Ins. Co., No. 1998-CH-01046 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. 2000)\n $45 million recovery.\n\u2022 Snyder v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 97/0633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Onondaga Cty. 1998)\n Settlement valued at $100 million in derivative case arising from injuries to consumers purchasing life\n insurance policies.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 15 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 In re National Health Lab., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 92-1949 (S.D. Cal. 1995)\n $64 million recovery.\n\u2022 In re First Executive Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 89-cv-07135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n $102 million recovery for the class, exposing a massive securities fraud arising out of the Michael\n Milken debacle.\n\u2022 In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Litig., MDL No. 712 (D. Conn. 1994)\n Over $66 million benefit in securities fraud action.\n\u2022 In re Telerate, Inc. S\u2019holders Litig., C.A. No. 1115 (Del. Ch. 1989)\n $95 million benefit in case alleging violation of fiduciary duty under state law.\n\nPomerantz has also obtained stellar results for private institutions and Taft-Hartley funds. Below are a few\nexamples:\n\n\u2022 In re Charter Commc\u2019ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-1186 (E.D. Mo. 2005) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead\n Plaintiff StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC); $146.25 million class settlement, where Charter also\n agreed to enact substantive improvements in corporate governance.\n\u2022 In re Am. Italian Pasta Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-865 (W.D. Mo. 2008) (sole Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 and 417; $28.5 million aggregate settlements).\n\u2022 Richardson v. Gray, No. 116880/1995 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1999); and In re Summit Metals, No. 98-\n 2870 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) (two derivative actions where the Firm represented C.C. Partners Ltd. and\n obtained judgment of contempt against controlling shareholder for having made \u201cextraordinary\u201d\n payments to himself in violation of a preliminary injunction; persuaded the court to jail him for two\n years upon his refusal to pay; and, in a related action, won a $43 million judgment after trial and\n obtained turnover of stock of two companies).\n\n Shaping the Law\n\nNot only has Pomerantz established a long track record of obtaining substantial monetary recoveries for\nour clients; whenever appropriate, we also pursue corporate governance reforms on their behalf. In In re\nChesapeake Shareholders Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. 2011), for\nexample, the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel, representing a public pension client in a derivative case\narising from an excessive compensation package granted to Chesapeake\u2019s CEO and founder. This was a\nderivative action, not a class action. Yet it is illustrative of the results that can be obtained by an\ninstitutional investor in the corporate governance arena. There we obtained a settlement which called for\nthe repayment of $12.1 million and other consideration by the CEO. The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 3, 2011)\ncharacterized the settlement as \u201ca rare concession for the 52-year-old executive, who has run the\ncompany largely by his own rules since he co-founded it in 1989.\u201d The settlement also included\ncomprehensive corporate governance reforms.\n\nThe Firm has won many landmark decisions that have enhanced shareholders\u2019 rights and improved\ncorporate governance. These include decisions that established that:\n\n\u2022 defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance on an efficient market must do so by a\n preponderance of the evidence. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v.\n Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 16 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u2022 plaintiffs have no burden to show price impact at the class certification stage. Waggoner v. Barclays\n PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (Strougo v. Barclays PLC, in the court below);\n\u2022 the ascertainability doctrine requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish\n a membership with definite boundaries. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petr\u00f3leo\n Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017);\n\u2022 companies cannot adopt bylaws to regulate the rights of former stockholders. Strougo v. Hollander,\n C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015);\n\u2022 a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective disclosure\n does not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. Acticon AG v. China Ne. Petroleum Holdings Ltd.,\n 692 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2012);\n\u2022 an MBS holder may bring claims if the MBS price declines even if all payments of principal and interest\n have been made. Transcript of Proceedings, N.M. State Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-\n 0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 25, 2009);\n\u2022 when a court selects a Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d), the\n standard for calculating the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d must take into account sales as well as\n purchases. In re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-cv-1825, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 (E.D.N.Y.\n Mar. 2, 2007);\n\u2022 a managing underwriter can owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to an issuer in connection with a\n public offering of the issuer stock, even in the absence of any contractual agreement. Professor John\n C. Coffee, a renowned Columbia University securities law professor, commenting on the ruling, stated:\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to change the practice of all underwriting.\u201d EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y. 3d 11\n (2005);\n\u2022 purchasers of options have standing to sue under federal securities laws. In re Green Tree Fin. Corp.\n Options Litig., No. 97-2679, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13986 (D. Minn. July 29, 2002);\n\u2022 shareholders have a right to a jury trial in derivative actions. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970);\n\u2022 a company may have the obligation to disclose to shareholders its Board\u2019s consideration of important\n corporate transactions, such as the possibility of a spin-off, even before any final decision has been\n made. Kronfeld v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 832 F.2d 726 (2d Cir. 1987);\n\u2022 specific standards for assessing whether mutual fund advisors breach fiduciary duties by charging\n excessive fees. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., 740 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1984);\n\u2022 investment advisors to mutual funds are fiduciaries who cannot sell their trustee positions for a profit.\n Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d 1337 (2d Cir. 1971); and\n\u2022 management directors of mutual funds have a duty to make full disclosure to outside directors \u201cin\n every area where there was even a possible conflict of interest.\u201d Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369 (1st\n Cir. 1971).\n\n Comments from the Courts\n\nThroughout its history, courts time and again have acknowledged the Firm\u2019s ability to vigorously pursue\nand successfully litigate actions on behalf of investors.\n\nU.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation\nsettlement in October 2019, stated:\n\n I commend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and\n thoughtful submissions during the motion practice aspect of this case . . . It\u2019s clear to me\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 17 of 70\n\n\n\n\n that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\n the settlement . . . This settlement appears to have been obtained through the hard work\n of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their efforts and not piggybacking on any other\n work that resulted in this settlement.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\nDistrict of New York wrote:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\nIn approving the $3 billion settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in June 2018, Judge Jed S.\nRakoff of the Southern District of New York wrote:\n\n [T]he Court finds that Class Counsel's performance was in many respects exceptional, with\n the result that, as noted, the class is poised to enjoy a substantially larger per share\n recovery [65%] than the recovery enjoyed by numerous large and sophisticated plaintiffs\n who separately settled their claims.\n\nAt the hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February\n2018, Judge Rakoff stated:\n\n [T]he lawyers in this case [are] some of the best lawyers in the United States, if not in the\n world.\n\nTwo years earlier, in certifying two Classes in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation in February 2016, Judge\nRakoff wrote:\n\n [O]n the basis not only of USS\u2019s counsel\u2019s prior experience but also the Court\u2019s\n observation of its advocacy over the many months since it was appointed Lead Counsel,\n the Court concludes that Pomerantz, the proposed class counsel, is \u201cqualified,\n experienced and able to conduct the litigation.\u201d . . . [T]he Pomerantz firm has both the\n skill and resources to represent the Classes adequately.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880, 2016\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 144133 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2016) Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote:\n\n Class Counsel has developed a reputation for zealous advocacy in securities class actions\n . . . The settlement amount of $24 million is an outstanding result.\n\nAt the May 2015 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in Courtney v. Avid Technology, Inc.,\nNo. 13-cv-10686 (D. Mass. May 12, 2015), following oral argument by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Judge William\nG. Young stated:\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 18 of 70\n\n\n\n\n This has been very well litigated. It is always a privilege. I don't just say that as a matter\n of form. And I thank you for the vigorous litigation that I've been permitted to be a part\n of. [Tr. at 8-9.]\n\nAt the January 2012 hearing wherein the court approved the settlement in In re Chesapeake Energy Corp.\nShareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CJ-2009-3983 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty. Jan. 30, 2012), following\noral argument by Marc I. Gross, Judge Daniel L. Owens stated:\n\n Counsel, it\u2019s a pleasure, and I mean this and rarely say it. I think I\u2019ve said it two times in\n 25 years. It is an extreme pleasure to deal with counsel of such caliber. [Tr. at 48.])\n\nIn approving the $225 million settlement in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-\nCV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.) in June 2010, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis stated:\n\n As outlined above, the recovery in this case is one of the highest ever achieved in this type\n of securities action . . . The court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been\n impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s acumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough,\n clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has not taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts\n at any stage of the litigation.\n\nIn approving a $146.25 million settlement in In re Charter Communications Securities Litigation, No. 02-\nCV-1186, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14772 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2005), in which Pomerantz served as sole Lead\nCounsel, Judge Charles A. Shaw praised the Firm\u2019s efforts, citing \u201cthe vigor with which Lead Counsel . . .\ninvestigated claims, briefed the motions to dismiss, and negotiated the settlement.\u201d He further stated:\n\n This Court believes Lead Plaintiff achieved an excellent result in a complex action, where\n the risk of obtaining a significantly smaller recovery, if any, was substantial.\n\nIn approving a $24 million settlement in In re Force Protection, Inc., No. 08 CV 845 (D.S.C. 2011), Judge C.\nWeston Houk described the Firm as \u201cattorneys of great ability and great reputation\u201d and commended the\nFirm for having \u201cdone an excellent job.\u201d\n\nIn certifying a class in a securities fraud action against analysts in DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc.,\n228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Gerard D. Lynch stated that Pomerantz had \u201cably and zealously\nrepresented the interests of the class.\u201d\n\nNumerous courts have made similar comments:\n\n\u2022 Appointing Pomerantz Lead Counsel in American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, No 05-CV-0725\n (W.D. Mo.), a class action that involved a massive fraud and restatements spanning several years, the\n District Court observed that the Firm \u201chas significant experience (and has been extremely effective)\n litigating securities class actions, employs highly qualified attorneys, and possesses ample resources\n to effectively manage the class litigation and protect the class\u2019s interests.\u201d\n\u2022 In approving the settlement in In re Wiring Devices Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 331 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.\n 9, 1980), Chief Judge Jack B. Weinstein stated that \u201cCounsel for the plaintiffs I think did an excellent\n job . . . They are outstanding and skillful. The litigation was and is extremely complex. They assumed\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 19 of 70\n\n\n\n\n a great deal of responsibility. They recovered a very large amount given the possibility of no recovery\n here which was in my opinion substantial.\u201d\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 In Rauch v. Bilzerian, No. 88 Civ. 15624 (N.J. Sup. Ct.), the court, after trial, referred to Pomerantz\n partners as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel,\u201d and as having provided \u201ctop drawer, topflight\n [representation], certainly as good as I\u2019ve seen in my stay on this court.\u201d\n\n\n Corporate Governance Litigation\nPomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\ngood corporate citizenship. We strongly support policies and procedures designed to give shareholders\nthe ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. We vigorously pursue corporate governance reform,\nparticularly in the area of excess compensation, where it can address the growing disparity between the\nsalaries of executives and the workers of major corporations. We have successfully utilized litigation to\nbring about corporate governance reform in numerous cases, and always consider whether such reforms\nare appropriate before any case is settled.\n\nPomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance Practice Group, led by Partner Gustavo F. Bruckner, enforces\nshareholder rights and prosecutes actions challenging corporate transactions that arise from an unfair\nprocess or result in an unfair price for shareholders.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 20 of 70\n\n\n\n\nIn September 2017, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Julio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery\nDivision, approved Pomerantz\u2019s settlement in a litigation against Ocean Shore Holding Co. The settlement\nprovided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In so doing, Judge Mendez became the first New\nJersey state court judge to formally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521\nF.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). There has never before been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting\nout the factors a court must consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be\ndetermined to be fair and adequate. After conducting an analysis of each of the nine Girsh factors and\nholding that \u201cclass actions settlements involving non-monetary benefits to the class are subject to more\nexacting scrutiny,\u201d Judge Mendez held that the proposed settlement provided a material benefit to the\nshareholders.\n\nIn February 2018, the Maryland Circuit Court, Montgomery County, approved a $17.5 million settlement\nthat plaintiffs achieved as additional consideration on behalf of a class of shareholders of American\nCapital, Ltd. In re Am. Capital, Ltd. S\u2019holder Litig., C.A. No. 422598-V (2018). The settlement resolved\nPlaintiffs\u2019 claims regarding a forced sale of American Capital.\n\nPomerantz filed an action challenging the sale of American Capital, a Delaware corporation with its\nheadquarters in Maryland. Among other things, American Capital\u2019s board of directors (the \u201cBoard\u201d)\nagreed to sell the company at a price below what two other bidders were willing to offer. Worse, the\nmerger price was even below the amount that shareholders would have received in the company\u2019s\nplanned phased liquidation, which the company was considering under pressure from Elliott\nManagement, an activist hedge fund and holder of approximate 15% of American Capital stock. Elliott was\nnot originally named as a defendant, but after initial discovery showed the extent of its involvement in\nthe Board\u2019s breaches of fiduciary duty, Elliott was added as a defendant in an amended complaint under\nthe theory that Elliott exercised actual control over the Board\u2019s decision-making. Elliott moved to dismiss\non jurisdictional grounds and additionally challenged its alleged status as a controller of American Capital.\nIn June 2017, minutes before the hearing on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, a partial settlement was\nentered into with the members of the Board for $11.5 million. The motion to dismiss hearing proceeded\ndespite the partial settlement, but only as to Elliott. In July 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss,\nfinding that Elliott, \u201cby virtue solely of its own conduct, . . . has easily satisfied the transacting business\nprong of the Maryland long arm statute.\u201d The court also found that the \u201camended complaint in this case\nsufficiently pleads that Elliott was a controller with respect to\u201d the sale, thus implicating a higher standard\nof review. Elliott subsequently settled the remaining claims for an additional $6 million. Pomerantz served\nas Co-Lead Counsel.\n\nIn May 2017, the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon approved the settlement achieved by Pomerantz\nand co-counsel of a derivative action brought by two shareholders of Lithia Motors, Inc. The lawsuit\nalleged breach of fiduciary duties by the board of directors in approving, without any meaningful review,\nthe Transition Agreement between Lithia Motors and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder,\nCEO, and Chairman, who was stepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, Bryan DeBoer,\nnegotiated virtually all the material terms of the Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the\nsenior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car allowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits,\nin addition to the $200,000 per year that he would receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\nThe Lithia settlement extracted corporate governance therapeutics that provide substantial benefits to\nLithia and its shareholders and redress the wrongdoing alleged by plaintiffs. The board will now be\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 12\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 21 of 70\n\n\n\n\nrequired to have at least five independent directors\u2014as defined under the New York Stock Exchange\nrules\u2014by 2020; a number of other new protocols will be in place to prevent self-dealing by board\nmembers. Further, the settlement calls for the Transition Agreement to be reviewed by an independent\nauditor who will determine whether the annual payments of $1,060,000 for life to Sidney DeBoer are\nreasonable. Lithia has agreed to accept whatever decision the auditor makes.\n\nIn January 2017, the Group received approval of the Delaware Chancery Court for a $5.6 million\nsettlement it achieved on behalf of a class of shareholders of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. over an\nignored merger offer in 2012. In re Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch.).\n\nThe Group obtained a landmark ruling in Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch.), that fee-shifting\nbylaws adopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to shareholders affected by the transaction.\nThey were also able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the going private\ntransaction.\n\nIn Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Super. Ct.), the Group caused Implant Sciences to hold\nits first shareholder annual meeting in five years and put an important compensation grant up for a\nshareholder vote.\n\nIn Smollar v. Potarazu, C.A. No. 10287-VCN (Del. Ch.), the Group pursued a derivative action to bring about\nthe appointment of two independent members to the board of directors, retention of an independent\nauditor, dissemination of financials to shareholders and the holding of first ever in-person annual meeting,\namong other corporate therapeutics.\n\nIn Hallandale Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon athletica, Inc.,\nC.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch.), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, the Chancery Court ordered the\nproduction of the chairman\u2019s 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found that a stock trading plan\nestablished by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than the chairman himself,\nwould liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude potential liability for\ninsider trading.\n\nIn Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct.), the Group caused the Merger\nAgreement to be amended to provide a \u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for the holders of North State\nBancorp\u2019s common stock in connection with the shareholder vote on the merger. As a result of the Action,\ncommon shareholders could stop the merger if they did not wish it to go forward.\n\nPomerantz\u2019s commitment to advancing sound corporate governance principles is further demonstrated\nby the more than 26 years that we have co-sponsored the Abraham L. Pomerantz Lecture Series with\nBrooklyn Law School. These lectures focus on critical and emerging issues concerning shareholder rights\nand corporate governance and bring together top academics and litigators.\n\nOur bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor, provides institutional investors updates and insights\non current issues in corporate governance.\n\n\n Strategic Consumer Litigation\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 13\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 22 of 70\n\n\n\n\nPomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group, led by Partner Jordan Lurie, represents\nconsumers in actions that seek to recover monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of class members while\nalso advocating for important consumer rights. The attorneys in this group have successfully prosecuted\nclaims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song\nBeverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Song Beverly Credit Card Act. They have resolved data breach\nprivacy cases and cases involving unlawful recording, illegal background checks, unfair business practices,\nmisleading advertising, and other consumer finance related actions. All of these actions also have resulted\nin significant changes to defendants\u2019 business practices.\n\nPomerantz currently represents consumers in a nationwide class action against Facebook for mistargeting\nads. Plaintiff alleges that Facebook programmatically displays a material percentage of ads to users\noutside the defined target market and displays ads to \u201cserial Likers\u201d outside the defined target audience\nin order to boost Facebook\u2019s revenue. IntegrityMessageBoards.com v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Case No.\n4:18-cv-05286 PJH.\n\nPomerantz has pioneered litigation to establish claims for public injunctive relief under California\u2019s unfair\nbusiness practices statute. For example, Pomerantz has filed cases seeking to prevent major auto\nmanufacturers from unauthorized access to, and use of, drivers\u2019 vehicle data without compensation, and\nseeking to require the auto companies to share diagnostic data extracted from drivers\u2019 vehicles. The\nStrategic Consumer Litigation practice group is also prosecuting class cases against auto manufacturers\nfor failing to properly identify high-priced parts that must be covered in California under extended\nemissions warranties.\n\nOther consumer matters handled by Pomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice group include\nactions involving cryptocurrency, medical billing, price fixing, and false advertising of various consumer\nproducts and services.\n\n\n Antitrust Litigation\nPomerantz has earned a reputation for prosecuting complex antitrust and consumer class actions with\nvigor, innovation, and success. Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust and Consumer Group has recovered billions of\ndollars for the Firm\u2019s business and individual clients and the classes that they represent. Time and again,\nPomerantz has protected our free-market system from anticompetitive conduct such as price fixing,\nmonopolization, exclusive territorial division, pernicious pharmaceutical conduct, and false advertising.\nPomerantz\u2019s advocacy has spanned across diverse product markets, exhibiting the Antitrust and\nConsumer Group\u2019s versatility to prosecute class actions on any terrain.\n\nPomerantz has served and is currently serving in leadership or Co-Leadership roles in several high-profile\nmulti-district litigation class actions. In December 2018, the Firm achieved a $31 billion partial settlement\nwith three defendants on behalf of a class of U.S. lending institutions that originated, purchased or held\nloans paying interest rates tied to the U.S. Dollar London Interbank Offered Rate (USD LIBOR). It is alleged\nthat the class suffered damages as a result of collusive manipulation by the LIBOR contributor panel banks\nthat artificially suppressed the USD LIBOR rate during the class period, causing the class members to\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 14\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 23 of 70\n\n\n\n\nreceive lower interest payments than they would have otherwise received. In re Libor Based Financial\nInstruments Antitrust Litig., 1:11-md-2262.\n\nPomerantz represented baseball and hockey fans in a game-changing antitrust class action against Major\nLeague Baseball and the National Hockey League, challenging the exclusive territorial division of live\ntelevision broadcasts, internet streaming, and the resulting geographic blackouts. See Laumann v. NHL\nand Garber v. MLB (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\nPomerantz has spearheaded the effort to challenge harmful anticompetitive conduct by pharmaceutical\ncompanies\u2014including Pay-for-Delay Agreements\u2014that artificially inflates the price of prescription drugs\nby keeping generic versions off the market.\n\nEven prior to the 2013 precedential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Actavis, Pomerantz litigated and\nsuccessfully settled the following generic-drug-delay cases:\n\n \u2022 In re Flonase Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2008) ($35 million);\n \u2022 In re Toprol XL Antitrust Litig. (D. Del. 2006) ($11 million); and\n \u2022 In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. 2004) ($21.5 million).\n\nOther exemplary victories include Pomerantz\u2019s prominent role in In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust\nLitigation (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a settlement in excess of $1 billion for class members, one of the\nlargest antitrust settlements in history. Pomerantz also played prominent roles in In re Sorbates Direct\nPurchaser Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in over an $82 million recovery, and in In re\nMethionine Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in a $107 million recovery. These cases illustrate\nthe resources, expertise, and commitment that Pomerantz\u2019s Antitrust Group devotes to prosecuting some\nof the most egregious anticompetitive conduct.\n\n\n A Global Advocate for Asset Managers\n and Public and Taft-Hartley Pension Funds\nPomerantz represents some of the largest pension funds, asset managers, and institutional investors\naround the globe, monitoring assets of over $9 trillion, and growing. Utilizing cutting-edge legal strategies\nand the latest proprietary techniques, Pomerantz protects, expands, and vindicates shareholder rights\nthrough our securities litigation services and portfolio monitoring program.\n\nPomerantz partners routinely advise foreign and domestic institutional investors on how best to evaluate\nlosses to their investment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct and how best to maximize their\npotential recoveries worldwide. In particular, Pomerantz Partners Jeremy Lieberman and Jennifer Pafiti\nregularly travel throughout the U.S. and across the globe to meet with clients on these issues and are\nfrequent speakers at investor conferences and educational forums in North America, Europe, and the\nMiddle East.\n\nPomerantz was honored by European Pensions with its inaugural 2020 Thought Leadership award in\nrecognition of significant contributions the Firm has made in the European pension environment.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 15\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 24 of 70\n\n\n\n\n Institutional Investor Services\nPomerantz offers a variety of services to institutional investors. Through the Firm\u2019s proprietary system,\nPomTrack\u00ae, Pomerantz monitors client portfolios to identify and evaluate potential and pending securities\nfraud, ERISA and derivative claims, and class action settlements. Monthly customized PomTrack\u00ae reports\nare included with the service. PomTrack\u00ae currently monitors assets of over $9.4 trillion for some of the\nmost influential institutional investors worldwide.\n\nWhen a potential securities claim impacting a client is identified, Pomerantz offers to analyze the case\u2019s\nmerits and provide a written analysis and recommendation. If litigation is warranted, a team of Pomerantz\nattorneys will provide efficient and effective legal representation. The experience and expertise of our\nattorneys\u2014which have consistently been acknowledged by the courts\u2014allow Pomerantz to vigorously\npursue the claims of investors, taking complex cases to trial when warranted.\n\nPomerantz is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and practice\ngood corporate citizenship. The Firm strongly support policies and procedures designed to give\nshareholders the ability to oversee the activities of a corporation. Pomerantz has successfully utilized\nlitigation to bring about corporate governance reform, and always considers whether such reforms are\nappropriate before any case is settled.\n\nPomerantz provides clients with insightful and timely commentary on matters essential to effective fund\nmanagement in our bi-monthly newsletter, The Pomerantz Monitor and regularly sponsors conferences\nand roundtable events around the globe with speakers who are experts in securities litigation and\ncorporate governance matters.\n\n\n Attorneys\n Partners\n\nJeremy A. Lieberman\n\nJeremy A. Lieberman is Pomerantz\u2019s Managing Partner. He became associated with the Firm in August\n2004 and was elevated to Partner in January 2010. The Legal 500, in honoring Jeremy as a Leading Lawyer\nand Pomerantz as a 2021 and 2022 Tier 1 Plaintiffs Securities Law Firm, stated that \u201cJeremy Lieberman is\nsuper impressive\u2014a formidable adversary for any defense firm.\u201d Among the client testimonials posted on\nThe Legal 500\u2019s website: \u201cJeremy Lieberman led the case for us with remarkable and unrelenting energy\nand aggression. He made a number of excellent strategic decisions which boosted our recovery.\u201d\nLawdragon has named Jeremy among the Leading 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers in the United States each\nyear from 2019 to 2024. Super Lawyers\u00ae named him among the Top 100 Lawyers in the New York Metro\narea in 2021. In 2020, Jeremy won a Distinguished Leader award from the New York Law Journal. He was\nhonored as Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 2019 Plaintiff Attorney of the Year. In 2018, Jeremy was honored as a\nTitan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360 and as a Benchmark Litigation Star. The Pomerantz team that Jeremy\nleads was named a 2018 Securities Practice Group of the Year.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 16\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 25 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJeremy led the securities class action litigation In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, which arose from a\nmulti-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro\nS.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which Pomerantz was sole Lead Counsel. The biggest instance of corruption in the\nhistory of Brazil ensnared not only Petrobras' former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including\nformer president Lula da Silva and one-third of the Brazilian Congress. In January and February 2018,\nJeremy achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class\naction settlement in a decade but is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a\nforeign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the\nlargest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities\nclass action settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nJeremy also secured a significant victory for Petrobras investors at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,\nwhen the court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that\nhad been imposed by the Third Circuit Courts of Appeals. The ruling will have a positive impact on plaintiffs\nin securities fraud litigation. Indeed, the Petrobras litigation was honored in 2019 as a National Impact\nCase by Benchmark Litigation.\n\nJeremy was Lead Counsel in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF\n(S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm achieved a $110 million settlement for the class. Plaintiff alleged that Fiat\nChrysler concealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d\nsoftware designed to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had\naccused Fiat Chrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provided the class\nof investors with as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to\nhistorical statistics in class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between\n1.6% and 3.3%.\n\nIn November 2019, Jeremy achieved a critical victory for investors in the securities fraud class action\nagainst Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey\ncertified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the New York Stock Exchange and\nthe Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of institutional investors that purchased\nPerrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V. to tender Perrigo shares. This is the first\ntime since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a\nnon-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency necessary allow for class\ncertification.\n\nJeremy headed the Firm\u2019s individual action against pharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries\nLtd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together, \u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former\nemployees and officers, relating to alleged anticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva\nis a dual-listed company, and the Firm represents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased\nTeva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global\ninvestors when the district court agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims.\nClal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\nIn 2019, Jeremy achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile\nsecurities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 17\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 26 of 70\n\n\n\n\ninstitutional investors about the manipulation of the banking giant\u2019s so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems\nin order to provide a trading advantage to high-frequency traders over its institutional investor clients.\nThis case turned on the duty of integrity owed by Barclays to its clients. In November 2017, Jeremy\nachieved precedent-setting victories for investors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that\ndirect evidence of price impact is not always necessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the\npresumption of reliance, and that defendants seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by\na preponderance of the evidence rather than merely meeting a burden of production.\n\nJeremy led the Firm\u2019s securities class action litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., in which Pomerantz, as Lead\nCounsel, achieved an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case involved the biggest data\nbreaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were compromised. This was the first\nsignificant settlement to date of a securities fraud class action filed in response to a data breach.\n\nIn 2018 Jeremy achieved a $3.3 million settlement for the Class in the Firm\u2019s securities class action against\nCorinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in the country, for alleged\nmisrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable regulations, and enrollment\nstatistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a particularly noteworthy victory\nbecause Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had dismissed two prior lawsuits\nagainst Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (C.D. Cal.).\n\nJeremy led the Firm\u2019s litigation team that in 2018 secured a $31 million partial settlement with three\ndefendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, a closely watched multi-district\nlitigation, which concerns the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rigging scandal.\n\nIn In re China North East Petroleum Corp. Securities Litigation, Jeremy achieved a significant victory for\nshareholders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whereby the Appeals Court\nruled that a temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective\ndisclosure did not eviscerate an investor\u2019s claim for damages. The Second Circuit\u2019s decision was deemed\n\u201cprecedential\u201d by the New York Law Journal and provides critical guidance for assessing damages in a \u00a7\n10(b) action.\n\nJeremy had an integral role in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which he and his\npartners achieved a historic $225 million settlement on behalf of the Class, which was the second-largest\noptions backdating settlement to date.\n\nJeremy regularly consults with Pomerantz\u2019s international institutional clients, including pension funds,\nregarding their rights under the U.S. securities laws. Jeremy is working with the Firm\u2019s international clients\nto craft a response to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., which limited\nthe ability of foreign investors to seek redress under the federal securities laws.\n\nJeremy is a frequent lecturer worldwide regarding current corporate governance and securities litigation\nissues.\n\nJeremy graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2002. While in law school, he served as a\nstaff member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Upon graduation, he began his career at a major New\nYork law firm as a litigation associate, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 18\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 27 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJeremy is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern,\nEastern, and Western Districts of New York, United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern\nDistricts of Texas, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of\nWisconsin, and the Northern District of Illinois; United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third,\nFourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nGustavo F. Bruckner\n\nGustavo F. Bruckner heads Pomerantz\u2019s Corporate Governance practice group, which enforces\nshareholder rights and prosecutes litigation challenging corporate actions that harm shareholders. Under\nGustavo\u2019s leadership, the Corporate Governance group has achieved numerous noteworthy litigation\nsuccesses. He has been quoted on corporate governance issues by The New York Times, The Wall Street\nJournal, Bloomberg, Law360, and Reuters, and was honored from 2016 through 2021 by Super Lawyers\u00ae\nas a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on no more than 5% of eligible\nattorneys in the New York Metro area. In 2023, he was included on Lawdragon\u2019s list of the 500 Leading\nPlaintiff Financial Lawyers. Gustavo regularly appears in state and federal courts across the nation.\nGustavo presented at the prestigious Institute for Law and Economic Policy conference.\n\nGustavo is a fierce advocate of aggressive corporate clawback policies that allow companies to recover\ndamages from officers and directors for reputational and financial harm. Most recently, in McIntosh vs\nKeizer, et al., Docket No. 2018-0386 (Del. Ch.), Pomerantz filed a derivative suit on behalf of Hertz Global\nHoldings, Inc. shareholders, seeking to compel the Hertz board of directors to claw back millions of dollars\nin unearned and undeserved payments that the Company made to former officers and directors who\nsignificantly damaged Hertz through years of wrongdoing and misconduct. Under pressure from plaintiff\u2019s\nligation efforts, the Hertz board of directors elected to take unprecedented action and mooted plaintiff\u2019s\nclaims, initiating litigation to recover tens of millions of dollars in incentive compensation and more than\n$200 million in damages from culpable former Hertz executives.\n\nPomerantz, through initiation and prosecution of a shareholder derivative action, forced the Hertz board\nto seek clawback from former officers and directors of the company, unjustly enriched after causing the\nCompany to file inaccurate and false financial statements leading to a $235 million restatement and $16\nmillion fee to the SEC.\n\nIn September 2017, Gustavo\u2019s Corporate Governance team achieved a settlement in New Jersey Superior\nCourt that provided non-pecuniary benefits for a non-opt out class. In approving the settlement, Judge\nJulio Mendez, of Cape May County Chancery Division, became the first New Jersey state court judge to\nformally adopt the Third Circuit\u2019s nine-part Girsh factors, Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975).\nNever before has there been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting out the factors a court\nmust consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be determined to be fair and\nadequate.\n\nGustavo successfully argued Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. 2015), obtaining a landmark\nruling in Delaware that bylaws adopted after shareholders are cashed out do not apply to shareholders\naffected by the transaction. In the process, Gustavo and the Corporate Governance team beat back a fee-\nshifting bylaw and were able to obtain a 25% price increase for members of the class cashed out in the\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 19\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 28 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u201cgoing private\u201d transaction. Shortly thereafter, the Delaware Legislature adopted legislation to ban fee-\nshifting bylaws.\n\nIn Stein v. DeBoer (Or. Cir. Ct. 2017), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance group achieved a settlement\nthat provides significant corporate governance therapeutics on behalf of shareholders of Lithia Motors,\nInc. The company\u2019s board had approved, without meaningful review, the Transition Agreement between\nthe company and Sidney DeBoer, its founder, controlling shareholder, CEO, and Chairman, who was\nstepping down as CEO. DeBoer and his son, the current CEO, negotiated virtually all the material terms of\nthe Agreement, by which the company agreed to pay the senior DeBoer $1,060,000 and a $42,000 car\nallowance annually for the rest of his life, plus other benefits, in addition to the $200,000 per year that he\nwould receive for continuing to serve as Chairman.\n\nIn Miller v. Bolduc, No. SUCV 2015-00807 (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate Governance\ngroup, by initiating litigation, caused Implant Sciences to hold its first shareholder annual meeting in 5\nyears and to place an important compensation grant up for a shareholder vote.\n\nIn Strougo v. North State Bancorp, No. 15 CVS 14696 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2015), Gustavo and the Corporate\nGovernance team caused the North State Bancorp merger agreement to be amended to provide a\n\u201cmajority of the minority\u201d provision for common shareholders in connection with the shareholder vote\non the merger. As a result of the action, common shareholders had the ability to stop the merger if they\ndid not wish it to go forward.\n\nIn Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters\u2019 Personnel Retirement Fund vs. Lululemon Athletica,\nInc., C.A. No. 8522-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), in an issue of first impression in Delaware, Gustavo successfully\nargued for the production of the company chairman\u2019s Rule 10b5-1 stock trading plan. The court found\nthat a stock trading plan established by the company's chairman, pursuant to which a broker, rather than\nthe chairman himself, would liquidate a portion of the chairman's stock in the company, did not preclude\npotential liability for insider trading.\n\nGustavo was Co-Lead Counsel in In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7328-VCN\n(Del. Ch. 2012), obtaining the elimination of stand-still provisions that allowed third parties to bid for\nGreat Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a third-party bidder and approximately $94 million\n(57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf shareholders.\n\nGustavo received his law degree in 1992 from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he served\nas an editor of the Moot Court Board and on the Student Council. Upon graduation, he received the award\nfor outstanding student service.\n\nAfter graduating law school, Gustavo served as Chief-of-Staff to a New York City legislator.\n\nGustavo is a Mentor and Coach to the NYU Stern School of Business, Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial\nStudies, New Venture Competition. He was a University Scholar at NYU where he obtained a B.S. in\nMarketing and International Business in 1988 and an MBA in Finance and International Business in 1989.\nGustavo is a Trustee and former Treasurer of the Beit Rabban Day School, and an arbitrator in the Civil\nCourt of the City of New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 20\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 29 of 70\n\n\n\n\nGustavo is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey; the United States District Courts for the\nEastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey; the Eastern District\nof Wisconsin; the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits; and the United\nStates Supreme Court.\n\nBrian Calandra\n\nBrian Calandra joined Pomerantz in June 2019 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in January 2023.\nHe has extensive experience in securities, antitrust, complex commercial, and white-collar matters in\nfederal and state courts nationwide. Brian has represented issuers, underwriters, and individuals in\nsecurities class actions involving the financial, telecommunications, real estate, and pharmaceutical\nindustries. He has also represented financial institutions in antitrust class actions concerning foreign\nexchange; supra-national, sub-sovereign and agency bonds; bonds issued by the government of Mexico;\nand credit card fees. In 2021, Brian was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation\nAttorney\u201d.\n\nBrian has written multiple times on developments in securities law and other topics, including co-\nauthoring an overview of insider trading law and enforcement for Practical Compliance & Risk\nManagement for the Securities Industry, co-authoring an analysis of anti-corruption compliance risks\nposed by sovereign wealth funds for Risk & Compliance, and authoring an analysis of the effects of the\n2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act on women in bankruptcy for\nthe Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Brian was a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP. Brian graduated\nfrom Rutgers School of Law-Newark in 2009, cum laude, Order of the Coif. While at Rutgers, Brian was co-\neditor-in-chief of the Women\u2019s Rights Law Reporter and received the Justice Henry E. Ackerson Prize for\nDistinction in Legal Skills and the Carol Russ Memorial Prize for Distinction in Promoting Women\u2019s Rights.\n\nBrian is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York; the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the United\nStates Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Tenth Circuits; and the United States\nSupreme Court.\n\nJustin D. D\u2019Aloia\n\nJustin D. D\u2019Aloia is a Partner in Pomerantz\u2019s New York office, where he specializes in securities class action\nlitigation. He has extensive experience litigating high-profile securities cases in federal and state courts\nacross the country. Justin has represented issuers, underwriters, and senior executives in matters\ninvolving a range of industries, including the financial services, life sciences, real estate, technology, and\nconsumer retail sectors. His practice covers the full spectrum of proceedings from pre-suit demand\nthrough settlement.\n\nJustin joined Pomerantz as a Partner in October 2022. Before joining Pomerantz, Justin was counsel at a\nlarge international law firm where he focused on securities litigation and other complex shareholder class\naction litigation. He previously served as a law clerk to Judge Mark Falk of the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 21\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 30 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJustin received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the\nFordham International Law Journal. He earned his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University with a\nconcentration in Business and Economics.\n\nJustin is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the District of Colorado; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third,\nand Tenth Circuits.\n\nEmma Gilmore\n\nEmma Gilmore is a Partner at Pomerantz and is regularly involved in high-profile class-action litigation. In\n2024, Benchmark Litigation selected her as \u201cPlaintiff Litigator of the Year.\u201d In 2023, the National Law\nJournal named her a Plaintiffs\u2019 Attorney Trailblazer and Benchmark Litigation shortlisted her for Plaintiff\nLitigator of the Year. Emma was honored by Law360 in 2023 and in 2018 as an MVP in Securities Litigation,\npart of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\nearned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\nsix attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. In 2018, Emma was the\nfirst woman plaintiff attorney to receive this outstanding award since it was initiated in 2011. In 2021,\nEmma was awarded a spot on National Law Journal\u2019s prestigious Elite Women of the Plaintiffs Bar list. In\n2021 and 2020, she was named by Benchmark Litigation as one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation\u2014an\nhonor bestowed on only seven plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers in the U.S. those years. The National Law Journal and\nthe New York Law Journal honored her as a \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer.\u201d Emma has been honored since\n2018 as a Super Lawyer\u00ae. She has been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff\nFinancial Lawyers.\n\nEmma is regularly invited to speak about recent trends and developments in securities litigation. She\nserves on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Securities Litigation Committee. Emma regularly counsels\nclients around the world on how to maximize recoveries on their investments.\n\nEmma played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s class action case in the Southern District of New York against\nBrazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in\nwhich the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. In a significant victory for investors, Pomerantz achieved a historic\n$3 billion settlement with Petrobras. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a\ndecade but is the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest class\naction settlement ever achieved in the United States, and the largest settlement achieved by a foreign\nlead plaintiff. The biggest instance of corruption in the history of Brazil had ensnared not only Petrobras'\nformer executives but also Brazilian politicians, including former president Lula da Silva and one-third of\nthe Brazilian Congress. Emma traveled to Brazil to uncover evidence of fraud and drafted the complaint.\nShe deposed and defended numerous fact and expert witnesses, including deposing the former CEO of\nPetrobras, the whistleblower, and the chief accountant. She drafted the appellate brief, playing an\ninstrumental role in securing a significant victory for investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of\nAppeals, when the Court rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for obtaining class\ncertification that had been imposed by other circuit courts. She opposed defendants' petition for a writ\nof certiorari to the Supreme Court. Emma successfully obtained sanctions against a professional objector\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 22\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 31 of 70\n\n\n\n\nchallenging the integrity of the settlement, both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals for the\nSecond Circuit.\n\nEmma organized a group of twenty-seven of the foremost U.S. scholars in the field of evidence and\nspearheaded the effort to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on their behalf in a critical\nissue for investors. One of the two issues before the High Court in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al v.\nArkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. (No. 20-222) squarely affected investors\u2019 ability to pursue\nclaims collectively as a class: whether, in order to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the\nCourt in the landmark Basic v. Levinson decision, defendants bear the burden of persuasion, or whether\nthey bear only the much lower burden of production. The scholars argued that defendants carry the higher\nburden of persuasion. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Pomerantz and the scholars.\n\nEmma led the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Deutsche Bank and its executives, arising from the\nBank\u2019s improper anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer procedures. Plaintiffs alleged that,\ndespite the Bank\u2019s representations that it implemented a \u201crobust and strict\u201d Know Your Customer\nprogram with \u201cspecial safeguards\u201d for politically exposed persons (PEPs), defendants repeatedly\nexempted high-net-worth individuals and PEPs from any meaningful due diligence, enabling their criminal\nactivities through the Bank\u2019s facilities. For example, Deutsche Bank continued \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d with\nJeffrey Epstein even after learning that 40 underage girls had come forward with testimony that he had\nsexually assaulted them. Deutsche Bank\u2019s former CEOs also onboarded, retained, and serviced Russian\noligarchs and other clients reportedly engaged in criminal activities, with little or no due diligence. On\nOctober 20, 2022, Emma secured for investors nearly 50% of recoverable damages, which reflects a\npremium for the palpable misconduct and is exceptionally high for securities class action settlements. The\nDeutsche Bank litigation and settlement serve as important legal precedents aimed to deter financial\ninstitutions from enabling the wealthy and powerful to commit crimes in return for financial benefits to\nthe institutions.\n\nEmma played a leading role in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action that alleged\nBarclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking giant\u2019s use of so-called\n\u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. She secured an important precedent-setting opinion from the Second Circuit.\nEmma organized a group of leading evidence experts who filed amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs\u2019 position\nin the Second Circuit.\n\nEmma secured a unanimous decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, benefiting\ndefrauded investors in Costa Brava Partnership III LP v. ChinaCast Education Corp. In an issue of first\nimpression, the Ninth Circuit held that imputation of the CEO's scienter to the company was warranted\nvis-a-vis innocent third parties, despite the fact that the executive acted for his own benefit and to the\ncompany's detriment.\n\nShe has also devoted a significant amount of time to pro bono matters. She played a critical role in securing\na unanimous ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court striking down as unconstitutional a state law banning\ncohabiting individuals from adopting children or serving as foster parents. The ruling was a relief for the\n1,600-plus children in the state of Arkansas who needed a permanent family. The litigation generated\nsignificant publicity, including coverage by the Arkansas Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York\nTimes.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 23\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 32 of 70\n\n\n\n\nShe was Lead Counsel in the Firm's class action litigation against Arconic, in which she secured a $74\nmillion settlement for the class. Arconic is the U.S. company that manufactured the highly flammable\naluminum cladding allegedly responsible for the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London that eradicated a\npublic housing block, killing 72 people and injuring 70 other tenants. Arconic repeatedly misrepresented\nto the market its safety protocols and the safety classification of its cladding products. When the truth\nabout Arconic\u2019s unsafe practices emerged, investors lost over $1 billion in damages.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Emma was a litigation associate with the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher\nand Flom, LLP, and Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP. She worked on the WorldCom Securities Litigation, which\nsettled for $2 billion.\n\nShe also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, former U.S. Chief Judge for the Eastern\nDistrict of New York.\n\nEmma graduated cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, where she served as a staff editor for the Brooklyn\nLaw Review. She was the recipient of two CALI Excellence for the Future Awards, in the subjects of\nevidence and discovery. She graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University, with a BA in\nFrench and a minor in Business.\n\nShe serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\nMichael Grunfeld\n\nMichael Grunfeld is a Partner at Pomerantz LLP. He has extensive experience in securities, derivative,\ncomplex commercial, and white-collar matters in both federal and state courts nationwide.\n\nHe has played a leading role in some of the Firm\u2019s significant class action litigation, including its case\nagainst Yahoo!, Inc. arising out of the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which the Firm, as Lead\nCounsel, achieved an $80 million settlement on behalf of the Class. This settlement made history as the\nfirst substantial shareholder recovery in a securities fraud class action related to a cybersecurity breach.\nMichael also plays a leading role in many of the Firm\u2019s other ongoing class actions.\n\nIn 2020 and 2022, Michael was included on Benchmark Litigation's 40 & Under Hot List, an honor granted\nto a few of the \u201cbest and brightest law firm partners [under 40 years old] who stand out in their practices.\u201d\nIn 2019, Law360 named him a Rising Star. Michael has been ranked by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Top-Rated\nSecurities Litigation Attorney from 2020 - 2024, and as a New York Metro Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.\n\nMichael also leads Pomerantz\u2019s litigation on behalf of the Colorado Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System\nas an intervenor in The Doris Behr 2012 Irrevocable Trust v. Johnson & Johnson. At issue is an activist\ninvestor\u2019s attempt to have Johnson & Johnson (\u201cJ&J\u201d) shareholders vote on a proxy proposal instituting a\ncorporate bylaw that would require all securities fraud claims against the company to be pursued through\nmandatory arbitration, and that would waive shareholder\u2019s rights to bring securities\nclass actions. In March 2022, the district court handed down an important victory for shareholders when\nit granted J&J\u2019s and the Intervenors\u2019 Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 24\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 33 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMichael co-authored a chapter on damages in securities class actions for the LexisNexis treatise, Litigating\nSecurities Class Actions.\n\nHis earlier career highlights include serving as a clerk for Judge Ronald Gilman of the Sixth Circuit Court of\nAppeals and as a foreign law clerk for Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme Court. Before joining\nPomerantz, he worked as a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,\nWharton & Garrison LLP.\n\nMichael graduated from Columbia Law School in 2008, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. He\ngraduated from Harvard University with an A.B. in Government, magna cum laude, in 2004.\n\nMichael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado; and the United States\nCourts of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.\n\nJ. Alexander Hood II\n\nJ. Alexander Hood II joined Pomerantz in June 2015 and was elevated to Of Counsel to the Firm in 2019.\nHe was elevated to Partner in 2022. Alex leads the Firm\u2019s case origination team, identifying and\ninvestigating potential violations of the federal securities laws. In 2023, Alex was selected as a Rising Star\nin the National Law Journal\u2019s Elite Trial Lawyers awards competition. This award honors lawyers under 40\nwho represent the next generation of legal leaders. He has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each\nyear since 2019.\n\nHe has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2019.FF\n\nAlex played a key role in securing Pomerantz\u2019s appointment as Lead Counsel in actions against Meta\nPlatforms, Inc., AT&T, Inc., Adobe, Inc., Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Yahoo!,\nInc., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Wynn Resorts Limited, Perrigo Company plc, among others.\n\nAlex also oversees the firm\u2019s involvement on behalf of institutional investors in non-U.S. litigations,\nassisting Pomerantz clients with respect to evaluating and pursuing recovery in foreign jurisdictions,\nincluding matters in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, and elsewhere.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Alex practiced at nationally recognized law firms, where he was involved in\ncommercial, financial services, corporate governance, and securities matters.\n\nAlex graduated from Boston University School of Law (J.D.) and from the University of Oregon School of\nLaw (LL.M.). During law school, he served as a member of the Boston University Review of Banking &\nFinancial Law and participated in the Thomas Tang Moot Court Competition. In addition, Alex clerked for\nthe American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and, as a legal extern, worked on the Center for Biological\nDiversity\u2019s Clean Water Act suit against BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.\n\nAlex is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern,\nWestern and Northern Districts of New York; the District of Colorado; the Eastern District of Michigan; the\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 25\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 34 of 70\n\n\n\n\nEastern District of Wisconsin; the Northern District of Illinois; the Northern District of Indiana; the\nSouthern District of Texas; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nOmar Jafri\n\nOmar Jafri is a Partner at Pomerantz. He represents defrauded investors in individual and class action\nsecurities litigation. Lawdragon has named him one of the country\u2019s Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers,\nand Super Lawyers\u00ae has recognized him as a Top-Rated Securities Litigator. Previously, Omar was\nrecognized by the National Law Journal as a Rising Star of the Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar. The National Law Journal\nselected lawyers who \u201cdemonstrated repeated success in cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs over\nthe last 18 months [and] possess a solid track record of client wins over the past three to five years.\u201d He\nwas also recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation between 2021 and 2023.\n\nOmar has played an integral role in numerous cases where the Firm achieved significant recoveries for\ndefrauded shareholders as Lead, Co-Lead or Additional Counsel, including: Roofer\u2019s Pension Fund v. Papa\net al. ($97 million recovery); In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Securities Litigation ($44 million\nrecovery); In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation ($24 million recovery); In re Aveo\nPharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation ($18 million recovery, which was more than four times larger\nthan the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in its parallel litigation); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million\nsettlement); Cooper v. Thoratec Corporation et al. ($11.9 million settlement following a reversal in the\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the lower court repeatedly dismissed the case);\nThomas v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. Securities Litigation ($6.2 million settlement with majority\nshareholder, Avenue Capital); Solomon v. Sprint Corporation et al. ($3.75 million settlement); In re\nPaysign, Inc. Securities Litigation ($3.75 million settlement); Schaeffer v. Nabriva Therapeutics plc et al.\n($3 million settlement); In re Sequans Communications S.A. Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement);\nTorres et al. v. Berry Corporation et al. ($2.5 million settlement); and Busic v. Orphazyme A/S et al. ($2.5\nmillion settlement).\n\nThrough vigorous litigation, Omar has helped shape important precedents for all investors. NantKwest\nwas the first case in the United States to recognize statistical proof of traceability. In Roofer\u2019s Pension\nFund v. Papa et al., the District Court independently analyzed the market of a security traded on a foreign\nexchange and found that it met the standards of market efficiency to allow for class certification for the\nfirst time since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Morrison. Nabriva was the first case in the Second Circuit\nto sustain a complaint based on the failure to disclose the FDA\u2019s serious criticisms identified in a Form 483\nletter. In Yan v. ReWalk Robotics et al., while the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit\ndisagreed on the merits, the Circuit held that it is erroneous to dismiss a case for lack of standing when a\nnamed plaintiff can be substituted with another class member, shutting the door on such defense tactics\nin any future case filed in that Circuit. In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation Securities Litigation was one\nof the first decisions in the country to conclude that the dissemination of a misleading emoji can be an\nactionable misrepresentation under the federal securities laws. And in Glazer Capital Management, L.P.\net al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al., Omar won a rare reversal in a securities fraud class action in\nthe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a published decision that reversed the dismissal\nin Forescout, the Ninth Circuit held that lower courts must not comingle the lower standard for falsity with\nthe higher standard for scienter in analyzing the sufficiency of a securities fraud complaint, and repudiated\nnumerous arguments concerning the testimony of Confidential Witnesses that the defense bar had\nconvinced many lower courts to erroneously endorse over the years.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 26\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 35 of 70\n\n\n\n\nOmar started his legal career at the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and has litigated major disputes\non behalf of institutional investors arising out of the credit crisis, including disputes related to\nCollateralized Debt Obligations, Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps and other\ncomplex financial investments. Omar also represented the Examiner in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy,\nthe largest in history at the time, and helped draft a report that identified colorable claims against\nLehman\u2019s senior executives for violating their fiduciary duties. He also has a robust pro bono criminal\ndefense practice and has represented indigent defendants charged with crimes that range from simple\nbattery to arson and murder.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Omar was a law clerk to Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. of the United States District\nCourt for the Northern District of Georgia, and an associate at an international law firm where he\nrepresented clients in a wide variety of matters, including securities litigation, complex commercial\nlitigation, white collar criminal defense, and internal investigations.\n\nOmar is a 2004 honors graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, and a 2008, magna cum laude,\ngraduate of the University of Illinois College of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and\nreceived the Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy. He is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.\n\nOmar is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois\n(Trial Bar) and the Northern District of Indiana; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,\nFifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nJordan L. Lurie\n\nJordan L. Lurie joined Pomerantz as a partner in the Los Angeles office in December 2018. Jordan heads\nPomerantz\u2019s Strategic Consumer Litigation practice. He was named a 2021 Southern California Super\nLawyer\u00ae.\n\nJordan has litigated shareholder class and derivative actions, complex corporate securities and consumer\nlitigation, and a wide range of fraud and misrepresentation cases brought under state and federal\nconsumer protection statutes involving unfair competition, false advertising, and privacy rights. Among\nhis notable representations, Jordan served as Lead Counsel in the prosecution and successful resolution\nof major nationwide class actions against Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Chrysler and General\nMotors. He also successfully preserved a multi-million dollar nationwide automotive class action\nsettlement by convincing the then Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit and his wife, who were also class\nmembers and had filed objections to the settlement, to withdraw their objections and endorse the\nsettlement.\n\nJordan has argued cases in the California Court of Appeals and in the Ninth Circuit that resulted in\npublished opinions establishing class members\u2019 rights to intervene and clarifying the standing\nrequirements for an objector to appeal. He also established a Ninth Circuit precedent for obtaining\nattorneys\u2019 fees in a catalyst fee action. Jordan has tried a federal securities fraud class action to verdict.\nHe has been a featured speaker at California Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminars and is a\ntrained ombudsman and mediator. In 2020, Jordan was recognized as a 2021 Southern California Super\nLawyer.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 27\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 36 of 70\n\n\n\n\nOutside of his legal practice, Jordan is an active educator and community leader and has held executive\npositions in various organizations in the Los Angeles community. Jordan participated in the first Wexner\nHeritage Foundation leadership program in Los Angeles and the first national cohort of the Board Member\nInstitute for Jewish Nonprofits at the Kellogg School of Management.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jordan was the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Weiss & Lurie\nand Senior Litigator at Capstone Law APC.\n\nJordan graduated cum laude from Yale University in 1984 with a B.A in Political Science and received his\nlaw degree in 1987 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, where he served as\nNotes Editor of the University of Southern California Law Review.\n\nJordan is a member of the State Bar of California and has been admitted to practice before the United\nStates District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern Districts of California, the Eastern\nand Western Districts of Michigan, and the District of Colorado.\n\nJennifer Pafiti\n\nJennifer Pafiti became associated with the Firm in April 2014 and was elevated to Partner in December\n2015. A dually qualified U.K. solicitor and U.S. attorney, she is the Firm\u2019s Head of Client Services and also\ntakes an active role in complex securities litigation, representing clients in both class and non-class action\nsecurities litigation.\n\nJennifer received the Innovative Leader Award in Corporate Counsel\u2019s 2024 Women, Influence, and Power\nin Law Awards. She has been recognized with inclusion in the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers\nlist and the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Leaders list. In 2023, Jennifer was one of only\nfour individuals to be honored with the New York Law Journal\u2019s Innovation Award, which recognizes\n\u201ccreative and inspiring approaches by forward-thinking firms and individuals.\u201d Jennifer was nominated as\na 2023 Lawyer of Distinction. In 2022, The Enterprise World named Jennifer as The Most Successful\nBusiness Leader to Watch. In 2021, Jennifer was selected as one of the \u201cWomen, Influence and Power in\nLaw\u201d honorees by Corporate Counsel, in the Collaborative Leadership\u2014Law Firm category. Lawdragon\nhas named Jennifer among the Leading 500 Lawyers in the United States every year since 2021. In 2020\nshe was named a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae and was recognized by Benchmark\nLitigation as a Future Star. Lawdragon has recognized Jennifer as a Leading Plaintiff Financial Attorney\nfrom 2019 through 2021. In 2019, she was also honored by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a Southern California Rising\nStar in Securities Litigation, named to Benchmark Litigation\u2019s 40 & Under Hot List of the best young\nattorneys in the United States, and recognized by Los Angeles Magazine as one of Southern California\u2019s\nTop Young Lawyers. In 2018, Jennifer was recognized as a Lawyer of Distinction. She was honored by Super\nLawyers\u00ae in 2017 as both a Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California. In\n2016, the Daily Journal selected Jennifer for its \u201cTop 40 Under 40\u201d list of the best young attorneys in\nCalifornia.\n\nJennifer was an integral member of the Firm\u2019s litigation team for In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, a\ncase relating to a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme at Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo\nBrasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras, in which the Firm was sole Lead Counsel. She helped secure a significant victory\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 28\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 37 of 70\n\n\n\n\nfor investors in this case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, when the court rejected the heightened\nascertainability requirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other Circuit courts\nsuch as the Third and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Working closely with Lead Plaintiff, Universities\nSuperannuation Scheme Limited, she was also instrumental in achieving the historic settlement of $3\nbillion for Petrobras investors. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\nbut is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\nsecurities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\nsettlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\nnot involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nJennifer was involved, among other cases, in the securities class action against rare disease\nbiopharmaceutical company, KaloBios, and certain of its officers, including CEO Martin Shkreli. In 2018,\nPomerantz achieved a settlement of $3 million plus 300,000 shares for defrauded investors\u2014an excellent\nrecovery in light of the company\u2019s bankruptcy. Isensee v. KaloBios. Jennifer also helped achieve a $10\nmillion recovery for the class in a securities litigation against the bankrupt Californian energy company,\nPG&E, which arose from allegedly false statements made by the company about its rolling power outages\nin the wake of the catastrophic wildfire incidents that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. Vataj\nv. Johnson, et al.\n\nJennifer earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology at Thames Valley University in England, prior\nto studying law. She earned her law degrees at Thames Valley University (G.D.L.) and the Inns of Court\nSchool of Law (L.P.C.) in the U.K.\n\nBefore studying law in England, Jennifer was a regulated financial advisor and senior mortgage\nunderwriter at a major U.K. financial institution. She holds full CeFA and CeMAP qualifications. After\nqualifying as a solicitor, Jennifer specialized in private practice civil litigation, which included the\nrepresentation of clients in high-profile cases in the Royal Courts of Justice. Prior to joining Pomerantz,\nJennifer was an associate with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in their San Diego office.\n\nJennifer regularly travels throughout the U.S. and Europe to advise clients on how best to evaluate losses\nto their investment portfolios attributable to financial fraud or other misconduct, and how best to\nmaximize their potential recoveries. Jennifer is also a regular speaker at events on securities litigation and\nfiduciary duty. In 2022, Thought Leaders 4 Disputes published Jennifer\u2019s article entitled \u201cThe Globalisation\nof Securities Litigation.\u201d\n\nJennifer served on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on\nspecific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and expands\neconomic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls.\n\nJennifer is a member of the National Association of Pension Fund Attorneys and represents the Firm as a\nmember of the California Association of Public Retirement Systems, the State Association of County\nRetirement Systems, the National Association of State Treasurers, the National Conference of Employee\nRetirement Systems, the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, and the\nU.K.'s National Association of Pension Funds.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 29\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 38 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJennifer is admitted to practice in England and Wales; California; the United States District Courts for the\nNorthern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit.\n\nJoshua B. Silverman\n\nJoshua B. Silverman is a partner in Pomerantz\u2019s Chicago office. He specializes in individual and class action\nsecurities litigation.\n\nJosh was Lead Counsel in In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, achieving a $45 million settlement, one\nof the highest percentage recoveries in the Seventh Circuit. He was also Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in In re\nMannKind Corp. Securities Litigation ($23 million settlement); In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities\nLitigation ($18 million settlement, more than four times larger than the SEC\u2019s fair fund recovery in parallel\nlitigation); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (very favorable\nconfidential settlement); New Mexico State Investment Council v. Cheslock Bakker & Associates (summary\njudgment award in excess of $30 million); Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc. ($12 million settlement); Bruce\nv. Suntech Power Holdings Corp. ($5 million settlement); In re AgFeed, Inc. Securities Litigation ($7 million\nsettlement); and In re Hemispherx BioPharma Securities Litigation ($2.75 million settlement). Josh also\nplayed a key role in the Firm's representation of investors before the United States Supreme Court\nin StoneRidge, and prosecuted many of the Firm's other class cases, including In re Sealed Air Corp.\nSecurities Litigation ($20 million settlement).\n\nJosh, together with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a critical victory for investors in the\nsecurities fraud class action against Perrigo Co. plc when Judge Arleo of the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey certified classes of investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both the\nNew York Stock Exchange and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Pomerantz represents a number of\ninstitutional investors that purchased Perrigo securities on both exchanges after an offer by Mylan N.V.\nto tender Perrigo shares. This is the first time since Morrison that a U.S. court has independently analyzed\nthe market of a security traded on a non-U.S. exchange and found that it met the standards of market\nefficiency necessary allow for class certification.\n\nSeveral of Josh\u2019s cases have set important precedent. For example, In re MannKind established that\ninvestors may support complaints with expert information. New Mexico v. Countrywide recognized that\ninvestors may show Section 11 damages for asset-backed securities even if there has been no interruption\nin payment or threat of default. More recently, NantKwest was the first Section 11 case in the nation to\nrecognize statistical proof of traceability.\n\nIn addition to prosecuting cases, Josh regularly speaks at investor conferences and continuing legal\neducation programs.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Josh practiced at McGuireWoods LLP and its Chicago predecessor, Ross &\nHardies, where he represented one of the largest independent futures commission merchants in\ncommodities fraud and civil RICO cases. He also spent two years as a securities trader, and continues to\nactively trade stocks, futures, and options for his own account.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 30\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 39 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJosh is a 1993 graduate of the University of Michigan, where he received Phi Beta Kappa honors, and a\n1996 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.\n\nJosh is admitted to practice in Illinois; the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;\nthe United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; and\nthe United States Supreme Court.\n\nBrenda Szydlo\n\nBrenda Szydlo joined Pomerantz in January 2016 as Of Counsel and was elevated to Partner in 2022. She\nbrings to the Firm extensive experience in complex civil litigation in federal and state court on behalf of\nplaintiffs and defendants, with a particular focus on securities and financial fraud litigation, litigation\nagainst pharmaceutical corporations, accountants\u2019 liability, and commercial litigation. In 2020-2024,\nBrenda was recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d She was\nincluded on the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers list in 2022\u20132025 and was named New\nYork Metro Top Women 2024 for Securities Litigation.\n\nBrenda played a leading role in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case in the Southern District of New York\nagainst Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\nscheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved a precedent-setting legal ruling and a historic\n$3 billion settlement for the Class. This is not only the largest securities class action settlement in a decade\nbut is the largest settlement ever in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest\nsecurities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action\nsettlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history\nnot involving a restatement of financial reports.\n\nBrenda has represented investors in additional class and private actions that have resulted in significant\nrecoveries, such as In re Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was $486 million, and In re\nRefco, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the recovery was in excess of $407 million. She has also represented\ninvestors in opt-out securities actions, such as investors opting out of In re Bank of America Corp.\nSecurities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation in order to pursue their own securities action.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Brenda served as Senior Counsel in a prominent plaintiff advocacy firm, where\nshe represented clients in securities and financial fraud litigation, and litigation against pharmaceutical\ncorporations and accounting firms. Brenda also served as Counsel in the litigation department of one of\nthe largest premier law firms in the world, where her practice focused on defending individuals and\ncorporations in securities litigation and enforcement, accountants\u2019 liability actions, and commercial\nlitigation.\n\nBrenda is a graduate of St. John\u2019s University School of Law, where she was a St. Thomas More Scholar and\nmember of the Law Review. She received a B.A. in economics from Binghamton University.\n\nBrenda is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits; and the United States\nSupreme Court.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 31\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 40 of 70\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 32\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 41 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMatthew L. Tuccillo\n\nA Partner since 2013, Matthew L. Tuccillo joined Pomerantz in 2011. With 25+ years of experience, he is\nrecognized as a top national securities litigator.\n\nMatt serves as the Firm\u2019s lead litigator on high-stakes securities class action litigation in courts nationwide.\nHe closely advises his institutional clients, which are regularly appointed to serve as lead plaintiffs\noverseeing such lawsuits, which often have class-wide damages of $500 million - $1 billion+. Matt\u2019s\nrepresentative cases include:\n\n\u2022 In In re Emergent Biosolutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (D. Md.), arising from\n a company\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing failures, Matt investigated and prepared a robust\n amended complaint, then succeeded in overcoming Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in September\n 2023, in securing class certification in June 2024, and in leading the case is through discovery. Matt\n secured a $40 million class-wide settlement following a mediation and months of ensuring\n negotiations. The court granted preliminary in October 2024.\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\n bankruptcy. Matt led the case through discovery, securing court orders that required defendants to\n review for production 1.25 million+ documents identified via plaintiff-authored search terms on\n plaintiff-selected custodians, as a prelude to production of 450,000+ defense and third party\n documents and 40 party and non-party fact depositions. Matt secured an order partially certifying\n the class in June 2024, which both sides cross-appealed to the Fifth Circuit.\n\u2022 In Ramos v. Comerica, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-06843-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), securities class action claims arose\n from a bank\u2019s statements regarding certain government contract programs and related operating and\n financial metrics. After multiple fact-driven amendments and hard-fought litigation of two motions\n to dismiss, the case appears for appellate litigation before the Ninth Circuit.\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 further amended\n complaint will be filed after the court resolves a pending reconsideration motion regarding its dismiss\n rulings.\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 hard-\n fought litigation concerning underperforming, large-scale, fixed-bid projects through two motions to\n dismiss. A months-long mediation and negotiation process resulted in a court-approved $33 million\n settlement, which was a 37.5% recovery of the upheld claim value.\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 defendants\u2019 scienter\n (intent) was sufficiently pled, even though they bought, rather than sold, company stock during the\n period of alleged fraud. A successful mediation resulted in a court-approved $12.75 million\n settlement.\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\n spill by 125+ global institutional investors. Over 9 years, he successfully opposed three motions to\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 33\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 42 of 70\n\n\n\n\n dismiss, oversaw e-discovery of 1.75 million documents, led the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, was\n the sole interface with BP and the Court, and secured some of the Firm\u2019s most ground-breaking\n rulings. In a ruling of first impression, he successfully argued that investors asserted viable English\n law \u201cholder claims\u201d for losses due to retention of already-owned shares in reliance on a fraud, a theory\n barred under U.S. law since Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). He\n successfully argued against forum non conveniens (wrong forum) dismissal of 80+ global institutions\u2019\n lawsuits - the first ruling after Morrison v. Nat\u2019l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), to permit\n foreign investors to pursue in U.S. court their foreign law claims for losses in a foreign company\u2019s\n securities traded on a foreign exchange. He successfully argued that the U.S. Securities Litigation\n Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), which extinguishes U.S. state law claims in deference to the\n U.S. federal law, should not extend to the foreign law claims of U.S. and foreign investors, a ruling that\n saved those claims from dismissal where U.S. federal law afforded no remedy after Morrison. In 2021,\n Matt achieved mediator-assisted, confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients\n including public and private pension funds, money management firms, partnerships, and trusts from\n the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, and Australia. Notably, seven of these plaintiffs\n were Matt\u2019s institutional clients from the U.S., U.K., and Canada.\n\u2022 In In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01735 (D.N.J.), Matt pled a multi-\n year fraud arising at one of Canada\u2019s largest banks, based on extensive statements by former\n employees detailing underlying retail banking misconduct. Matt persuaded the court to reject a\n motion to dismiss in an order noteworthy because it validated the scienter (intent) pleading despite\n no witness speaking directly to the individual defendants\u2019 state of mind. The court approved a $13.25\n million class-wide settlement achieved after mediation.\n\u2022 In Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00755-AWT (D. Conn.), Matt persuaded the\n court, after an initial dismissal, to uphold a second amended complaint asserting five threads of fraud\n by an education funding company and its founders and to approve a $7.5 million class-wide\n settlement. Notably, the court held that the company\u2019s reported financial results violated SEC\n Regulation S-K, Item 303, for failure to disclose known trends and impacts from underlying misconduct\n \u2013 a rare ruling absent an accounting restatement.\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\u2022 In In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:12-cv-09456 (S.D.N.Y.), Matt worked with\n mining, accounting, damages, and market efficiency experts to survive a motion to dismiss by a\n Canadian company with mining operations in China and NYSE-traded stock. In approving the $14\n million settlement achieved after two mediations, Judge Rakoff called the case \u201cunusually complex,\u201d\n given the technical nature of mining metrics, the need to compare mining standards in Canada, China,\n and the U.S., and the volume of Chinese-language evidence.\n\nMatt was also on the multi-firm team that represented commercial real estate investors against the\nEmpire State Building\u2019s long-term lessees/operators regarding a consolidation, REIT formation, and IPO in\nIn re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which was resolve for\na $55 million cash/securities settlement fund, a $100 million tax benefit from restructured terms, remedial\ndisclosures, and deal protections.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 34\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 43 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMatt regularly counsels institutional investors, foreign and domestic, regarding pending or potential\ncomplex litigation in the U.S. He is skilled at identifying potential securities frauds early, regularly\nproviding clients with the first opportunity to evaluate and pursue their claims, and he has worked\nextensively with outside investment management firms retained by clients to identify a winning set of\nsupporting evidence. When litigation is filed, he fully oversees its conduct and resolution, counseling\nclients throughout every step of the process, while handling all significant motions and courtroom\narguments. These skills have enabled him to sign numerous institutional clients for litigation and portfolio\nmonitoring services, including public and private pension plans, investment management firms and\nsponsored investment vehicles, from both the U.S. and abroad. Matt\u2019s clients have spearheaded the\nFirm\u2019s litigation efforts in the BP, Fluor, McDermott, Emergent, Miniso, and Comerica litigations discussed\nabove.\n\nMatt takes great pride in representing union clients. He got his own union card as a teenager (United\nFood & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 371), following in the footsteps of his grandfather\n(International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 560).\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Matt worked at a large full-service firm then plaintiff-side boutique firms in\nBoston and Connecticut, litigating complex business disputes and securities, consumer, and employment\nclass actions. His pro bono work included securing Social Security benefits for a veteran with non-service-\nrelated disabilities.\n\nMatt graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1999, where he made the Dean\u2019s List. He\ngraduated from Wesleyan University in 1995, and among his various volunteer activities, he served as\nPresident of the Wesleyan Lawyers Association from 2017-2020.\n\nHis has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d (2016-present),\nLawdragon Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer (2019-present), Benchmark Litigation Star (2021-2023),\nLegal 500 Recommended Securities Litigator (2016, 2021), American Lawyer Top Rated Litigator (2023)\nand Northeast Trailblazer (2021), and a Martindale-Hubbell AV\u00ae Preeminent\u2122 peer-rated attorney (2014-\npresent). His advocacy has been covered by Bloomberg, Law360, the Houston Chronicle, the Hartford\nBusiness Journal, and other outlets.\n\nHe is a member of the Bars the Supreme Court of the United States; the State of New York; the State of\nConnecticut; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals; and\nthe United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York, Connecticut,\nMassachusetts, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Southern District\nof Texas. He is regularly admitted pro hac vice in state and federal courts nationwide.\n\nAustin P. Van\n\nAustin focuses his practice on securities class actions and other high-profile litigations. Austin has\nrepeatedly been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the top 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 35\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 44 of 70\n\n\n\n\nhas been named as a Recommended Lawyer by The Legal 500. From 2018\u20132024, Austin has been honored\nas a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star. In 2020, Austin was named an MVP in Securities Litigation by Law360, as\npart of an \u201celite slate of attorneys [who] have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-\nearned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.\u201d Only up to\nsix attorneys nationwide are selected each year as MVPs in Securities Litigation. Austin was named to\nBenchmark Litigation\u2019s \u201c40 and Under Hotlist\u201d in 2020 and 2021.\n\nAustin represents clients in some of the largest class actions in the country:\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 Currently represents lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against GSX Techedu, n/k/a Gaotu\n Techedu, a Chinese online education company. Complaint alleges that GSX falsified half of its student\n enrollment and revenues and caused investors billions of dollars in losses when the truth became\n known. Successfully defeated defendants \u2019motion to dismiss. (D.N.J. 2023)\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 Represented certified class in a securities class action against TechnipFMC, a Fortune 500 oil and gas\n services company. Plaintiffs alleged TechnipFMC overstated its net income in its initial registration\n statement due to its use of incorrect foreign exchange rates. Successfully argued and defeated\n defendants \u2019motion to dismiss, argued and won lead plaintiffs\u2019 motion for class certification, and\n argued and defeated defendants \u2019motion for summary judgment, all before District Judge Alfred\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 36\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 45 of 70\n\n\n\n\n Bennett. Led the class through complete preparations for trial. The case settled for approximately\n $20 million. (S.D. Tex. 2020)\n\u2022 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\u2022 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\u2022 Represented lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against Franklin Wireless Inc., a maker of\n wireless routers and communications devices. Based on the strength of the complaint, defendants\n declined to move to dismiss. Successfully obtained class certification and settled the matter on terms\n highly favorable for the class for $2.4 million. (S.D. Cal. 2021)\n\nAustin received a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale\nJournal of International Law. He has a B.A. from Yale University and an M.Sc. from the London School of\nEconomics. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Austin worked as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.\n\nAustin is admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Illinois, the\nSouthern District of Texas, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second and Ninth Circuits,\nand the United States Supreme Court.\n\nMurielle Steven Walsh\n\nMurielle Steven Walsh joined the Firm in 1998 and was elevated to Partner in 2007. In 2024 Murielle was\nnamed a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar by Law360, and in 2022 she was selected to participate on the\npublication\u2019s Securities Editorial Board. She was named a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the\nNational Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a handful of individuals from each practice area that\nare truly agents of change\u201d and was also honored as a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Trailblazer by the New York Law\nJournal. Murielle was honored in 2019, 2020 and 2021 as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\nLitigation Attorney,\u201d a recognition bestowed on 5% of eligible attorneys in the New York Metro\narea. Lawdragon named her a Top Plaintiffs\u2019 Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020.\n\nDuring her career at Pomerantz, Murielle has prosecuted highly successful securities class action and\ncorporate governance cases. She was one of the lead attorneys litigating In re Livent Noteholders\u2019\nSecurities Litigation, a securities class action in which she obtained a $36 million judgment against the\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 37\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 46 of 70\n\n\n\n\ncompany\u2019s top officers, a ruling which was upheld by the Second Circuit on appeal. Murielle was also part\nof the team litigating EBC I v. Goldman Sachs, where the Firm obtained a landmark ruling from the New\nYork Court of Appeals, that underwriters may owe fiduciary duties to their issuer clients in the context of\na firm-commitment underwriting of an initial public offering.\n\nMurielle led Firm's high-profile securities class action against Wynn Resorts Ltd., where the Firm served\nas lead counsel. The litigation stemmed from the company\u2019s alleged cover-up of a prolonged pattern of\nsexual misconduct by its founder and former CEO, billionaire casino mogul Stephen Wynn. In January\n2025, Murielle secured final approval of a $70 million settlement on behalf of defrauded investors. Wynn\nis widely regarded as the first high-profile executive whose misconduct was exposed by the #MeToo\nmovement. Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-cv-479 (D. Nev.)\n\nIn a securities class action against Ormat Technologies, Inc., Murielle achieved a $3.75 million settlement\non behalf of defrauded investors in January 2021. Ormat\u2019s securities are dual-listed on the NYSE and the\nTel Aviv Stock Exchange. Murielle persuaded the district court in exercise supplemental jurisdiction in\norder to apply U.S. securities law to the claims in the case, regardless of where investors purchased their\nsecurities.\n\nMurielle led the Firm\u2019s ground-breaking litigation that arose from the popular Pok\u00e9mon Go game, in which\nPomerantz was lead counsel. Pok\u00e9mon Go is an \u201caugmented reality\u201d game in which players use their\nsmart phones to \u201ccatch\u201d Pok\u00e9mon in real-world surroundings. GPS coordinates provided by defendants\nto gamers included directing the public to private property without the owners\u2019 permission, amounting\nto an alleged mass nuisance. In re Pok\u00e9mon Go Nuisance, No. 3:16-cv-04300 (N.D. Cal.)\n\nMurielle was co-lead counsel in Thorpe v. Walter Investment Management Corp., No. 14-cv-20880 (S.D.\nFla.), a securities fraud class action challenging the defendants\u2019 representations that their lending\nactivities were regulatory-compliant, when in fact the company\u2019s key subsidiary engaged in rampant\nviolations of federal consumer financial protection laws, subjecting it to various government\ninvestigations and enforcement action by the CFPB and FTC. In 2016, the Firm obtained a $24 million\nsettlement on behalf of the class. She was also co-lead counsel in Robb v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 16-cv-00151\n(N.D. Cal.), a securities class action alleging that the defendants misrepresented that their key product\ndelivered \u201chighly accurate\u201d heart rate readings when in fact their technology did not consistently deliver\naccurate readings during exercise and its inaccuracy posed serious health risks to users of Fitbit\u2019s products.\nThe Firm obtained a $33 million settlement on behalf of the investor class in this action.\n\nIn 2018 Murielle, along with then-Senior Partner Jeremy Lieberman, achieved a $3.3 million settlement\nfor the Class in the Firm\u2019s case against Corinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college systems in\nthe country, for alleged misrepresentations about its job placement rates, compliance with applicable\nregulations, and enrollment statistics. Pomerantz prevailed in the motion to dismiss the proceedings, a\nparticularly noteworthy victory because Chief Judge George King of the Central District of California had\ndismissed two prior lawsuits against Corinthian with similar allegations. Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges,\nInc., No. 2:13-cv-07466 (C.D. Cal.).\n\nMurielle serves as a member and on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the non-profit\norganization Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children (\u201cCASA\u201d) of Monmouth County. She also\nserved on the Honorary Steering Committee of Equal Rights Advocates (\u201cERA\u201d), which focuses on and\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 38\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 47 of 70\n\n\n\n\ndiscusses specific issues that women face in the legal profession. ERA is an organization that protects and\nexpands economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. In the past, Murielle\nserved as a member of the editorial board for Class Action Reports, a Solicitor for the Legal Aid Associates\nCampaign, and has been involved in political asylum work with the Association of the Bar of the City of\nNew York.\n\nMurielle serves on the Firm's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\nMurielle graduated cum laude from New York Law School in 1996, where she was the recipient of the\nIrving Mariash Scholarship. During law school, Murielle interned with the Kings County District Attorney\nand worked within the mergers and acquisitions group of Sullivan & Cromwell.\n\nMurielle is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern District of New\nYork; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits\n\nTamar A. Weinrib\n\nTamar A. Weinrib joined Pomerantz in 2008. She was Of Counsel to the Firm from 2014 through 2018 and\nwas elevated to Partner in 2019. In 2020, The Legal 500 honored her as a Next Generation Partner. Tamar\nwas named a 2018 Rising Star under 40 years of age by Law360, a prestigious honor awarded to a select\nfew \u201ctop litigators and dealmakers practicing at a level usually seen from veteran attorneys.\u201d Tamar has\nbeen recognized by Super Lawyers\u00ae as a 2021 \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney;\u201d she was honored\nas a New York Metro Rising Star every year from 2014 to 2019.\n\nIn 2019, Tamar and Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman achieved a $27 million settlement for the Class\nin Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a high-profile securities class action in which Pomerantz was Lead Counsel.\nPlaintiffs alleged that Barclays PLC misled institutional investor clients about the extent of the banking\ngiant\u2019s use of so-called \u201cdark pool\u201d trading systems. This case turned on the duty of integrity owed by\nBarclays to its clients. In November 2016, Tamar and Jeremy achieved precedent-setting victories for\ninvestors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that direct evidence of price impact is not always\nnecessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the presumption of reliance, and that defendants\nseeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence rather than\nmerely meeting a burden of production. In 2018, Tamar successfully opposed Defendants\u2019 petition to the\nSupreme Court for a writ of certiorari.\n\nIn approving the settlement in Strougo v. Barclays PLC in June 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern\nDistrict of New York stated:\n\n Let me thank counsel on both sides for the extraordinary work both sides did in bringing\n this matter to a reasonable conclusion. As the parties have indicated, the matter was\n intensely litigated, but it was done in the most extraordinary fashion with cooperation,\n collaboration, and high levels of professionalism on both sides, so I thank you.\n\nTamar headed the litigation of In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz\nachieved a settlement of $8,500,000 for the class. She successfully argued before the Second Circuit in In\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 39\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 48 of 70\n\n\n\n\nre China North East Petroleum Securities Litigation, to reverse the district court\u2019s dismissal of the\ndefendants on scienter grounds.\n\nAmong other securities fraud class actions that Tamar led to successful settlements are KB Partners I, L.P.\nv. Pain Therapeutics, Inc. ($8,500,000); New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. ($3,150,000);\nand Whiteley v. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. ($4,000,000).\n\nBefore coming to Pomerantz, Tamar had over three years of experience as a litigation associate in the\nNew York office of Clifford Chance US LLP, where she focused on complex commercial litigation. Tamar\nhas successfully tried pro bono cases, including two criminal appeals and a housing dispute filed with the\nHuman Rights Commission.\n\nTamar graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2004 and while there, won awards for\nsuccessfully competing in and coaching Moot Court competitions.\n\nTamar is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, and Ninth\nCircuits.\n\nMichael J. Wernke\n\nMichael J. Wernke joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in 2014 and was elevated to Partner in 2015. He was\nnamed a 2020 Plaintiffs\u2019 Lawyer Trailblazer by the National Law Journal, an award created to \u201chonor a\nhandful of individuals from each practice area that are truly agents of change.\u201d\n\nMichael, along with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, led the litigation in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler\nAutomobiles N.V. et al., No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D.N.Y), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, achieved a\n$110 million settlement for the class. This high-profile securities class action alleges that Fiat Chrysler\nconcealed from investors that it improperly outfitted its diesel vehicles with \u201cdefeat device\u201d software\ndesigned to cheat NOx emissions regulations in the U.S. and Europe, and that regulators had accused Fiat\nChrysler of violating the emissions regulations. The Fiat Chrysler recovery provides the class of investors\nwith as much as 20% of recoverable damages\u2014an excellent result when compared to historical statistics\nin class action settlements, where typical recoveries for cases of this size are between 1.6% and 3.3%.\n\nMichael led the securities class action Zwick Partners, LP v. Quorum Health Corp., et al., No. 3:16-cv-2475,\nachieving a settlement of $18 million for the class in June 2020. The settlement represented between\n12.7% and 42.9% of estimated recoverable damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendants misrepresented to\ninvestors the poor prospects of hospitals that the parent company spun off into a stand-alone company.\nIn defeating defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the complaint, Michael successfully argued that company\nfrom which Quorum was spun off was a \u201cmaker\u201d of the false statements even though all the alleged false\nstatements concerned only Quorum\u2019s financials and the class involved only purchasers of Quorum\u2019s\ncommon stock. This was a tremendous victory for plaintiffs, as cases alleging false statements of goodwill\nnotoriously struggle to survive motions to dismiss.\n\nAlong with Managing Partner Jeremy Lieberman, Michael leads the Firm\u2019s individual action against\npharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (together,\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 40\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 49 of 70\n\n\n\n\n\u201cTeva\u201d), and certain of Teva\u2019s current and former employees and officers, relating to alleged\nanticompetitive practices in Teva\u2019s sales of generic drugs. Teva is a dual-listed company; the Firm\nrepresents several Israeli institutional investors who purchased Teva shares on the Tel Aviv Stock\nExchange. In early 2021, Pomerantz achieved a major victory for global investors when the district court\nagreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims. Clal Insurance Company Ltd. v.\nTeva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.\n\nIn December 2018, Michael, along with Pomerantz Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, secured a $31\nmillion partial settlement with three defendants in In re Libor Based Financial Instruments Antitrust\nLitigation, a closely watched multi-district litigation, which concerns the LIBOR rigging scandal.\n\nIn October 2018, Michael secured a $15 million settlement in In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities\nLitigation, No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), a securities class action that alleges that, following an\naccounting fraud by prior management, Symbol\u2019s management misled investors about the state of its\ninternal controls and the Company\u2019s ability to forecast revenues.\n\nHe was Lead Counsel in Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., in which he achieved a $23.5 million\npartial settlement with certain defendants, securing the settlement despite an ongoing investigation by\nthe Securities and Exchange Commission and shareholder derivative actions. He played a leading role in\nIn re Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Securities Litigation, in which Pomerantz, as Co-Lead Counsel, achieved a\nsettlement of $26 million in cash and 1,000,000 shares of Lumber Liquidators common stock for the Class.\nMichael also secured a $7 million settlement (over 30% of the likely recoverable damages) in the securities\nclass action Todd v. STAAR Surgical Company, et al., No. 14-cv-05263-MWF-RZ (C.D. Cal.), which alleged\nthat STAAR concealed from investors violations of FDA regulations that threatened the approval of\nSTAAR\u2019s long awaited new product.\n\nIn the securities class action In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-01836-RSM (W.D.\nWash.), Michael secured a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed the district court\u2019s\ndismissal of the complaint. The Ninth Circuit held that the CEO\u2019s public statements that the company\u2019s\nflagship product had been approved by the FDA were misleading despite the fact that the company\u2019s\npreviously filed registration statement stated that that the product did not, at that time, require FDA\napproval.\n\nDuring the nine years prior to coming to Pomerantz, Michael was a litigator with Cahill Gordon & Reindel\nLLP, with his primary focus in the securities defense arena, where he represented multinational financial\ninstitutions and corporations, playing key roles in two of only a handful of securities class actions to go to\njury verdict since the passage of the PSLRA.\n\nIn 2020 and 2021, Michael was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop Rated Securities Litigation Attorney.\u201d\nIn 2014 and 2015, he was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae New York Metro Rising Star.\n\nMichael received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2004. He also holds a B.S. in Mathematics and a B.A.\nin Political Science from Ohio State University, where he graduated summa cum laude.\n\nHe serves on the Firm\u2019s Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Committee.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 41\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 50 of 70\n\n\n\n\nMichael is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Court for the Southern District of\nNew York; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\n Senior Counsel\n\nStanley M. Grossman\n\nStanley M. Grossman, Senior Counsel, is a former Managing Partner of Pomerantz. Widely recognized as\na leader in the plaintiffs\u2019 securities bar, he was honored in 2020 with a Lifetime Achievement award by\nthe New York Law Journal. Martindale Hubbell awarded Stan its 2021 AV Preeminent Rating\u00ae, \u201cgiven to\nattorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise,\ncommunication skills, and ethical standards by their peers.\u201d Stan was selected by Super Lawyers\u00ae as an\noutstanding attorney in the United States for the years 2006 through 2020 and was featured in the New\nYork Law Journal article Top Litigators in Securities Field\u2014A Who\u2019s Who of City\u2019s Leading Courtroom\nCombatants. Lawdragon named Stan a Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer in 2019 and 2020, and in 2021,\nhe was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. In 2013, Brooklyn Law School honored Stan as an\nAlumnus of the Year.\n\nStan has primarily represented plaintiffs in securities and antitrust class actions, including many of those\nlisted in the Firm biography. See, e.g., Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970); Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d\n137 (2d Cir. 1971); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987); and In re Salomon Bros.\nTreasury Litig., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993). In 2008 he appeared before the United States Supreme Court to\nargue that scheme liability is actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). See StoneRidge\nInv. Partners, LLC v. Sci.-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (2008). Other cases where he was the Lead or Co-Lead\nCounsel include: In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litigation, No. 91 Civ. 5471 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ($100 million\ncash recovery); In re First Executive Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV-89-7135 (C.D. Cal. 1994)\n($100 million settlement); and In re Sorbates Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. C98-4886 (N.D. Cal.\n2000) (over $80 million settlement for the class).\n\nIn 1992, Senior Judge Milton Pollack of the Southern District of New York appointed Stan to the Executive\nCommittee of counsel charged with allocating to claimants hundreds of millions of dollars obtained in\nsettlements with Drexel Burnham & Co. and Michael Milken.\n\nMany courts have acknowledged the high quality of legal representation provided to investors by Stan. In\nGartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., No. 79 Civ. 3123 (S.D.N.Y.), where Stan was lead trial\ncounsel for plaintiff, Judge Pollack noted at the completion of the trial:\n\n [I] can fairly say, having remained abreast of the law on the factual and legal matters that\n have been presented, that I know of no case that has been better presented so as to give\n the Court an opportunity to reach a determination, for which the court thanks you.\n\nStan was also the lead trial attorney in Rauch v. Bilzerian (N.J. Super. Ct.) (directors owed the same duty\nof loyalty to preferred shareholders as common shareholders in a corporate takeover), where the court\ndescribed the Pomerantz team as \u201cexceptionally competent counsel.\u201d He headed the six week trial on\nliability in Walsh v. Northrop Grumman (E.D.N.Y.) (a securities and ERISA class action arising from\nNorthrop\u2019s takeover of Grumman), after which a substantial settlement was reached.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 42\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 51 of 70\n\n\n\n\nStan frequently speaks at law schools and professional organizations. In 2010, he was a panelist on\nSecurities Law: Primary Liability for Secondary Actors, sponsored by the Federal Bar Council, and he\npresented Silence Is Golden\u2014Until It Is Deadly: The Fiduciary\u2019s Duty to Disclose, at the Institute of\nAmerican and Talmudic Law. In 2009, Stan was a panelist on a Practicing Law Institute \u201cHot Topic Briefing\u201d\nentitled StoneRidge\u2014Is There Scheme Liability or Not?\n\nStan served on former New York State Comptroller Carl McCall\u2019s Advisory Committee for the NYSE Task\nForce on corporate governance. He is a former president of NASCAT. During his tenure at NASCAT, he\nrepresented the organization in meetings with the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission\nand before members of Congress and of the Executive Branch concerning legislation that became the\nPSLRA.\n\nStan served for three years on the New York City Bar Association\u2019s Committee on Ethics, as well as on the\nAssociation\u2019s Judiciary Committee. He is actively involved in civic affairs. He headed a task force on behalf\nof the Association, which, after a wide-ranging investigation, made recommendations for the future of\nthe City University of New York. He was formerly on the board of the Appleseed Foundation, a national\npublic advocacy group.\n\nStan is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York, Central District of California, Eastern District of Wisconsin, District of Arizona,\nDistrict of Colorado; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Ninth and Eleventh\nCircuits; and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nMarc I. Gross\n\nMarc I. Gross is Senior Counsel at Pomerantz LLP, where he has litigated securities fraud class actions for\nover four decades, serving as its Managing Partner from 2009 to 2016. His major lawsuits include SAC\nCapital (Steven Cohen\u2014insider trading); Chesapeake Energy (Aubrey McClendon\u2014insider bail out);\nCitibank (analyst Jack Grubman\u2014false AT&T stock recommendation); and Charter Communications (Paul\nAllen\u2014accounting fraud). He also litigated market efficiency issues in the firm\u2019s landmark $3 billion\nrecovery in Petrobras.\n\nMarc has also served as President of the Institute of Law and Economic Policy (\u201cILEP\u201d), which has\norganized symposiums each year where leading academics have presented papers on securities law and\nconsumer protection issues. These papers have been cited in over 200 cases, including several in the\nUnited States Supreme Court. http://www.ilep.org.\n\nMarc has addressed numerous forums in the United States on shareholder-related issues, including ILEP;\nLoyola-Chicago School of Law\u2019s Institute for Investor Protection Conference; the National Conference on\nPublic Employee Retirement Systems\u2019 (\u201cNCPERS\u201d) Legislative Conferences; PLI conferences on Current\nTrends in Securities Law; a panel entitled Enhancing Consistency and Predictability in Applying Fraud-on-\nthe-Market Theory, sponsored by the Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies, as well as securities law\nstudents at NYU and Georgetown Law schools.\n\nAmong other articles, Marc authored Cooking Books? The Valuation Treadmill, 50 Sec. Reg. L. Jrl. 363\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 43\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 52 of 70\n\n\n\n\n(2022); Reputation and Securities Litigation, 47 Sec. Reg. l Jrl. 99 (2019) Back to Basic(s): Common Sense\nTrumps Econometrics, N.Y.L.J. (Jan. 8, 2018) (with Jeremy Lieberman); and Class Certification in a Post-\nHalliburton II World, 46 Loyola-Chicago L.J. 485 (2015).\n\nMarc was honored in 2022 by T\u2019ruah, the Rabbinic Call to Human Rights, for his pro bono work in support\nof the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida in their battle for recognition by Wendy\u2019s Restaurants,\nand recently joined the Board of Mainchance, a homeless drop-in shelter operating in Manhattan.\n\nMarc is a graduate of NYU Law \u201976 and Columbia College \u201973.\n\nPatrick V. Dahlstrom\n\nPatrick Dahlstrom joined Pomerantz as an associate in 1991 and was elevated to Partner in January 1996.\nHe served as Co-Managing Partner with Jeremy Lieberman in 2017 and 2018 and is now Senior Counsel.\nPatrick heads the Firm\u2019s Chicago office. He was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities\nLitigation Attorney\u201d from 2018\u20132021 in both Securities Litigation and Appellate matters. In 2021, Patrick\nwas inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.\n\nPatrick, a member of the Firm\u2019s Institutional Investor Practice and New Case Groups, has extensive\nexperience litigating cases under the PSLRA. He led In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,\nNo. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Firm, as Lead Counsel, recovered a $225 million settlement for\nthe Class\u2014the second-highest ever for a case involving back-dating options, and one of the largest\nrecoveries ever from an individual officer-defendant, the company\u2019s founder and former CEO. In\nComverse, the Firm obtained an important clarification of how courts calculate the \u201clargest financial\ninterest\u201d in connection with the selection of a Lead Plaintiff, in a manner consistent with Dura\nPharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005). Judge Garaufis, in approving the settlement, lauded\nPomerantz: \u201cThe court also notes that, throughout this litigation, it has been impressed by Lead Counsel\u2019s\nacumen and diligence. The briefing has been thorough, clear, and convincing, and . . . Lead Counsel has\nnot taken short cuts or relaxed its efforts at any stage of the litigation.\u201d\n\nIn DeMarco v. Robertson Stephens, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), Patrick obtained the first class\ncertification in a federal securities case involving fraud by analysts.\n\nPatrick\u2019s extensive experience in litigation under the PSLRA has made him an expert not only at making\ncompelling arguments on behalf of Pomerantz\u2019s clients for Lead Plaintiff status, but also in discerning\nweaknesses of competing candidates. In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation and Comverse\nare the most recent examples of his success in getting our clients appointed sole Lead Plaintiff despite\ncompeting motions by numerous impressive institutional clients.\n\nPatrick was a member of the trial team in In re ICN/Viratek Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 1997), which,\nafter trial, settled for $14.5 million. Judge Wood praised the trial team: \u201c[P]laintiffs counsel did a superb\njob here on behalf of the class . . . This was a very hard fought case. You had very able, superb opponents,\nand they put you to your task . . . The trial work was beautifully done and I believe very efficiently done.\u201d\n\nPatrick\u2019s speaking engagements include interviews by NBC and the CBC regarding securities class actions,\nand among others, a presentation at the November 2009 State Association of County Retirement Systems\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 44\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 53 of 70\n\n\n\n\nFall Conference as the featured speaker at the Board Chair/Vice Chair Session entitled: \u201cCleaning Up After\nthe 100 Year Storm. How trustees can protect assets and recover losses following the burst of the housing\nand financial bubbles.\u201d\n\nPatrick is a 1987 graduate of the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C.,\nwhere he was a Dean\u2019s Fellow, Editor in Chief of the Administrative Law Journal, a member of the Moot\nCourt Board representing Washington College of Law in the New York County Bar Association\u2019s Antitrust\nMoot Court Competition, and a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services/Public Interest\nLaw Clinic. Upon graduating, Patrick served as the Pro Se Staff Attorney for the United States District Court\nfor the Eastern District of New York and was a law clerk to the Honorable Joan M. Azrack, United States\nMagistrate Judge.\n\nPatrick is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois; the United States District Courts for the Southern\nand Eastern Districts of New York, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Indiana, Eastern District\nof Wisconsin, District of Colorado, and Western District of Pennsylvania; the United States Courts of\nAppeals for the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits; and the United States Supreme\nCourt.\n\n Of Counsel\n\nSamuel J. Adams\n\nSamuel J. Adams became an Associate at Pomerantz in January 2012 and was elevated to Of Counsel to\nthe Firm in 2021. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cRising Star\u201d every year from 2015 through\n2021.\n\nSam focuses his practice on corporate governance litigation and has served as a member of the litigation\nteam in numerous actions that concluded in successful resolutions for stockholders. He was an integral\nmember of the litigation team that secured a $5.6 million settlement on behalf of a class of shareholders\nof Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. following an ignored merger offer. In re Physicians Formula Holdings,\nInc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7794-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.). Sam was also instrumental in achieving a settlement\nin Strougo v. Hollander, C.A. No. 9770-CB (Del. Ch. Ct.) which provided for a 25% price increase for\nmembers of the class cashed out in the going-private transaction and established that fee-shifting bylaws\nadopted after a challenged transaction do not apply to stockholders affected by the transaction.\nAdditionally, he was on the team of Pomerantz attorneys who obtained the elimination of stand-still\nprovisions that allowed third parties to bid for Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., resulting in the emergence of a\nthird-party bidder and approximately $94 million (57%) in additional merger consideration for Great Wolf\nshareholders. In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 7328-VCN (Del. Ch.).\n\nSam is a 2009 graduate of the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. While in law school,\nhe was a member of the National Health Law Moot Court Team. He also participated in the Louis D.\nBrandeis American Inn of Court.\n\nSam is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, and\nEastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Fifth Circuit.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 45\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 54 of 70\n\n\n\n\nAri Y. Basser\n\nAri Y. Basser joined Pomerantz as an associate in April 2019 and was elevated to Of Counsel in January\n2022. He focuses his practice on strategic consumer litigation by representing consumers in unfair\ncompetition, fraud, false advertising, and auto defect actions that recover monetary and injunctive relief\non behalf of class members while also advocating for important consumer rights. Ari has successfully\nprosecuted claims involving California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, California\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies\nAct, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Ari was an associate at major litigation law firms in Los Angeles. Ari also worked\nas a Law Clerk in the Economic Crimes Unit of the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. Ari\nhas litigated antitrust violations, product defect matters, and a variety of fraud and misrepresentation\ncases brought under state and federal consumer protection statutes involving unfair competition and\nfalse advertising. He has also been deputized in private attorneys general enforcement actions to recover\ncivil penalties from corporations, on behalf of the State of California, for violations of the Labor Code.\n\nAri is a contributing author to the Competition Law Journal, the official publication of the Antitrust, UCL,\nand Privacy Section of the State Bar of California, where he has examined trends in antitrust litigation and\nthe regulatory authority of the Federal Trade Commission.\n\nAri received dual degrees in Economics and Psychology from the University of California, San Diego in\n2004. He earned his Juris Doctor in 2010 from Santa Clara University School of Law.\n\nSamantha Daniels\n\nSamantha brings years of commercial litigation experience to the Pomerantz team, joining the Firm as Of\nCounsel in 2024. Her practice involves representing aggrieved shareholders in securities litigation to\nrecover losses across a number of industries, including pharma, technology, and entertainment.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Samantha was an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, primarily in the\nfirm\u2019s renowned appellate practice, representing highly visible clients in a range of issues from securities\nlitigation, consumer deception, and labor and employment, to constitutional crises. Her former matters\ninclude resolving first impression questions of employment status for gig workers for Uber and Postmates,\nsecuring victory for Apple against allegations of consumer fraud regarding FaceTime, and helping win NML\nshareholders 2.1 billion in due Argentine bonds.\n\nSamantha earned her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School where she published her\nstudent comment on consumer protection. Before that, Samantha studied at Cornell University in Ithaca,\nNew York, earning degrees in Political Science and History.\n\nCheryl D. Hamer\n\nCheryl D. Hamer joined Pomerantz in 2003 as an associate, served as a partner from 2007 to 2015 and is\nnow Of Counsel to the Firm. She is based in San Diego.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 46\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 55 of 70\n\n\n\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, she served as counsel to nationally known securities class action law firms\nfocusing on the protection of investors rights. In private practice for over 20 years, she has litigated, at\nboth state and federal levels, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, Continuing Criminal\nEnterprise, death penalty and civil rights cases and grand jury representation. She has authored numerous\ncriminal writs and appeals.\n\nCheryl was an Adjunct Professor at American University, Washington College of Law from 2010\u20132011 and\nserved as a pro bono attorney for the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project. She was an Adjunct Professor at\nPace University, Dyson College of Arts and Sciences, Criminal Justice Program and The Graduate School of\nPublic Administration from 1996\u20131998. She has served on numerous non-profit boards of directors,\nincluding Shelter From The Storm, the Native American Preparatory School and the Southern California\nCoalition on Battered Women, for which she received a community service award.\n\nCheryl has been a member of the Litigation and Individual Rights and Responsibilities Sections of the\nAmerican Bar Association, the Corporation, Finance & Securities Law and Criminal Law and Individual\nRights Sections of the District of Columbia Bar, the Litigation and International Law Sections of the\nCalifornia State Bar, and the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA) and represents the\nFirm as a member of the Council of Institutional Investors (CII), the National Association of State\nTreasurers (NAST), the National Conference on Public Employees Retirement Systems (NCPERS), the\nInternational Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP), the State Association of County Retirement\nSystems (SACRS), the California Association of Public Retirement Systems (CALAPRS) and The Association\nof Canadian Pension Management (ACPM/ACARR).\n\nCheryl is a 1973 graduate of Columbia University and a 1983 graduate of Lincoln University Law School.\nShe studied tax law at Golden Gate University and holds a Certificate in Journalism from New York\nUniversity and a Certificate in Photography: Images and Techniques from The University of California San\nDiego.\n\nJonathan D. Park\n\nJonathan D. Park joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in April 2022. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was\nassociated with a prominent plaintiff-side litigation firm, where he represented clients in securities and\ninvestment litigation. He is regularly recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nJonathan focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is currently pursuing claims against Twitter\nconcerning its cybersecurity practices and user metrics. Jonathan was a key member of the litigation\nteams that obtained settlements in Poirier v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) and Lako v. loanDepot, Inc.\n(C.D. Cal.). Prior to joining Pomerantz, he was a member of the litigation team that obtained $19 million\nfor the class in In re Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, and he represented investors in\nIn re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, which arose from the \u201cLondon Whale\u201d scandal and was\nsettled for $150 million. He has also represented investors in opt-out securities actions against\npharmaceutical manufacturers and other companies.\n\nJonathan also has experience representing investors in breach of contract actions. He was the primary\nassociate representing institutional investors injured by the early redemption of bonds issued by CoBank,\nACB and AgriBank, FCB. In the litigation against CoBank, the plaintiffs secured a summary judgment ruling\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 47\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 56 of 70\n\n\n\n\non liability, and in the litigation against AgriBank, the plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, permitting\nthe claims to proceed though the plaintiffs were beneficial owners and not record holders of the bonds\nat issue. Both cases were resolved on confidential terms.\n\nAt the New York City Bar Association, Jonathan has served on the Task Force on Puerto Rico, the New\nLawyers Council, and the International Human Rights Committee. He also served on the board of his non-\nprofit running club, the Dashing Whippets Running Team.\n\nJonathan earned his J.D. in 2013 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the school\u2019s\nMoot Court Board as the Editor of the Jessup International Law Competition Team. During law school, he\nwas a Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights, received the Archibald R. Murray Public Service\nAward, and interned with a refugee law project in Cairo, Egypt. He received a B.A. in 2006 from Vassar\nCollege, where he majored in Africana Studies.\n\nBrian P. O\u2019Connell\n\nBrian P. O\u2019Connell joined Pomerantz as an associate in August 2021 and was elevated to Of Counsel in\nAugust 2024. Brian focuses his practice on securities and financial services litigation.\n\nBrian leads some of the Firm\u2019s most important securities class actions, winning decisions that expand\ninvestor rights. Among these is a case against Ginkgo Bioworks (\u201cGinkgo\u201d), a synthetic biology company\nthat merged with a special purpose acquisition company (\u201cSPAC\u201d). The case alleges that Ginkgo made\nfalse and misleading statements about its revenue, customers and value before the merger. Brian recently\nreached a settlement agreement with Ginkgo defendants for $17.75 million, representing favorable\nrecovery for the class of investors.\n\nIn March 2024, Brian survived a motion to dismiss another de-SPAC case against Grab Holdings, Inc.,\nknown as the Uber of Southeast Asia, giving the oral argument that sustained Section 11 of the Securities\nAct and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act claims. Brian also played an integral role in the\nlitigation and settlement of three Pomerantz cases that recently reached final approval of settlement:\ntelecommunications giant Sprint Corporation ($3.75 million), biopharmaceutical company Orphazyme A/S\n($2.5 million), and energy and oil company Berry Corporation ($2.5 million).\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Brian was an associate at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &\nSprengel LLP, where he specialized in antitrust and commodity futures litigation. Brian has successfully\nlitigated complex class actions involving securities, as well as manipulation of futures and options\ncontracts. Brian also previously worked at the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a contractor\nfocusing on options trading regulation. Following law school, Brian was a legal fellow at the chambers of\nJudge Marvin E. Aspen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.\n\nBrian is passionate about finance and securities law, having previously interned for the Chicago Board\nOptions Exchange and for Susquehanna International Group. Brian has served as a Vice Chair of the\nChicago Bar Association Securities Law Committee. Brian was recently recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae\nRising Star for 2024.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 48\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 57 of 70\n\n\n\n\nBrian earned his Juris Doctor from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. During his time there,\nhe had the opportunity to work at the Center on Wrongful Convictions, where he argued in court on behalf\nof a client serving a life sentence and was later exonerated. Brian also served as Executive Articles Editor\nfor the Journal of International Human Rights Law and as a teaching assistant for the Northwestern Center\non Negotiation and Mediation.\n\nA graduate of Stanford University, Brian majored in Political Science and minored in Economics. During\nhis senior year, he was Editor-in-Chief of The Stanford Review, where he had previously been a Features\nEditor and a staff writer.\n\nBrian is admitted to practice in Illinois and California, the United States District Courts for the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois, the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Ninth Circuit.\n\nLesley Portnoy\n\nLesley Portnoy joined Pomerantz as Of Counsel in January 2020, bringing to the Firm more than a decade\nof experience representing investors and consumers in recovering losses caused by corporate fraud and\nwrongdoing. Lesley is based in Los Angeles.\n\nLesley has assisted in the recovery of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors, including the\nvictims of the Bernard M. Madoff bankruptcy. Courts throughout the United States have appointed him\nas Lead Counsel to represent investors in securities fraud class actions. Lesley has been recognized as a\nSuper Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star every year from 2017 through 2021.\n\nAs Co-Lead Counsel with Pomerantz in In re Yahoo!, Inc. Sec. Litig., a high-profile class action litigation\nagainst Yahoo!, Inc., Lesley helped achieve an $80 million settlement for the Class in 2018. The case\ninvolved the biggest data breaches in U.S. history, in which over 3 billion Yahoo accounts were\ncompromised.\n\nOther securities fraud cases that Lesley successfully litigated include Parmelee v. Santander Consumer\nUSA Holdings, Inc.; In re Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc. Sec. Litig.; In re ITT Educational Services, Inc.\nSec. Litig.; In re Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Sec. Litig.; Elkin v. Walter Investment Management Corp.; In re\nCytRx Corporation Sec. Litig.; Carter v. United Development Funding IV; and In re Akorn, Inc. Sec. Litig.\n\nLesley received his B.A. in 2004 from the University of Pennsylvania. In 2009, he simultaneously received\nhis JD magna cum laude from New York Law School and his Masters of Business Administration from City\nUniversity of New York. At New York Law School, Lesley was on the Dean\u2019s List\u2014High Honors and an\nArticles Editor for the New York Law School Law Review.\n\nLesley is admitted to practice in New York and California; the United States District Courts for the Southern\nand Eastern Districts of New York, the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California and the\nNorthern District of Texas; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 49\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 58 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJennifer Banner Sobers\n\nJennifer Banner Sobers is Of Counsel to the Firm.\n\nIn 2021, Jennifer was honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae \u201cTop-Rated Securities Litigation Attorney\u201d. She was\nalso named a 2020 Rising Star by Super Lawyers\u00ae, Law360, and the New York Law Journal, all separate\nand highly competitive awards that honor attorneys under 40 whose legal accomplishments transcend\ntheir age. After a rigorous nomination and vetting process, Jennifer was honored in 2019 and 2020 as a\nmember of the National Black Lawyers Top 100, an elite network of the top 100 African American\nattorneys from each state.\n\nJennifer played an integral role on the team litigating In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, in the Southern\nDistrict of New York, a securities class action arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery\nscheme involving Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petr\u00f3leo Brasileiro S.A.\u2013Petrobras. The Firm, as sole Lead\nCounsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement on behalf of investors in Petrobras securities. Among\nJennifer\u2019 contributions to the team\u2019s success were: managing the entire third-party discovery in the\nUnited States, which resulted in the discovery of key documents and witnesses; deposing several\nunderwriter bank witnesses; drafting portions of Plaintiffs\u2019 amended complaints that withstood motions\nto dismiss the claims and Plaintiffs\u2019 successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 appeal in the Second Circuit,\nwhich resulted in precedential rulings, including the Court rejecting the heightened ascertainability\nrequirement for obtaining class certification that had been imposed by other circuit courts; and second\nchaired argument in the Second Circuit that successfully led to the Court upholding the award of sanctions\nagainst a professional objector challenging the integrity of the settlement.\n\nJennifer played a leading role in In re Toronto-Dominion Bank Securities Litigation, an action in the District\nof New Jersey alleging a multi-year fraud arising from underlying retail banking misconduct by one of\nCanada\u2019s largest banks that was revealed by investigative news reports. Jennifer undertook significant\nwork drafting the briefing to oppose Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the claims, which the Court denied.\nShe oversaw the discovery in the action, which included, among other things, heading the complicated\nprocess of obtaining documents in Canada and being a principal drafter of the motion to partially lift the\nPSLRA stay in order to obtain discovery. Jennifer successfully presented oral argument which led to the\nCourt approval of a $13.25 million class-wide settlement.\n\nU.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, in approving the Toronto-Dominion Bank settlement, stated, \u201cI\ncommend counsel on both sides for their hard work, their very comprehensive and thoughtful\nsubmissions during the motion practice aspect of this case. I paused on it because it was a hard case. I\npaused on it because the lawyering was so good. So, I appreciate from both sides your efforts.\u201d He added,\n\u201cIt\u2019s clear to me that this was comprehensive, extensive, thoughtful, meaningful litigation leading up to\nthe settlement.\u201d Singling out Pomerantz\u2019s role as lead counsel, the judge also said, \u201cThis settlement\nappears to have been obtained through the hard work of the Pomerantz firm . . . It was through their\nefforts and not piggybacking on any other work that resulted in this settlement.\u201d\n\nJennifer was a key member of the team litigating individual securities actions against BP p.l.c. in the\nNorthern District of Texas on behalf of institutional investors in BP p.l.c. to recover losses in BP\u2019s common\nstock (which trades on the London Stock Exchange), arising from BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. The actions were\nresolved in 2021 in a confidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 50\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 59 of 70\n\n\n\n\nJennifer was a lead litigator in Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc. Jennifer was also a key member of the\nlitigation teams of other nationwide securities class action cases, including: In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.\nSec. Litig., an action in the Southern District of New York, for which Jennifer was one of the principal\ndrafters of the amended complaint\u2014the strength of which led the Court to deny permission to the\ndefendants to file a formal motion to dismiss it\u2014which secured a court-approved $15 million class-wide\nsettlement; In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, an action in the Northern District of\nCalifornia, which successfully secured settlements from the bankrupt company and its jailed CEO worth\nover $3.25 million for the Class that were approved by the Court as well as the bankruptcy court; Perez v.\nHigher One Holdings, Inc., an action in the District of Connecticut, for which Jennifer was one of the\nprincipal drafters of the successful opposition to Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, and which secured a\ncourt-approved $7.5 million class-wide settlement; Edwards v. McDermott Int\u2019l, Inc.; Chun v. Fluor Corp.;\nand Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jennifer was an associate with a prominent law firm in New York where her\npractice focused on complex commercial litigation, including securities law and accountants\u2019 liability. An\nadvocate of pro bono representation, Jennifer earned the Empire State Counsel honorary designation\nfrom the New York State Bar Association and received an award from New York Lawyers for the Public\nInterest for her pro bono work.\n\nJennifer received her B.A. from Harvard University (with honors), where she was on the Dean\u2019s List, a Ron\nBrown Scholar, and a recipient of the Harvard College Scholarship. She received her J.D. from University\nof Virginia School of Law where she was a participant in the Lile Moot Court Competition and was\nrecognized for her pro bono service.\n\nShe is a member of the Securities Litigation and Public Service Committees of the Federal Bar Council, and\nthe New York City Bar Association.\n\nJennifer is admitted to practice in New York; United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits.\n\nNicolas Tatin\n\nFrench lawyer Nicolas Tatin joined Pomerantz in April 2017 as Of Counsel. He heads the Firm\u2019s Paris office\nand serves as its Director-Business Development Consultant for France, Benelux, Monaco and Switzerland.\nNicolas advises institutional investors in the European Union on how best to evaluate losses to their\ninvestment portfolios attributable to financial misconduct, and how best to maximize their potential\nrecoveries in U.S. and international securities litigations.\n\nNicolas was previously a financial lawyer at ERAFP, France\u2019s \u20ac24bn pension and retirement fund for civil\nservants, where he provided legal advice on the selection of management companies and the\nimplementation of mandates entrusted to them by ERAFP.\n\nNicolas began his career at Natixis Asset Management, before joining BNP Paribas Investment Partners,\nwhere he developed expertise in the legal structuring of investment funds and acquired a global and cross-\nfunctional approach to the asset management industry.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 51\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 60 of 70\n\n\n\n\nNicolas graduated in international law and received an MBA from IAE Paris, the Sorbonne Graduate\nBusiness School.\n\nChristopher Tourek\n\nChristopher Tourek focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Christopher was an associate at a prominent complex-\nlitigation firm and specialized in consumer protection, antitrust, and securities litigation. Christopher has\nsuccessfully litigated securities fraud, antitrust violations, and consumer protection violations on behalf\nof plaintiffs in state and federal court. His litigation experience has led to his being honored as a Super\nLawyers\u00ae Rising Star in Mass Torts litigation from 2016 through 2021, and in the area of Securities\nlitigation from 2022 through 2025.\n\nChristopher is currently pursuing claims concerning a novel pump-and-dump scheme involving emojis and\nTwitter that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation\nSecurities Litigation (D.D.C.). He is also a member of the team pursuing claims in In re: FTX Cryptocurrency\nExchange Collapse Litigation (S.D. Fla.). Finally, Christopher is representing investors in securities actions\nagainst home robotics manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other companies.\n\nChristopher graduated cum laude in 2013 from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he obtained\nhis pro bono notation, honors in legal research, and was a member of the Federal Civil Rights Clinic, in\nwhich he first chaired the case of Powers v. Coleman in the United States District Court for the Central\nDistrict of Illinois. He earned his bachelor\u2019s degree in Government & Law, with a minor in Anthropology &\nSociology, from Lafayette College in 2010.\n\nChristopher is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Courts for the District of\nColumbia, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan.\n\n Associates\n\nGenc Arifi\n\nGenc Arifi focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz in its Chicago office, Genc was an associate with a prominent Chicago law firm\nand represented an expansive range of businesses in employment law matters as well as complex\ncommercial litigation in both state and federal courts. Genc\u2019s experience includes handling complex civil\nmatters, such as cases arising out of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),\nshareholder derivative lawsuits, and employment law matters. He has also advised technology start-up\nclients as well as established financial institutions with risk assessment and litigation strategies.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 52\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 61 of 70\n\n\n\n\nGenc earned his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law and his B.S. from Western Illinois\nUniversity, summa cum laude. He demonstrated strong academic credentials throughout law school; most\nnotably when he achieved the highest grade in Business Organizations, which earned him the CALI\nExcellence for the Future Award. Genc was a recipient of the Dean\u2019s Certificate of Service awarded to law\nstudents who provided 100 hours of community service. Genc participated in a criminal appeals clinic and\nsuccessfully reduced an indigent client's prison sentence.\n\nGenc is co-author of \u201cValuation,\u201d Chapter 6 in \u201cDisputes Involving Closely Held Companies 2020 Edition.\u201d\nPublished by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Feb. 2020, it is the essential guide for\nIllinois attorneys who represent closely held corporations, partnerships, or LLCs.\n\nGenc currently serves as the Secretary and board member of the Albanian-American Community of\nIllinois, a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is to preserve and promote Albanian culture, history, and\ntradition through civic engagement and educational initiatives.\n\nGenc is admitted to practice in Illinois and the United States District Court for the Northern District of\nIllinois.\n\nBrandon M. Cordovi\n\nBrandon M. Cordovi focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Brandon was an associate at a law firm in New York that specializes in the\ndefense of insurance claims. Brandon\u2019s practice focused on the defense of transportation, premises, and\nconstruction liability matters.\n\nBrandon earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he served on the Moot\nCourt Board and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at Fordham Law, Brandon\nparticipated in the Securities Litigation and Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\narbitration of claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. During his second summer of law\nschool, Brandon was a summer associate at a major plaintiff\u2019s securities firm.\n\nBrandon earned his B.S. from the University of Delaware where he double majored in Sport Management\nand Marketing.\n\nBrandon is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\nSouthern and Eastern Districts of New York.\n\nJessica N. Dell\n\nJessica Dell focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nShe has worked on dozens of cases at Pomerantz, including the Firm\u2019s securities fraud lawsuits arising\nfrom BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf oil spill. Jessica has expertise in managing discovery and a nose for investigating\ncomplex fraud across many sectors, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and data security. True\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 53\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 62 of 70\n\n\n\n\nto her roots in public interest law, she has also worked in complex pro bono class action litigation at\nPomerantz.\n\nJessica graduated from CUNY School of Law in 2005. She was the recipient of an Everett fellowship for her\nwork at Human Rights Watch. She also interned at the Urban Justice Center and National Advocates for\nPregnant Women. While in the CUNY clinical program, she represented survivors of domestic violence\nfacing deportation and successfully petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act. She also\nsuccessfully petitioned for the release of survivors incarcerated as drug mules in Central America.\nAfter Hurricane Katrina, Jessica traveled to Louisiana to aid emergency efforts to reunite families and\nrestore legal process for persons lost in the prison system weeks after the flood.\n\nJessica is a member of the New York City and State Bar Associations and the National Lawyers Guild.\n\nZachary Denver\n\nZachary Denver focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Zachary worked at prominent New York firms where he litigated a variety of\ncomplex commercial matters, specializing in financial markets, securities, and bankruptcy.\n\nZachary graduated from New York University School of Law in 2013 and was a staff editor at the NYU\nJournal of Law and Liberty and a board member for the Suspension Representation Project. He earned a\ndouble bachelor\u2019s degree from the University of Massachusetts in Political Science and Communications.\nAfter undergrad, Zachary served as a Teach for America corps member in New York City and earned a\nmaster\u2019s degree in classroom teaching from PACE University.\n\nZachary also serves as a board member for the Legal Alliance of Pheonjong, a non-profit organization that\nprovides legal services to Tibetan asylum seekers in New York City, and he has served as lead counsel on\nseveral applications including two successful trials in immigration court.\n\nZachary is admitted to practice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York and the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\nDean P. Ferrogari\n\nDean P. Ferrogari focuses his practice on securities litigation. He was recognized in the 2024 and 2025\neditions of the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\u00ae in America publication for his work in securities litigation.\nHe was also recognized as a 2024 Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nDean earned his Juris Doctor in 2020 from Brooklyn Law School, where he served as an Associate\nManaging Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review. While in law school, Dean was initiated into the\nInternational Legal Honor Society of Phi Delta Phi and was an extern for the Brooklyn Volunteer Lawyers\nProject. He was recognized by the New York State Unified Court System\u2019s Office for Justice Initiatives for\nhis distinguished service in assisting disadvantaged civil litigants in obtaining due process in consumer\ncredit actions. Dean also authored the publication \u201cThe Dark Web: A Symbol of Freedom Not Cybercrime,\u201d\nNew York County Lawyers Association CLE Institute, Security in a Cyber World: Whistle Blowers, Cyber\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 54\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 63 of 70\n\n\n\n\nThreats, Domestic Terrorism, Financial Fraud, Policy by Twitter . . . and the Evolving Role of the Attorney\nand Firm, Oct. 4, 2019, at 321.\n\nDean earned his B.A. from the University of Maryland, where he majored in Economics and was awarded\nthe President\u2019s Transfer Scholarship.\n\nHe is admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of\nNew York.\n\nEmily C. Finestone\n\nEmily C. Finestone focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Emily was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in New York where she\nsuccessfully litigated matters pertaining to sports and entertainment law, copyright infringement, and\nemployment law. Emily previously worked at a prominent complex litigation firm specializing in consumer\nprotection, antitrust, whistleblower, and securities litigation. She also gained appellate experience as a\ntemporary law clerk and Staff Attorney at the Supreme Court of Virginia.\n\nIn 2022 \u2013 2024, Emily was recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\n\nEmily graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2015 and was a member of the Review of Banking\n& Financial Law. She received her B.A. from the University of Virginia in 2012, where she double majored\nin English and Spanish, and minored in Government.\n\nEmily is admitted to practice in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the United\nStates District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, District of\nConnecticut, District of Massachusetts, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\nJianan (Adam) Jiang\n\nJianan (Adam) Jiang focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Adam was a litigation associate at a full service Chicago law firm, where he\nlitigated commercial and construction cases in state and federal courts.\n\nAdam earned his J.D., cum laude, from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. During his time\nthere, he served as a Staff Editor for the Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Adam also\nparticipated in the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, where he represented indigent taxpayers to resolve tax\ndisputes with the Internal Revenue Service.\n\nAdam received his Bachelor of Engineering with Honors Class One (equivalent to summa cum laude) and\nthe University Medal from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Adam majored in Civil\nEngineering and worked as a geotechnical engineer before law school.\n\nAdam speaks Mandarin and went to high school in Beijing, China.\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 55\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 64 of 70\n\n\n\n\nAdam is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois, and the United States District Court for the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois.\n\nJames M. LoPiano\n\nJames M. LoPiano focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is part of the Firm\u2019s case origination\nteam, identifying and investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws.\n\nJames has been named a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star each year since 2021.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, James served as a Fellow at Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., a non-profit\nlaw firm run by faculty of Fordham University School of Law.\n\nJames earned his J.D. in 2018 from Fordham University School of Law, where he was awarded the\nArchibald R. Murray Public Service Award, cum laude, and merit-based scholarship. While in law school,\nJames served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Stephen A. Bucaria of the Nassau County Supreme\nCourt, Commercial Division, of the State of New York. He also served as Senior Notes and Articles Editor\nof the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, and authored the publication\n\u201cPublic Fora Purpose: Analyzing Viewpoint Discrimination on the President\u2019s Twitter Account,\u201d Note, 28\nFordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 511 (2018). In addition, James completed legal internships at the\nAuthors Guild and Fordham University School of Law\u2019s Intellectual Property and Information Law Clinic,\nwhere he counseled clients and worked on matters related to Freedom of Information Act litigation,\ntrademarks, and copyrights.\n\nJames earned his B.A. from Stony Brook University, where he double majored in English and Cinema and\nCultural Studies, completed the English Honors Program, was inducted into the Stony Brook University\nchapter of the International English Honors Society, and was awarded the university\u2019s Thomas Rogers\nAward for best analytical paper in an English course by an undergraduate.\n\nJames is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and\nEastern Districts of New York.\n\nDiego Martinez-Krippner\n\nDiego Martinez-Krippner focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Diego was a litigation associate at a large international law firm, where he\nlitigated cases in state and federal courts involving mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance,\nmultidistrict litigation, products liability, and commercial matters. He also served as a litigation associate\nat a boutique law firm where he was involved in disputes concerning art, investment instruments,\nintellectual property, fiduciary duties, and other commercial matters.\n\nDiego is a graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois College of Law. He began his\ncareer as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Theresa Lazar Springmann, United States District Court for\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 56\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 65 of 70\n\n\n\n\nthe Northern District of Indiana, and the Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe, United States Court of Appeals for\nthe Tenth Circuit.\n\nDiego is admitted to practice in Illinois.\n\nThomas H. Przybylowski\n\nThomas H. Przybylowski focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Thomas was an associate at a large New York law firm, where his practice\nfocused on commercial and securities litigation, and regulatory investigations. In 2020 and 2021, Thomas\nwas honored as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star.\nThomas earned his J.D. in 2017 from the Georgetown University Law Center. While in law school, Thomas\nserved as a Notes Editor for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics and authored the publication \u201cA Man\nof Genius Makes No Mistakes: Judicial Civility and the Ethics of the Opinion,\u201d Note, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics\n1257 (2016). Thomas earned his B.A. from Lafayette College in 2014, where he double majored in English\nand Philosophy.\n\nThomas is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the\nEastern and Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey.\n\nJared Rabinowitz\n\nJared Rabinowitz focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Jared was a judicial law clerk for Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County\nSupreme Court Commercial Division.\n\nJared earned his J.D. in 2021 from New York Law School, where he served as a Senior Editor for the New\nYork Law School Law Review and was the recipient of a merit-based scholarship. While at New York Law\nSchool, Jared participated in the Securities Arbitration Clinic, where he prepared for the negotiation and\narbitration of securities claims brought on behalf of clients with limited resources. Prior to law school,\nJared worked as an institutional equity trader at a New York financial services firm.\n\nJared earned his B.S. from Hofstra University where he majored in Legal Studies in Business.\n\nJared is admitted to practice in New York and United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York.\n\nAnkita Sangwan\n\nAnkita Sangwan focuses her practice on corporate governance matters.\n\nShe graduated in 2022 from the LL.M. program at Columbia Law School as a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.\nPrior to attending Columbia Law School, Ankita worked for four years in the Commercial Litigation Team\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 57\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 66 of 70\n\n\n\n\nof a prominent law firm in Bombay, India, at which she focused her practice on complex commercial and\ncivil disputes. Ankita assisted in arguments before various courts in India, including the Supreme Court.\n\nIn 2017, Ankita graduated with Honors from the B.A. LL.B. program at Jindal Global Law School, India. She\nwas a member of the university\u2019s Moot Court Society, which finished as semi-finalists at the World Rounds\nof the International Investment Moot Court Competition, held in Frankfurt, Germany (2016). Ankita\u2019s\nmoot court experience was recognized by her university; she was awarded the \u201cOutstanding Contribution\nto Moot Court\u201d prize upon graduation.\n\nAnkita is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\nVilli Shteyn\n\nVilli Shteyn focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nVilli worked on individual securities lawsuits concerning BP\u2019s 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which\nproceeded in In re BP p.l.c. Secs Litig., No. 4:10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.) and were resolved in 2021 in a\nconfidential, favorable monetary settlement for all 35 Firm clients, including public and private pension\nfunds, money management firms, partnerships, and investment trusts from the U.S., Canada, the U.K.,\nFrance, the Netherlands, and Australia. He also worked on a successful 2021 settlement for investors in a\ncase against Chinese company ChinaCache.\n\nVilli pursued claims against Deutsche Bank for its lending activities to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein\nand was involved in the Firm\u2019s class action litigation against Arconic, arising from the deadliest U.K. fire in\nmore than a century. He also represented investors in a case against AT&T for widespread fraud relating\nto their rollout of DirecTVNow, and against Frutarom for fraud related to widespread bribery in Russia\nand Ukraine. He represented Safra Bank in a class action against Samarco Minera\u00e7\u00e3o S.A., in connection\nwith the Fundao dam-burst disaster, which is widely regarded as the worst environmental disaster in\nBrazil\u2019s history. He represented investors against Recro Pharma in relation to their non-opioid pain-relief\nproduct IV Meloxicam, and against online education companies 2U and K12. Villi also worked on a\nconsumer class action against Apple, Inc. in relation to alleged slowdowns of the iPhone product.\n\nBefore joining Pomerantz, Villi was employed by a boutique patent firm, where he worked on patent\nvalidity issues in the wake of the landmark Alice decision and helped construct international patent\nmaintenance tools for clients and assisted in pursuing injunctive relief for a patent-holder client against a\nlarge tech company.\n\nVilli has been recognized as a Super Lawyers\u00ae Rising Star from 2021 through 2023.\n\nVilli graduated from The University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 2017). In 2014, he graduated summa cum\nlaude from Baruch College with a Bachelor of Science in Public Affairs.\n\nVilli is admitted to practice in New York, and the United States District Courts for the Southern District of\nNew York and the Eastern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\nCircuit.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 58\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 67 of 70\n\n\n\n\nStephanie Weaver\n\nStephanie Weaver focuses her practice on securities litigation. Prior to joining Pomerantz, Stephanie was\nan associate at a boutique securities litigation firm, focused on securities litigation, antitrust and\nbankruptcy matters.\n\nStephanie graduated from St. John\u2019s University School of Law cum laude in 2021. While in law school, she\nserved as Managing Director of the Moot Court Honor Society and won the Best Brief Award at the 2020\nElaine Jackson Stack Moot Court Competition. She was also a member of the school\u2019s New York\nInternational Law Review. She was also honored as a New York State Court of Appeals Fellow in 2019. She\nearned her bachelor\u2019s degree summa cum laude from St. John\u2019s University in 2018.\n\nStephanie is admitted to practice in the State of New York.\n\nGuy Yedwab\n\nGuy Yedwab focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nGuy graduated from Rutgers Law School summa cum laude in 2023, while also receiving a Master\u2019s Degree\nin Public Affairs and Policy from the Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.\nWhile in law school, he won awards with the National Appellate Advocacy Team and was an editor at the\nJournal of Law and Public Policy, in which he published a note on constitutional law. He was honored with\nthe Marsha Wenk Fellowship at the A.C.L.U. of New Jersey, and the Eagleton Institute\u2019s Henry J. Raimondo\nLegislative Fellowship.\n\nGuy serves as a board member for the League of Independent Theater, a 501(c)(6) trade association for\nsmall-sized cultural institutions in New York City. As such, he consults with policymakers on fostering small\nbusiness in the city.\n\nGuy is admitted to practice in New York State's First Appellate Department.\n\n Staff Attorneys\n\nJay Douglas Dean\n\nJay Dean focuses on class action securities litigation. He has been a commercial litigator for more than 30\nyears.\n\nJay has been practicing with Pomerantz since 2008, including as an associate from 2009\u20132014, interrupted\nby a year of private practice in 2014\u20132015. More recently, he was part of the Pomerantz teams\nprosecuting the successful Petrobras and Yahoo actions. Prior to joining Pomerantz, he served as an\nAssistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, most\nrecently in its Pensions Division. While at Pomerantz, in the Corporation Counsel\u2019s office and previously\nin large New York City firms, Jay has taken leading roles in trials, motions and appeals.\n\nJay graduated in 1988 from Yale Law School, where he was Senior Editor of the Yale Journal of\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 59\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 68 of 70\n\n\n\n\nInternational Law.\n\nJay is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Jay has also earned\nthe right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 60\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 69 of 70\n\n\n\n\nTimor Lahav\n\nTimor Lahav focuses his practice on securities litigation.\n\nTimor participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras,\narising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel,\nachieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings. Timor also\nparticipated in the firm\u2019s landmark litigation against Yahoo!, Inc., for the massive security breach that\ncompromised 1.5 billion users' personal information.\n\nTimor received his LL.B. from Tel Aviv University School of Law in Israel, following which he clerked at one\nof Israel\u2019s largest law firms. He was an associate at a law firm in Jerusalem, where, among other\nresponsibilities, he drafted motions and appeals, including to the Israeli Supreme Court, on various civil\nmatters.\n\nHe received his LL.M. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. There, Timor received the\nUriel Caroline Bauer Scholarship, awarded to exceptional Israeli law graduates.\n\nTimor brings to Pomerantz several years\u2019 experience as an attorney in New York, including examining local\nSOX anti-corruption compliance policies in correlation with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and analysis\nof transactions in connection with DOJ litigation and SEC enforcement actions.\n\nTimor was a Captain in the Israeli Defense Forces. He is a native Hebrew speaker and is fluent in Russian.\n\nHe is admitted to practice in New York and Israel.\n\nLaura M. Perrone\n\nLaura M. Perrone focuses on class action securities litigation.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Laura worked on securities class action cases at Labaton Sucharow. Preceding\nthat experience, she represented plaintiffs at her own securities law firm, the Law Offices of Laura M.\nPerrone, PLLC.\n\nAt Pomerantz, Laura participated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil\ncompany, Petrobras, arising from a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as\nsole Lead Counsel, achieved a historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal\nrulings.\n\nLaura has also represented bondholders against Citigroup for its disastrous investments in residential\nmortgage-backed securities, shareholders against Barclays PLC for misrepresentations about its dark pool\ntrading system known as Barclays LX, and shareholders against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for\nmisrepresentations about its recalls and its diesel emissions defeat devices.\n\nLaura graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was on the editorial staff of\nCardozo\u2019s Arts and Entertainment Law Journal and was the recipient of the Jacob Burns Merit Scholarship.\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 61\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-5 Filed 09/04/25 Page 70 of 70\n\n\n\n\nLaura is admitted to practice in New York; the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern\nDistricts of New York; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nAllison Tierney\n\nAllison Tierney focuses her practice on securities litigation.\n\nAllison brings to Pomerantz her 10 years\u2019 expertise in large-scale securities class action litigation. She\nparticipated in the Firm\u2019s securities class action case against Brazil\u2019s largest oil company, Petrobras, arising\nfrom a multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme, in which the Firm, as sole Lead Counsel, achieved\na historic $3 billion settlement for the Class, as well as precedent-setting legal rulings.\n\nPrior to joining Pomerantz, Allison worked on securities class action cases at several top New York law\nfirms, representing institutional investors. She has represented plaintiffs in disputes related to antitrust\nviolations, corporate financial malfeasance, and residential mortgage-backed securities fraud.\n\nAllison earned her law degree from Hofstra University School of Law, where she served as notes and\ncomments editor for the Cyberlaw Journal. She received her B.A. in Psychology from Boston University,\nwhere she graduated magna cum laude.\n\nAllison is conversant in Spanish and studying to become fluent.\n\nAllison is admitted to practice in New York.\n\n\n\n\nwww.pomlaw.com 62\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:44:06.620102-07:00","document_number":"145","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"127038156210","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D (J Park Dec ISO Fees) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/451601086/","id":451601086,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/145/6/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-09-08T12:54:50.489208-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T05:43:14.091109-07:00","sha1":"34c192d51479330510ce18605ebd9ea7adb974af","page_count":35,"file_size":687416,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 1 of 35\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT E\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 2 of 35\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n IN RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY\n INC SECURITIES LITIGATION\n DECLARATION OF BRIAN B.\n ALEXANDER REGARDING\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND EXPENSES\n\n\n\n\n I, Brian B. Alexander, hereby declare and state, under penalty of perjury, that the following\n\nis true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:\n\n 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in New York and before this Court. I\n\nam a Partner at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cRosen Law\u201d), court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for Co-\n\nLead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class in this litigation (the \u201cAction\u201d). I have personal knowledge\n\nof the matters set forth herein and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto.\n\n 2. A copy of Rosen Law\u2019s firm resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n 3. Rosen Law has been involved in the Action since its appointment on January 19,\n\n2024, continuing throughout all other aspects of the Action.\n\n 4. Rosen Law rendered the following legal services, along with Co-Lead Counsel\n\nPomerantz LLP, in connection with the prosecution of the Action: (i) conducted a thorough and wide-\n\nranging investigation that included a review and analysis of publicly available information, as well\n\nas interviews with numerous former GigaCloud employees; (ii) consulted with experts regarding\n\naccounting, market efficiency, loss causation, and damages issues; (iii) prepared and filed a detailed\n\nAmended Class Action Complaint (the \u201cAmended Complaint\u201d) that identified numerous alleged\n\nmisrepresentations by Defendants and contained allegations derived from four former GigaCloud\n\nemployees; (iv) analyzed Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; (v) following the\n 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 3 of 35\n\n\n\npublication of a report by Grizzly Research LLC, conducted an additional investigation concerning\n\nmatters raised therein; (vi) prepared and filed a detailed Second Amended Class Action Complaint\n\n(the \u201cSecond Amended Complaint\u201d) that identified additional alleged misrepresentations by\n\nDefendants and contained allegations derived from five additional former GigaCloud employees;\n\n(vii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Defendants GigaCloud, Wu, Lau, Wan, and Aegis\u2019s\n\nmotion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in\n\npart; (viii) prepared and filed Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Defendant Chen\u2019s separate motion to dismiss\n\nthe Second Amended Complaint, which the Court denied in full; (ix) undertook extensive efforts to\n\nserve pleadings on Defendants, several of whom are believed to reside in the People\u2019s Republic of\n\nChina; (x) following the Court\u2019s order sustaining the Second Amended Complaint, in part, engaged\n\nin discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel regarding the scope of discovery and a schedule for the\n\nAction; (xi) engaged in discussions with Defendants\u2019 Counsel over a period of several weeks\n\nregarding a potential negotiated resolution of the Action, leading to the proposed Settlement; (xii)\n\ndrafted the preliminary approval motion, Notice, Summary Notice, Postcard Notice, Claim Form, and\n\nall other supporting documents and declarations; (xiii) oversaw the implementation of the judicially\n\napproved notice process to Settlement Class Members; and (xiv) prepared the Final Approval Motion,\n\nalong with all supporting documents and declarations.\n\n 5. Rosen Law does not charge its clients an hourly rate and works exclusively on a\n\ncontingency fee basis. To determine appropriate hourly rates for use in a lodestar calculation, Rosen\n\nLaw relied on a compendium of hourly rates charged by complex litigation counsel for work\n\nperformed in connection with bankruptcy proceedings and approved by bankruptcy courts in 2023\n\nattached hereto as Exhibit B. This compendium is based on research and work performed by Labaton\n\nKeller Sucharow, and filed in Chen v. MissFresh Ltd, 22-cv-09836-JSR (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. No. 149-\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 4 of 35\n\n\n\n9). The compendium lists the hourly rates approved by Courts for partners, counsel, associates, staff\n\nattorneys and paralegals. The rates are further categorized according to three tiers, median of lowest\n\n25%, median, and median of highest 25%.\n\n 6. To calculate Rosen Law\u2019s rates, Exhibit B takes the average of the 25th percentile,\n\nmedian, and 75th percentile hourly rates for each law firm in the compendium, and calculates the\n\naverage of those rates for each tier, without adjustment for inflation. Then, Rosen Law applies a 15%\n\ndiscount to each of those figures, for the sake of conservatism. Rosen Law then assigns hourly rates\n\nfor associates, counsel, and partners based on experience level. Associates with three years of\n\nexperience or less are assigned the discounted 25th percentile rate, associates with four to six years of\n\nexperience are assigned the discounted median rate, and associates with seven or more years of\n\nexperience are assigned the discounted 75th percentile rate. For counsel and partners, attorneys with\n\n15 years of experience or less are assigned the 25th percentile rate, attorneys with 16 to 22 years of\n\nexperience are assigned the median rate, and attorneys with more than 22 years of experience are\n\nassigned the 75th percentile rate. The chart below is a summary of time expended by attorneys and\n\nparalegals at Rosen Law on the Action through August 31, 2025, and the lodestar calculation based\n\non the method discussed in the preceding paragraph. The chart was prepared from contemporaneous,\n\ndaily time records regularly prepared and maintained by my firm.\n\n Years in\n Professional (position)* Hourly Rate Hours Worked Lodestar\n Practice\n Larry Rosen (P) 37 $1,512 15 $22,680.00\n Phillip Kim (P) 23 $1,512 6 $9,072.00\n Brian Alexander (P) 17 $1,403 707 $991,921.00\n Jing Chen (P) 14 $1,273 6.9 $8,783.70\n Erica Stone (C) 12 $1,119 0.6 $671.40\n Scott (Ha-Sung) Kim (A) 8 $932 0.7 $652.40\n Ryan Hedrick (A) 6 $826 21 $17,346.00\n Christie Buzzetti (A) 3 $717 0.8 $573.60\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 5 of 35\n\n\n\n Eric Bi (A) 1 $717 13 $9,321.00\n Henry Bloxenheim (A) 2 $717 37 $26,529.00\n Julia Shimizu (PL) n/a $383 0.5 $191.50\n Zachary Stanco (PL) n/a $383 28 $10,724.00\n TOTALS 836.5 $1,098,465.60\n* Partner (P), Counsel (C), Associate (A), Paralegal (PL)\n\n 7. My firm performed a total of 836.5 professional work hours in the prosecution of\n\nthe Action. The total lodestar amount for my firm is $1,098,465.60.\n\n 8. Rosen Law expended a total of $43,626.53 in un-reimbursed expenses in connection\n\nwith the prosecution of the Action broken down as follows:\n\n Category Amount\n Document Translation and Interpreter Fees $5,403.02\n Investigator Fees $23,000\n Service of Process/Hague Convention Fees $855\n Online Legal Research and Document Retrieval Fees $958.65\n Press Release / Notice to Class Member Fees $12,720\n Court Filing, Messenger, Transcripts, Pro Hac Vice $176.65\n Postage and FedEx Fees $513.21\n TOTAL EXPENSES $43,626.53\n\n 9. The expenses set forth above are reflected in counsel\u2019s books and records. These\n\nbooks and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and financial statements\n\nprepared in the normal course of business for my firm and are an accurate record of the expenses\n\nincurred in the prosecution of the Action.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing facts are true and correct.\n\n Executed this Thursday, September 4, 2025, at New York, New York.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 6 of 35\n\n\n\n /s/ Brian B. Alexander\n BRIAN B. ALEXANDER\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 7 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit A\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 8 of 35\n\n\n\n\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.\n BIOGRAPHY\n\nI. ATTORNEYS\n\nLAURENCE ROSEN \u2013 MANAGING PARTNER\n\n Laurence Rosen is a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law. He earned an\n\nM.B.A. in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and\n\na B.A. in Economics from Emory University. Mr. Rosen served as a law clerk to the Honorable\n\nStanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Rosen\n\nentered private practice as an associate at the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in\n\nNew York City where he participated in a number of complex securities class action and derivative\n\nlitigation matters. He later served as an associate at McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey\n\nwhere he specialized in securities and business litigation.\n\n After practicing general securities and commercial litigation in New York City with Solton\n\nRosen & Balakhovsky LLP, Mr. Rosen founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent investors\n\nexclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation. Mr. Rosen is admitted to practice\n\nlaw in Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Mr. Rosen is also admitted to\n\npractice before numerous United States District Courts throughout the country and the United\n\nStates Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-2024 Lawdragon named Mr. Rosen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\nLawyers. Mr. Rosen was also named by law360 as Titan of Plaintiffs\u2019 Bar for 2020. Mr. Rosen\n\nwas selected to Super Lawyers in 2017-2024.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 1\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 9 of 35\n\n\n\n\nPHILLIP KIM \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Kim graduated from Villanova University School of Law in 2002. He received a B.A.\n\nin Economics from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in 1999. Prior to joining\n\nThe Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Kim served as Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York\n\nin the Special Federal Litigation Division. In that position, Mr. Kim defended a number of class\n\naction lawsuits, litigated numerous individual actions, and participated in more than seven trials.\n\nMr. Kim focuses his practice on securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Mr.\n\nKim is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the Southern,\n\nEastern, Northern and Western Districts of New York, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District\n\nof Wisconsin, the Eastern District of Michigan, and United States Court of Appeals for the Second,\n\nSixth and Ninth Circuits.\n\n In 2019-2024 Lawdragon named Mr. Kim as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial\n\nLawyers. In 2023-2024 Mr. Kim was selected to Super Lawyers. Mr. Kim was recognized by Best\n\nLawyers in The Best Lawyers of America 2024-2025.\n\nJACOB A. GOLDBERG \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Goldberg is a 1988 graduate of Columbia University. Mr. Goldberg received his J.D.,\n\ncum laude, from the Temple University School of Law in 1992. For over 23 years, Mr. Goldberg\n\nhas litigated complex cases at the highest levels, championing the rights of investors, employees\n\nand consumers. Mr. Goldberg has recovered over $200 million for investors in securities class\n\nactions. In addition to serving in leadership roles in securities class actions, Mr. Goldberg has\n\nlitigated many cases under state corporations laws, against faithless boards of directors both on\n\nbehalf of shareholders, in the mergers and acquisitions context, and, derivatively, on behalf of\n\ncorporations, to remedy harm to the corporation itself. Mr. Goldberg is admitted to practice law\n\nin the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, New York, the United States Supreme Court, the United\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 2\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 10 of 35\n\n\n\n\nStates Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits, and various United States\n\nDistrict Courts across the country.\n\n In 2019-2024 Lawdragon named Mr. Goldberg as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff\n\nFinancial Lawyers.\n\nJONATHAN A. SAIDEL \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Saidel has had a long and distinguished career in Pennsylvania politics, as well as in\n\nthe roles of attorney, accountant and author. He served as Philadelphia city controller for four\n\nconsecutive terms, each time earning reelection by a wide margin, and enacting financial reforms\n\nthat have saved taxpayers upwards of $500 million. Later, in 2010 he went on to campaign for\n\nlieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, where he was runner-up to Scott Conklin by only a few\n\nthousand votes out of almost 1 million cast. A Lifelong resident of Northeast Philadelphia, Mr.\n\nSaidel\u2019s tireless dedication to fiscal discipline reduced the city's tax burden and spurred economic\n\ndevelopment. Mr. Saidel also pushed for important business tax incentives and expanded minority\n\nand small business lending, all of which have revitalized the city, helping it prosper and come back\n\nfrom the brink of bankruptcy in the early 1990's to become one of the most vibrant cities on the\n\nEast Coast.\n\n Mr. Saidel\u2019s book, \"Philadelphia: A New Urban Direction\", is widely considered an\n\nessential guide for effective government and corporate governance and is required reading at many\n\ncolleges and universities.\n\n Mr. Saidel received his JD from the Widener University of Law and is a graduate of Temple\n\nUniversity. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of\n\nGovernment, and Drexel University's MBA Program. In addition to being a Certified Public\n\nAccount, Jonathan is a recipient of the National Association of Local Government Auditor's\n\nKnighton Award, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Award for Excellence,\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 3\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 11 of 35\n\n\n\n\nmultiple special project awards from the National Association of Local Government Auditors, and\n\nthe \"Controller of the Year\" award, a peer recognition presented by the Pennsylvania City\n\nControllers Association.\n\nSARA FUKS \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Fuks graduated from Fordham University School of Law, cum laude, in February\n\n2005, where she was a member of Fordham Law Review. She received her B.A. in Political\n\nScience, magna cum laude, from New York University in 2001. Ms. Fuks began her practice at\n\nDewey Ballantine, LLP where she focused on general commercial litigation and then went on to\n\nprosecute numerous ERISA and securities class actions as an associate at Milberg LLP. Ms. Fuks\n\nis admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District\n\nCourts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of\n\nMichigan. Ms. Fuks was selected to SuperLawyers in 2021-2024 and SuperLawyers Rising Stars\n\nin 2017-2019.\n\nJONATHAN HORNE \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Horne is a 2009 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he received\n\nthe 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\nMr. Horne specializes in securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in New York and the\n\nUnited States District Courts for the District of Colorado and the Southern and Eastern Districts\n\nof New York. Mr. Horne was named a Super Lawyer \u2013 Rising Star for the New York Metro Area\n\nevery year since 2015.\n\nYU SHI \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Shi received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2011 and his B.A., cum laude,\n\nfrom Columbia University in 2008. In 2024, Lawdragon recognized Mr. Shi as one of the 500\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 4\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 12 of 35\n\n\n\n\nLeading Plaintiffs Financial Lawyers. In 2022, Law360 named Mr. Shi as one of the nation\u2019s top\n\nsecurities attorneys under the age of 40. He has been selected to Super Lawyers each year since\n\n2018. Mr. Shi began his career as a Special Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New York City\n\nLaw Department\u2019s Economic Development Division. Mr. Shi joined The Rosen Law Firm in 2012\n\nand focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in the State of New\n\nYork, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, Southern Districts of\n\nNew York, and the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\n\nCircuit.\n\nJONATHAN STERN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Stern graduated from New York University School of Law in May of 2008, where he\n\nwas a Development Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law. He received his B.A. in\n\nPhilosophy with Honors from McGill University. Mr. Stern began his practice in the litigation\n\ndepartment of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and then went on to practice at the litigation\n\nboutique of Simon & Partners LLP, where he participated in a Federal trial. Mr. Stern is admitted\n\nto the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Southern and\n\nEastern District Courts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n\nfor the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court.\n\nJING CHEN \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Ms. Chen received a Juris Doctor degree from Pace University School of Law in 2011,\n\nJuris Master degree from China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, China and\n\nB.A. in English Literature and Linguistics from Shandong University in Jinan, China. She is\n\nadmitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and China. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm,\n\nMs. Chen practiced corporate law, commercial transactions and arbitration for over two years.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 5\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 13 of 35\n\n\n\n\nBRIAN ALEXANDER \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Mr. Alexander graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 2008. He received a\n\nB.A. from Cornell University, magna cum laude, in 2003. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm,\n\nMr. Alexander practiced complex commercial litigation at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and other\n\nprominent law firms in New York. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond J.\n\nDearie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is admitted to\n\npractice in New York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\nNew York, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Alexander was\n\nrecognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025.\n\nDANIEL TYRE-KARP \u2013 PARTNER\n\n Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm in May 2018, Mr. Tyre-Karp was a senior associate\n\nin the securities litigation and corporate governance group at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where he\n\nadvised corporate and individual clients on a variety of high-stakes regulatory and litigation\n\nmatters in state and federal courts. Mr. Tyre-Karp\u2019s extensive experience includes working on\n\nseveral of the largest recent shareholder class action litigations (In re American International\n\nGroup, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, Docket No. 08-CV-4772 (S.D.N.Y.) and related opt-out\n\nactions; In re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Docket No. 6949 (Del. Ch.)),\n\nparticipating in complex business and bankruptcy litigations (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings,\n\nInc., et al, Docket No. 1:08-bk-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), and advising numerous clients facing\n\nFINRA and SEC investigations. Mr. Tyre-Karp graduated with honors from Wesleyan University\n\nin 2003 and received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2009, where he served\n\nas Senior Notes Editor of the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. He is admitted to practice\n\nin New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New\n\nYork. Mr. Tyre-Karp was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2025.\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 6\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 14 of 35\n\n\n\n\nROBIN BRONZAFT HOWALD \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Howald is a graduate of Stanford Law School where she was a member of the Stanford\n\nLaw Review. Ms. Howald earned her BA from Barnard College, magna cum laude. Ms. Howald\n\njoined the firm in 2021 and focuses her practice on securities litigation. For the last 15 years, Ms.\n\nHowald has prosecuted major securities litigations. She was one of the lead attorneys in cases that\n\nachieved settlements of $250 million for injured investors, including Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d\n\n679 (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\nmillion), In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) ($20 million), In re\n\nMusicmaker.com Securities Litigation, 2001 WL 34062431 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ($13.75 million), In\n\nre Puda Coal Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) ($8.6 million following reconsideration of grant\n\nof summary judgment), Jenson v. Fiserv Trust Co., 256 F. App\u2019x. 924 (9th Cir. 2007) ($8.5 million\n\nrecovered for victims of a Ponzi scheme). Ms. Howald is admitted to the bars of California, New\n\nYork, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the\n\nCentral, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.\n\nGONEN HAKLAY \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Haklay graduated from Stanford University School of Law in 1995. He received a\n\nB.A. in Political Science from The University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1992. After several\n\nyears as an associate at a large Philadelphia law firm, Mr. Haklay joined the Philadelphia District\n\nAttorney\u2019s office. As a prosecutor, he tried over 100 criminal jury cases and handled both capital\n\nand non-capital homicide cases. After 12 years as prosecutor, Mr. Haklay joined a prominent\n\nplaintiffs\u2019 firm where he tried over ten asbestos cases, recovering millions of dollars for his clients.\n\nAs a young man, Mr. Haklay served as an infantryman in the Israel Defense Forces. Mr. Haklay\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 7\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 15 of 35\n\n\n\n\nis admitted to the bars of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United\n\nStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Third Circuit\n\nCourt of Appeals. Mr. Haklay was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\n\n2025.\n\nERICA STONE \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Ms. Stone graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2013. She received\n\nher B.A. in Political Science and Communications, cum laude, from the University of\n\nPennsylvania in 2009. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States\n\nDistrict Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York, the District of New\n\nJersey, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2024, Ms. Stone\n\nwas selected to Super Lawyers. Ms. Stone was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers: Ones\n\nto Watch 2025.\n\nJOSHUA BAKER \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Baker graduated from the New York University School of Law in 2013. He received\n\na B.A. from the University of Maryland in 2009. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Baker\n\npracticed complex commercial litigation for a New York firm. He is admitted to practice in New\n\nYork, Massachusetts, and United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of\n\nNew York and the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Baker was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best\n\nLawyers: Ones to Watch 2025.\n\nMICHAEL COHEN \u2013 COUNSEL\n\n Mr. Cohen focuses his practice on securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Prior to\n\njoining The Rosen Law Firm in 2021, Mr. Cohen was an associate in the litigation practice of\n\nKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, where he advised corporate and individual clients on a\n\nwide variety of litigation and regulatory matters in federal and state courts. He has also served as\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 8\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 16 of 35\n\n\n\n\na law clerk to the Honorable Corinne Beckwith of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Mr.\n\nCohen is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Eastern\n\nand Southern Districts of New York. Mr. Cohen was recognized by Best Lawyers as Best Lawyers:\n\nOnes to Watch 2023-2025.\n\nLEAH 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\nUniversity of Pennsylvania. Ms. Heifetz-Li served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia S.\n\nKern, New York State Supreme Court, New York County. She has extensive experience in class\n\naction litigation, having previously practiced at a large class action firm representing shareholders\n\nin merger and acquisition litigation as well as shareholder derivative actions. Ms. Heifetz-Li has\n\nworked on case teams that secured significant financial recoveries for stockholders as well as\n\ncorporate governance reforms in the Delaware Court of Chancery and other courts throughout the\n\ncountry.\n\nHENRY BLOXENHEIM \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Bloxenheim graduated from Columbia Law School in 2023. Mr. Bloxenheim received\n\nhis B.A. in Political Science, summa cum laude, from Brooklyn College. Mr. Bloxenheim is\n\nadmitted to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Southern District\n\nand Eastern District of New York.\n\nCHRISTIE BUZZETTI \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Buzzetti graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2022. She received her B.A. in\n\nPolitical Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2016. Ms. Buzzetti is admitted\n\nto practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern\n\nDistrict of New York.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 9\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 17 of 35\n\n\n\n\nYITZCHOK (IZZY) FISHBACH \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Fishbach received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2022, where he\n\nserved as the Articles Editor of the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review. He received\n\nhis B.A. in Political Science from Binghamton University in 2019. Mr. Fishbach is admitted to\n\npractice in New York, Tennessee, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and\n\nSouthern Districts of New York.\n\nLUKE FOLEY \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Foley received his J.D. from the William and Mary Law School in 2022. He received\n\nhis B.A. in History and Citizenship & Civic Engagement from Syracuse University in 2016. Prior\n\nto joining the Rosen Law Firm in September 2023, Mr. Foley was the Law Clerk to the Hon.\n\nBarbara Buono Stanton of the New Jersey Superior Court, Passaic County. Mr. Foley is admitted\n\nto practice in Maryland.\n\nRYAN HEDRICK \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Hedrick received his J.D. from the University of Chicago in 2019. He received his\n\nB.A. in Linguistics and Political Science, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University in\n\n2015. Mr. Hedrick joined the Rosen Law Firm in August 2019. Mr. Hedrick is admitted to practice\n\nin New York, New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts\n\nof New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Colorado, and United States Court of\n\nAppeals for the Ninth Circuit.\n\nHA 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\nmagna cum laude, from Wheaton College in 2013. Mr. Kim joined the Rosen Law Firm in January\n\n2020. Mr. Kim is admitted to practice in New York.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 10\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 18 of 35\n\n\n\n\nIAN MCDOWELL \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. McDowell graduated cum laude from the University of Richmond School of Law in\n\n2022. He received his B.A. from James Madison University in 2016. Mr. McDowell is admitted\n\nto practice in Pennsylvania and Maryland as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern\n\nDistrict of Pennsylvania.\n\nOLIVIA SIMKINS \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Ms. Simkins is a 2024 graduate of Tulane University School of Law. She earned her B.A.\n\nin Linguistics and English cum laude from Tulane University in 2017. Ms. Simkins is admitted to\n\npractice in Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of\n\nPennsylvania.\n\nERIC JUN BI \u2013 ATTORNEY\n\n Mr. Bi is a 2024 graduate of Cornell Law School. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from\n\nYanching Institute of Technology in 2020. Mr. Bi is fluent in Mandarin. Mr. Bi is admitted to\n\npractice in New York and Pennsylvania.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 11\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 19 of 35\n\n\n\n\nII. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n\n \u2022 Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $250 million.\n\n \u2022 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $110 million.\n\n \u2022 Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, (N.Y. Supreme). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $48\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Silver Wheaton Corp., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $41.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $30.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $29.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n $28.75 million.\n\n \u2022 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 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\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 12\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 20 of 35\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (Shareholder Derivative) (Del. Ch.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\n Counsel. $12.5 million.\n\n \u2022 The RealReal, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $11 million.\n\n \u2022 Full Truck Alliance Co. (E.D.N.Y.) and (NY. Sup.). Rosen Federal Lead Counsel. $10.25\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Quest Energy Partners LP, (W.D. Okla.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $10.1 million all classes.\n\n \u2022 Prosper Marketplace, Inc., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Class Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 PG&E Corp., (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., (Cal. Superior). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 comScore, Inc. (Shareholder Derivative), Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $10 million.\n\n \u2022 Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $9.5\n\n million.\n\n \u2022 Uxin Limited, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Concordia International Corp., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9.25 million.\n\n \u2022 PPDAI Group Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $9 million.\n\n \u2022 Puda Coal, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $8.7 million.\n\n \u2022 RINO International Corporation, (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8,685,000.\n\n \u2022 Acer Therapeutics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $8.35 million.\n\n \u2022 Montage Technology Group Limited, (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7.25 million.\n\n \u2022 AgFeed Industries, (M.D. Tenn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Sundial Growers, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $7 million.\n\n \u2022 Akazoo S.A., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $6.51 million.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 13\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 21 of 35\n\n\n\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 pending Court approval.\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\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 14\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 22 of 35\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 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 \u2022 Roka Bioscience, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $3.275 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 15\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 23 of 35\n\n\n\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, pending Court approval.\n\n \u2022 Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., (N.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Sequans Communications, (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Akari Therapeutics PLC, (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 16\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 24 of 35\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Electric Last Mile Solutions, (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million.\n\n \u2022 Growlife, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.7 million (cash and stock).\n\n \u2022 Tangoe, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $2.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $2.5 million, pending\n\n Court approval.\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 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 pending Court approval.\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\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 17\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 25 of 35\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, $1,985,000, pending Court\n\n approval.\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 Corrrevio Pharma Corp.,(S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel. $1.75 million.\n\n \u2022 Delstaff LLC (Merger Litigation), (Cal. Superior). $1.6425 million.\n\n \u2022 Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc, (Cal. Superior). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n $1.615 million.\n\n \u2022 Alliance MMA, Inc., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Lightinthebox Holding Co., Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.55 million.\n\n \u2022 Nutracea, Inc., (D. Ariz.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 Kraton Corporation, (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.5 million.\n\n \u2022 RMG Networks Holding Corporation (Merger Litigation), (Del. Ch.). $1.5 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 18\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 26 of 35\n\n\n\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 \u2022 M.H. Meyerson & Co., (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1.2 million.\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 19\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 27 of 35\n\n\n\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\nIII. SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. IS CURRENTLY\nLEAD COUNSEL\n\n In re Maiden Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-5296-RMB-JS (D.N.J.)\n\nRosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Sec. Litig., No. CV 12-4621- JFW (PLAx) (C.D.\n\nCal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Kasillingam v. Tilray, Inc., No. 20-CV-3459 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-1424 (NGG) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\nClass Counsel.\n\n Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc., No. 21-CV-3070 (ARR)(TAM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\nLead Counsel.\n\n Handal v. Tenet Fintech Group, Inc., No. 21-cv-6461 (PKC)(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen\n\nLead Counsel.\n\n Atery v. Astra Space, Inc., No. 22-cv-737 (NM)(MMH) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Hoang v. ContextLogic, Inc., No. 21-cv-3930-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 20\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 28 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Mallozzi v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., No. 22-cv-2359-EP-JRA (D.N.J.).\n\nRosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., No. 22-cv-3925 (AGS) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., No. 21-CV-1987-FLA-A (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Walmart Secs. Litig., No. 21-cv-55-CFC (D. Del.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Sanchez v. Arrival SA, No. 220cv0172 (DG)(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re VEON Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 15-cv-8672 (ALC)(OTW) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n In re Volkswagen AG Sec. Litig., No. 22-cv-45-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n In re DiDi Global Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-CV-5807 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Patterson v. TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd., No. 22-cv-3600-TLT (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Diaz v. The Gap, Inc., No. 22-cv-7371 (DG)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Armbruster v. Gaia, Inc., No. 22-CV-3267 (D. Colo.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Pang v. Levitt (Core Scientific, Inc.), No. 22-CV-1191-LY (W.D. Tex.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Goodman v. Wheels Up Experience, Inc., No. 23-cv-2900 (OEM)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.).\n\nRosen Lead Counsel.\n\n In re Enovix Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-71-SI (N.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Gambrill v. CS Disco, Inc., No. 23-cv-8270 (LAK)(SN) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 21\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 29 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Lewandowski v. Tal Education Group, No. 23-cv-1769 (MEF) (JRA) (D.N.J.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n HRSA-ILA Funds v. adidas AG, No. 23-CV-629-IM (D. Or.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Tan v. PacWest Bancorp., No. CV-23-1685 (JWH)(ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Maschhoff v. Polished.com, No. 22-cv-6605(NGG)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\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\nLead Counsel.\n\n Glantz v. James River Group Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-10000 (LJL). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv-4565 (S.D. Tex.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Sigman v. Nuscale Power Corp., No. 23-cv-1689-IM (D. Or.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\n Spitzer v. Flexon, No. 23-cv-8659-HDV (C.D. Cal.). Rosen Co-Lead Counsel.\n\n Jaar v. Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp., No. 24-cv-2155 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.). Rosen Lead\n\nCounsel.\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 Dorin v. Exscientia PLC, No. 24-cv-5692-RMD-AMD (D.N.J.). 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 In re Altimmune, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-1315-ABA (D. Md.). Rosen Co-Lead\n\nCounsel.\n\n Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc., No. 24-cv-12119-LTS (D. Mass.). Rosen Lead Counsel.\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 22\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 30 of 35\n\n\n\n\n In re Avis Budget Group Inc., Sec. Litig., No. 2:25-cv-03332-MEF-CLW (D.N.J.). Rosen\n\nCo-Lead Counsel\n\n\n\n\nROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 23\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 31 of 35\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 32 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Akin Gump Strauss Hauer\nPartners 1 & Feld LLP 42 $1,135 $1,440 $1,775 $1,995 $1,995\nPartners 2 Jones Day LLP 2 $1,200 $1,250 $1,300 $1,350 $1,400\nPartners 3 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 184 $1,035 $1,343 $1,495 $1,795 $2,255\n Kramer Levin Naftalis &\nPartners 4 Frankel LLP 4 $1,665 $1,680 $1,688 $1,718 $1,800\nPartners 5 Latham & Watkins LLP 18 $1,018 $1,390 $1,620 $1,716 $2,035\nPartners 6 Milbank LLP 10 $1,495 $1,785 $1,895 $2,008 $2,045\nPartners 7 Morrison & Foerster LLP 10 $1,200 $1,219 $1,538 $1,713 $2,050\nPartners 9 Paul Hasting LLP 24 $1,375 $1,510 $1,663 $1,739 $1,935\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nPartners 10 Wharton & Garrison LLP 18 $1,605 $1,929 $2,095 $2,175 $2,175\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nPartners 11 & Sullivan LLP 21 $1,150 $1,385 $1,593 $1,770 $2,130\n Skadden Arps Slate\nPartners 12 Meagher & Flom LLP 23 $1,196 $1,460 $1,526 $1,607 $1,960\n Weil Gotshall & Manges\nPartners 13 LLP 48 $1,450 $1,595 $1,710 $1,898 $2,095\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher\nPartners 14 LLP 17 $1,380 $1,625 $1,750 $1,875 $2,050\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nPartners 15 Hale and Dorr LLP 11 $1,205 $1,350 $1,455 $1,550 $1,920\nAverage $1,497 $1,650 $1,779\nDiscount to market rate 85%\n 25th Median 75th\nPartner $1,273 $1,403 $1,512\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 33 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Akin Gump Strauss Hauer\nOf Counsel 1 & Feld LLP 37 $990 $1,120 $1,320 $1,380 $1,500\n\nOf Counsel 2 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 1 $1,585 $1,585 $1,585 $1,585 $1,585\n Kramer Levin Naftalis &\nOf Counsel 3 Frankel LLP 2 $1,280 $1,285 $1,290 $1,295 $1,300\nOf Counsel 4 Latham & Watkins LLP 6 $1,300 $1,340 $1,460 $1,460 $1,575\nOf Counsel 5 Milbank LLP 4 $1,320 $1,320 $1,320 $1,346 $1,425\nOf Counsel 6 Morrison & Foerster LLP 4 $1,050 $1,106 $1,163 $1,331 $1,725\nOf Counsel 8 Paul Hasting LLP 9 $1,025 $1,485 $1,510 $1,550 $1,785\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nOf Counsel 9 Wharton & Garrison LLP 6 $1,650 $1,650 $1,650 $1,650 $1,650\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nOf Counsel 10 & Sullivan LLP 6 $950 $1,215 $1,283 $1,350 $1,350\n Skadden Arps Slate\nOf Counsel 11 Meagher & Flom LLP 15 $975 $1,058 $1,269 $1,294 $1,790\n Weil Gotshall & Manges\nOf Counsel 12 LLP 16 $1,250 $1,375 $1,375 $1,406 $1,425\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nOf Counsel 13 Hale and Dorr LLP 2 $1,250 $1,265 $1,280 $1,295 $1,310\nAvg $1,317 $1,375 $1,412\nMedian $1,303 $1,320 $1,365\nDiscount to market rate 85%\n 25th Median 75th\nCounsel Avg $1,119 $1,169 $1,200\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 34 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Akin Gump Strauss Hauer\nAssociates 1 & Feld LLP 57 $535 $790 $905 $1,045 $1,250\nAssociates 2 Jones Day LLP 1 $725 $725 $725 $725 $725\nAssociates 3 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 281 $540 $795 $935 $1,115 $1,395\n Kramer Levin Naftalis &\nAssociates 4 Frankel LLP 3 $840 $975 $1,110 $1,113 $1,115\nAssociates 5 Latham & Watkins LLP 47 $650 $830 $1,065 $1,140 $1,295\nAssociates 6 Milbank LLP 19 $695 $860 $860 $1,023 $1,200\nAssociates 7 Morrison & Foerster LLP 10 $810 $830 $930 $1,074 $1,135\nAssociates 9 Paul Hasting LLP 36 $505 $841 $930 $1,164 $2,016\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nAssociates 10 Wharton & Garrison LLP 37 $825 $825 $1,125 $1,270 $1,380\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nAssociates 11 & Sullivan LLP 30 $575 $842 $905 $1,104 $1,315\n Skadden Arps Slate\nAssociates 12 Meagher & Flom LLP 51 $495 $833 $1,017 $1,148 $2,019\n Weil Gotshall & Manges\nAssociates 13 LLP 112 $690 $910 $1,065 $1,178 $1,345\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher\nAssociates 14 LLP 21 $575 $1,030 $1,185 $1,250 $1,350\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nAssociates 15 Hale and Dorr LLP 17 $680 $730 $850 $1,005 $1,195\nAverage $844 $972 $1,097\n\nDiscount to Market Rate 85% 25th Median 75th\n Avg $717 $826 $932\n\f Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-6 Filed 09/04/25 Page 35 of 35\n\n\nPosition Seq# Firms Count Low 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile High\n Paul Weiss Rifkind\nStaff Attorney 1 Wharton & Garrison LLP 15 $595 $595 $595 $595 $625\n\n Quinn Emanuel Urquhart\nStaff Attorney 2 & Sullivan LLP 2 $446 $446 $446 $446 $446\n Wilmer Cutler Pickering\nStaff Attorney 3 Hale and Dorr LLP 1 $695 $695 $695 $695 $695\n $579 $579 $579\n\nDiscount to Market Rate 85% $491.87\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T23:44:13.088780-07:00","document_number":"145","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"127038156211","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E (B Alexander Dec ISO Fees) to J Park Dec","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/451601087/","id":451601087,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68068242/145/7/in-re-gigacloud-technology-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2025-09-08T12:54:50.541509-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:09:09.130815-07:00","sha1":"2860e0776debad31303f538987e0b78696b3f722","page_count":19,"file_size":9939139,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579/gov.uscourts.nysd.611579.145.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-7 Filed 09/04/25 Page1of19\n\nEXHIBIT F\nPart 1 of 2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JM\n\nNJ NERA\n\nRECENT TRENDS IN\nSECURITIES CLASS\n\nACTION LITIGATION:\n2024 FULL-YEAR REVIEW\n\nEdward Flores and Svetlana Starykh\u2019\n\nFilings Flat Relative to 2023, Standard Filings\nIncrease for Second Straight Year\n\nResolutions Rise, Led by Increase\nin Dismissals\n\n22 January 2025\n\fx@):d=41,)(0),40\n\nTeak, coll kore MKOR-ar-] aM ot 10-6 C1010 Talo asi 0] a ia( Less than 1 Year\n6% 2%\n\nA a (1 63\nYiu)\n\ner (og)\n\nPas\n\nThe median time (for decisions on motions\nfor class certification) is about 2.7 years.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f20\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 5of 20\n\nTRENDS IN SETTLEMENT VALUES\"\n\nIn 2024, aggregate settlements totaled $3.8 billion, nearly matching the inflation-adjusted total\nof $4.0 billion from 2023 (see Figure 18). After excluding cases involving merger objections,\ncrypto unregistered securities, or settlements of $0 to the class, around 42% of settlements\nhad a recovery of less than $10 million, another 40% had a settlement between $10 million\nand $49.9 million, and 18% settled for $50 million or more, largely mirroring the distribution of\nsettlement values from 2023 (see Figure 19). The average settlement value was $43 million,\n\na roughly 7% decline relative to the 2023 inflation-adjusted average settlement value of $46\nmillion (see Figure 20).\"4\n\nFigure 18. Aggregate Settlement Value\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\nprrnnnn5 H Nominal$ \u00a9 Inflation Adjustment m+\u2018: $ Adjusted for Inflation\n\nAggregate Settlement Value ($Billion)\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 6 of 20\n\nFigure 19. Distribution of Settlement Values\nExcludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2020-December 2024\n\n60% ..\n\n2020 M2021 M2022 M 2023 HM 2024\n\n50% -\n\n40% |\n\n30% -\n\n20% |\n\nPercentage of Settled Cases\n\n10% |\n\n0% .\nLess than $10 $10-$19.9 $20-$49.9 $50-$99.9 $100 or Greater\n\nSettlement Size ($Million)\n\nFigure 20, Average Settlement Value\nExcludes Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities, and Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n100 , 58 H Nominal $ \u00a9 Inflation Adjustment +i: $ Adjusted for Inflation\nto $87\n= 8. Pt ot\n& P|\no : t\n2 60) |\n~ | $52,\no tot $46\n5 1 ot naa $43\n+ 40 | Pr rons\nwn cy) $34\n\u00ae $29 Py\ng it $24\n< 4 Ryle} ro Ryn)\n20, er\n23)\nLy) cya\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 7 of 20\n\nWhile 2023 saw a $1 billion settlement by Wells Fargo & Company,\"5 there were no settlements\nof $1 billion or higher in 2024, and the average settlement value excluding such cases was also\n$43 million (see Figure 21). The median settlement value was $14.0 million, roughly in line with\nthe inflation-adjusted median settlement values in 2022 and 2023 (see Figure 22).\n\nFigure 21. Average Settlement Value\nExcludes Settlements of $1 Billion or Higher, Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities,\nand Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n69\n\n70, 569. HB Nominal$ \u00a9! Inflation Adjustment m+! $ Adjusted for Inflation\n\n60) $60\n<- tt 1 ot\n2 rot if\n= 50. 1 4\nv $43\n0 40\nS 40. $39 $40\n\u00bb wees 1 '\n5 i gag S88 $35\n= 30) $29 Por\nwo ! c'_ a i =e\na \u00b00 20) teen! oo\nZ ee\n\n10 | YZ roa\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com ===\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 8 of 20\n\nFigure 22. Median Settlement Value\nExcludes Settlements of $1 Billion or Higher, Merger Objections, Crypto Unregistered Securities,\nand Settlements for $0 to the Class\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n18. B Nominal$ \u00a9) Inflation Adjustment \u2122+!J $ Adjusted for Inflation\n\n16 J $16 $16 $15\n\neeee= lS\n\n12, $11\n\n10 |\n\npecs\n\nmeses\n\nBSE.\n\nMedian Settlement Value ($Million)\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\n\nSettlement Year\n\nThe median settlement value was $14.0 million,\nroughly in line with the inflation-adjusted\nmedian settlement values in 2022 and 2023.\n\n23 ECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com ===\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 9 of 20\n\nTOP SETTLEMENTS\n\nThe 10 largest settlements in 2024 ranged from $85 million to $490 million and collectively\naccounted for 60% of the $3.8 billion aggregate settlement amount. There were four\nsettlements of at least $200 million, which include suits against Uber Technologies, Inc. ($200\nmillion) over alleged misrepresentations in connection with its initial public offering,\u2019 Alphabet\nInc. ($350 million) in a case involving a data privacy breach,!\u201d Under Armour, Inc. ($434 million)\nover claims the company hid declining demand of its products,\"\u00ae and Apple Inc. ($490 million) in\na matter over alleged misrepresentations involving iPhone sales in China.?? The Third and Ninth\nCircuits each accounted for four suits in the top 10 largest settlements. See Table 1.\n\nTable 1. Top 10 2024 Securities Class Action Settlements\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019\nTotal Attorneys\u2019 Fees\nFiling Settlement Settlement and Expenses Economic\nRank Defendant Date Date Value ($Million) Value ($Million) Circuit Sector\n1 Apple Inc. 16 Apr 17 Sep $490.0 $110.5 9th Electronic\n2019 2024 Technology\n2 Under Armour, Inc. 10 Feb 7 Nov $434.0 $116.3 Ath Consumer\n2017 2024 Non-Durables\n3 Alphabet, Inc. 11 Oct 24 Sep $350.0 $68.0 9th Technology\n2018 2024 Services\n4 Uber Technologies, Inc. 4 Oct 5 Dec $200.0 $61.2 9th Transportation\n2019 2024\n5 Rite Aid Corporation 2 Nov 7 Feb $192.5 $59.2 3rd Retail Trade\n2018 2024\n6 TuSimple Holdings, Inc. 31 Aug 2 Dec $189.0 $47.6 9th Consumer\n2022 2024 Durables\n7 Envision Healthcare 4 Aug 21 Mar $177.5 $54.8 \u00e9th Health\nCorporation 2017 2024 Services\n8 Pattern Energy Group Inc. 25 Feb 3 May $100.0 $29.8 3rd Utilities\n2020 2024\n9 Perrigo Company plc 18 May 5 Sep $97.0 $22.5 3rd Health\n2016 2024 Technology\n10 Becton, Dickinson 27 Feb 22 Apr $85.0 $22.1 3rd Health\nand Company 2020 2024 Technology\nTotal $2,315.0 $592.0\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 10 of 20\n\nTable 2 lists the 10 largest federal securities class action settlements through 31 December\n2024. Since the Valeant Pharmaceuticals partial settlement of $1.2 billion in 2020, this list has\nremained unchanged, with settlements ranging from $1.1 to $7.2 billion.\n\nTable 2. Top 10 Federal Securities Class Action Settlements (As of 31 December 2024)\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019\nAttorney\u2019s\nFees\nTotal Financial Accounting and\nSettlement \u2014 Institutions Firms Expenses\nFiling Settlement Value Value Value Value Economic\nRank Defendant Date Year(s) ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) Circuit Sector\n1 ENRON Corp. 22 Oct 2003- $7,242 $6,903 $73 $798 5th Industrial\n2001 2010 Services\n2 WorldCom, Inc. 30 Apr 2004- $6,196 $6,004 $103 $530 2nd Communications\n2002 2005\n3 Cendant Corp. 16Apr 2000 $3,692 $342 $467 $324 3rd Finance\n1998\n4 Tyco 23 2007 $3,200 No $225 $493 1st | Producer\nInternational, Aug codefendant Manufacturing\nLtd. 2002\n5 Petroleo 8 Dec 2018 $3,000 $0 $50 $205 2nd Energy\nBrasileiro 2014 Minerals\nS.A-Petrobras\n6 AOL Time 18 July 2006 $2,650 No $100 $151 2nd Consumer\nWarner Inc. 2002 codefendant Services\n7 Bank of 21 Jan 2013 $2,425 No No $177 2nd Finance\nAmerica Corp. 2009 codefendant codefendant\n8 Household 19 2006- $1,577 Dismissed Dismissed $427 7th Finance\nInternational, Aug 2016\nInc. 2002\n9 Valeant 22 Oct 2020 $1,210 $0 $0 $160 3rd Health\nPharmaceuticals 20415 Technology\nInternational,\nInc*\n10 Nortel 2 Mar 2006 $1,143 No $0 $94 2nd Electronic\nNetworks 2001 codefendant Technology\nTotal $32,334 $13,249 $1,017 $3,358\n\n* Denotes a partial settlement, which is included here due to its sizeable amount. Note that this case is not included in any of our\nresolution or settlement statistics.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f26\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 11 of 20\n\nNERA-DEFINED INVESTOR LOSSES\n\nTo estimate the potential aggregate loss to investors as a result of investing in the defendant\u2019s\nstock during the alleged class period, NERA has developed a proprietary variable, NERA-\nDefined Investor Losses, using publicly available data. The NERA-Defined Investor Loss\nmeasure Is constructed assuming investors had invested in stocks during the class period\nwhose performance was comparable to that of the S&P 500 Index. Over the years, NERA has\nreviewed and examined more than 2,000 settlements and found, of the variables analyzed, this\nproprietary variable to be the most powerful predictor of settlement amount.2\u00b0\n\nA statistical review reveals that although settlement values and NERA-Defined Investor Losses\nare highly correlated, the relationship is not linear. The ratio is higher for cases with lower NERA-\nDefined Investor Losses than for cases with higher Investor Losses. For instance, in cases with\nless than $20 million in Investor Losses, the median settlement value comprises 24% of Investor\nLosses, while for cases with $100 million or more in Investor Losses, the median settlement\nvalue is at or under 3.0% of Investor Losses. See Figure 23.\n\nFigure 23. Median Settlement Value as a Percentage of NERA-Defined Investor Losses\nBy Level of Investor Losses\nCases Settled January 2015-December 2024\n\n25%\n\nN\n\u00b0\nxXx\n\nBE\nui\nxs\n\nBe\n\u00b0\nXx\n\nSettlement Value as a Percentage of Investor Losses\n\nInvestor Losses ($Million)\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\n5%\n10,\n3.0% 79%\n1.6% 1.7% 1.3%\n0.4%\n\n0%\n\n9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 \u2018\n\n5V sf ss) a es i ot ft A ye\n\n< \u00a3 Sg s * s e\np - wv f se ss Fs\n\f27\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 12 of 20\n\nSince 2015, annual median Investor Losses have ranged from a low of $358 million to a high\nof $1.76 billion. For cases settled in 2024, the median Investor Losses were $1.76 billion, the\nhighest recorded value over the past 10 years. The median ratio of settlement amount to\nInvestor Losses was 1.2% in 2024, a notable decline from the 1.8% median ratio seen over\n2021-2023. See Figure 24.\n\nFigure 24, Median NERA-Defined Investor Losses and Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\nby Settlement Year\nJanuary 2015-December 2024\n\n1,800 . $1,757 . 3.0%\n1,700. @ Median Investor Losses ~-\u00ae Median Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n1,600 |\n1,500. 73% 2.4%\n1,400 |\n1,300 |\n1,200 | 2.0%\n1,100 | 17% 1.8% 1.8% 18%\n1,000 | $984\n$923\n\n900 | 16% 1.6% 15%\n800) 15% $739\n700 | $668 $705\n600 |\n500 |\n400 |\n300 |\n200 |\n\n100 |\n\nNv\nun\nx\n\n. 1.0%\n\nMedian Investor Losses ($Million)\nMedian Ratio of Settlement to Investor Losses\n\n\u00b0o\nui\n&\n\n0.0%\n\n2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024\nSettlement Year\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f28\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nDocument 145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 13 of 20\n\nNERA has identified the following key factors as driving settlement amounts:\n\ne NERA-Defined Investor Losses;\n\ne The market capitalization of the issuer immediately after the end of the class period;\n\ne The types of securities (in addition to common stock) alleged to have been affected\n\nby the fraud;\n\ne Variables that serve as a proxy for the merit of plaintiffs\u2019 allegations (e.g., whether the\ncompany has already been sanctioned by a government or regulatory agency or paid a fine in\nconnection with the allegations);\n\ne The stage of litigation at the time of settlement; and\n\nWhether an institution or public pension fund is named lead plaintiff (see Figure 25).\n\nAmong cases settled between January 2012 and December 2024, these factors in NERA\u2018s\nstatistical model can explain more than 70% of the variation observed in actual settlements.\n\nFigure 25. Predicted vs. Actual Settlements\nInvestor Losses Using S&P 500 Index\nCases Settled January 2012-December 2024\n\n$10BB -\nz \u00b0\n\u00a7 $1pB, . o 0\nwu\n= \u00b0 o%s \u00a2 \u201c\n= \u20ac e\n% $100MM. $ 4% wate ce .\n7 oe % 8 fo ge \u00b0\n< e o2\u00a2 o 2% \u00b0\n9 ~1,000\n17.7% 0.7% >500 and <1,000\n23,3% 1.3% >100 and <500\n26.9% 1.9% >25 and <100\n32.7% 2.7% >10 and <25\n33.7% 3.7% >5 and <10\n35.0% 5.0% Ener 5\n\nNote: Component values may not add to total value due to rounding.\n\ni Median Fees i Median Expenses\n\nPercentage of Settlement Value\n2015-2024\n\n|\n\nnO) 0.6% 18.6%\n\nMAS 0.6% 17.6%\n\nVay 1.2% 26.2%\n\nVeo. 1.7% 26.7%\n\nVe Boy 2.0% 29.5%\n\nKeke). 2.2% 32.2%\n\n3.0% 36.0%\n\n|\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fSa\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document145-8 Filed 09/04/25 Page 16 of 20\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFilings of federal securities class actions remained flat in 2024, with 229 suits filed. Of these,\nthere were 198 suits with Rule 10b-5-only claims, a 10-year high, while there were only 16 suits\nwith Section 11 and/or Section 12 claims, a 10-year low. After a dip in 2023, the percentage of\nfilings against companies in the technology and healthcare sectors increased to 30% and 26%,\nrespectively. The percentage of filings against foreign companies continues to decline, with only\n16.8% targeting foreign companies. While suits with Al-related allegations doubled in 2024 to 13\nfilings, there were no suits related to banking turmoil, a category that saw 11 filings in 2023.\n\nThe number of resolved cases increased by nearly 17% from 186 in 2023 to 217 in 2024, ending\na six-year decline in resolutions dating back to 2017. This increase in resolutions, consisting of\n\n93 settlements and 124 dismissals, was mostly driven by an increase in the number of dismissed\ncases. For dismissed cases, the median time to dismissal increased from 1.4 years in 2021 to 2.0\nyears in 2024, while the percentage of voluntary dismissals declined from 35% to 24% over that\nsame period. For settled cases in 2024, the average and median settlement values were $43\nmillion and $14 million, respectively, a slight decline over their 2023 inflation-adjusted values.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-8\n\nNOTES\n\n1 This edition of NERA's report on \u201cRecent Trends\nin Securities Class Action Litigation\u201d expands on\nprevious work by our colleagues Lucy P. Allen,\nDr. Vinita Juneja, Dr. Denise Neumann Martin,\nDr. Jordan Milev, Robert Patton, Dr. Stephanie\nPlancich, Janeen Mcintosh, and others. The authors\nthank Dr. David Tabak and Benjamin Seggerson\nfor helpful comments on this edition. We thank\nVlad Lee, Daniel Klotz, and other researchers from\nNERA\u2019s securities and finance capability for their\nvaluable assistance. These individuals receive credit\nfor improving this report; any errors and omissions\nare those of the authors. NERA\u2019s proprietary\nsecurities class action database and all analyses\nreflected in this report are limited to US federal\ncase filings and resolutions.\n\n2 NERAtracks securities class actions that have been\nfiled in US federal courts. Most of these cases\nallege violations of federal securities laws; others\nallege violations of common law, including breach\nof fiduciary duty, as with some merger-objection\ncases; still others are filed in federal court under\nforeign or state law. If multiple actions are filed\nagainst the same defendant, are related to the same\nallegations, and are in the same circuit, we treat\nthem as a single filing. The first two actions filed\nin different circuits are treated as separate filings.\n\nIf cases filed in different circuits are consolidated,\nwe revise our count to reflect the consolidation.\nTherefore, case counts for a particular year may\nchange over time. Different assumptions for\nconsolidating filings would probably lead to counts\nthat are similar but may, in certain circumstances,\nlead observers to draw a different conclusion about\nshort-term trends in filings. Data for this report\nwere collected from multiple sources, including\nInstitutional Shareholder Services, Dow Jones\nFactiva, Bloomberg Finance, FactSet Research\nSystems, Nasdaq, Intercontinental Exchange, US\nSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings,\ncomplaints, case dockets, and public press reports.\nIPO laddering cases are presented only in Figure 1.\n\n3 Federal securities class actions that allege\nviolations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or\nSection 12 have historically dominated federal\nsecurities class action dockets and have often\nbeen referred to as \u201cstandard\u201d cases. In the\nanalyses of this report, standard cases involve\nregistered securities and do not include cases\ninvolving crypto unregistered securities, which are\nconsidered a separate category.\n\n4 IPO figures taken from Stock Analysis, accessed\n13 January 2025, available at https://stockanalysis.\ncom/ipos/statistics/.\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\nFiled 09/04/25 Page 17 of 20\n\nIn this study, crypto cases consist of two mutually\nexclusive subgroups: (1) crypto shareholder class\nactions, which include a class of investors in\ncommon stock, American depositary receipts/\nAmerican depositary shares (ADR/ADS), and/or\nother registered securities, along with crypto- or\ndigital-currency-related allegations; and (2) crypto\nunregistered securities class actions, which do not\nhave class investors in any registered securities that\nare traded on major exchanges (New York Stock\nExchange, Nasdaq). We include crypto shareholder\nclass actions in all our analyses that include\nstandard cases. Crypto unregistered securities class\nactions are excluded from some analyses, which is\nnoted in the titles of our figures.\n\nMost securities class action complaints include\nmultiple allegations. For this analysis, all\nallegations from the complaint are included and\nthus the total number of allegations exceeds the\ntotal number of filings.\n\nHere, a company is considered a foreign\ncompany based on the location of its principal\nexecutive office.\n\nSPAC IPO figures taken from SPAC Data,\naccessed 13 January 2025, available at https://\nwww.spacdata.com.\n\nSee Figure 8 of NERA\u2019s 2024 midyear report\n\u201cRecent Trends in Securities Class Action\nLitigation: 2024 H1 Update,\u201d 6 August 2024,\navailable at https://www.nera.com/insights/\npublications/2024/recent-trends-in-securities-\nclass-action-litigation--2024-h1-upd.html.\n\nSarah Jarvis, \u201cRELX Hit with Proposed\nGreenwashing Class Action,\u201d Law360.com, 7 August\n2024, available at https://www.law360.com/\narticles/1867368/.\n\nJordan Robertson and Evan Gorelick, \u201cCrowdStrike\nand the Global IT Outage, Explained,\u201d Bloomberg,\n19 July 2024, available at https://www.\nbloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-19/\ncrowdstrike-microsoft-it-outage-what-caused-it-\nwhat-comes-next.\n\nHere \u201cdismissed\u201d is used as shorthand for all class\nactions resolved without settlement; it includes\ncases in which a motion to dismiss was granted (and\nnot appealed or appealed unsuccessfully), voluntary\ndismissals, cases terminated by a successful\n\nmotion for summary judgment, and an ultimately\nunsuccessful motion for class certification.\n\nFor our settlement analyses, NERA includes\nsettlements that have had the first settlement-\napproval hearing. We do not include partial\nsettlements or tentative settlements that have\nbeen announced by plaintiffs and/or defendants.\nAs aresult, although we include the 2020 Valeant\nPharmaceuticals partial settlement in Table 2 due\nto its size, this case is not included in any of our\nresolution, settlement, or attorney fee statistics.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\f33\n\nCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF\n\nNOTES\n\n14 While annual average settlement values can\n\n45\n\n16\n\nbe ahelpful statistic, these values may be\naffected by one or a few very high settlement\namounts. Unlike averages, the median settlement\nvalue is unaffected by these very high outlier\nsettlement amounts. To understand what more\ntypical cases look like, we analyze the average\nand median settlement values for cases with\n\na settlement amount under $1 billion, thus\nexcluding these outlier settlement amounts. For\nthe analysis of settlement values, we limit our\ndata to non-merger objection and non-crypto\nunregistered securities cases with settlements of\nmore than $0 to the class.\n\nJon Hill and Jessica Corso, \u201cWells Fargo Inks $1B\nDeal to End Investors\u2019 Compliance Suit,\u201d Law360.\ncom, 16 May 2023, available at https:/Awww.\nlaw360.com/articles/1677976/,\n\nBonnie Eslinger, \u201cUber Investors\u2019 Attys Awarded\n$58M In $200M IPO Suit Deal,\u201d Law360.com, 4\nDecember 2024, available at https:/Awww.law360.\ncom/articles/2269355.\n\nDocument 145-8\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\nFiled 09/04/25 Page 18 of 20\n\nBonnie Eslinger, \u201cGoogle Investors\u2019 Attys Snag\n$66.5M In $350M Privacy Deal,\u201d Law360.com,\ndated 30 September 20724, available at https://\nwww.law360.com/articles/1884117,\n\nHailey Konnath, \u201cUnder Armour to Pay $434M to\nEnd Securities Fraud Claims,\u201d Law360.com, dated\n21 June 2024, available at https:/Awww.law360.\ncom/articles/1850514.\n\nDorothy Atkins, \u201cApple\u2019s $490M Deal Over China\nSales OK\u2019ed, Attys Get $110M,\u201d Law360.com,\n\n19 September 20724, available at https:/Awww.\nlaw360.com/articles/1880634.\n\nNERA-Defined Investor Losses is only calculable\nfor cases involving allegations of damages to\ncommon stock based on one or more corrective\ndisclosures moving the stock price to its alleged\ntrue value. As a result, we have not calculated this\nmetric for cases such as merger objections.\n\nECONOMICS. EXPERTS. EXPERIENCE. | www.nera.com\n\fCase 1:23-cv-10645-JMF Document 145-8\n\nRELATED EXPERTS\n\nEdward Flores, MA\n\nDirector\n\nNew York City: +1 212 345 2955\nedward.flores@nera.com\n\nSvetlana Starykh, MA\n\nAssociate Director,\n\nSecurities Class Actions Database\nNew York City: +1 914 563 6761\nsvetlana.starykh@nera.com\n\nFiled 09/04/25 Page 19 of 20\n\nSLU] S S1O1N |=] =\n\nTo receive publications, news, and\ninsights from NERA, please visit\nwww.nera.com/subscribe.\n\nThe opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of NERA or any other NERA consultant.\n\nPAN 1@] 00 | Sao yAN\n\noy] aKa Loe WN] od YAW at-lou o]me)Yi(e(=1oM Bla] er-]e-]|(=)(-1e B40] (or-]p(acee)amaal=mnalescimmlanlele)an-|almanl-|a Colm\n(e=42) Melero Ma ct-40] F-1Ke)aYael Ula. 1a (e)atcwe)mag(okel-\\/@)0] m''e)e @al-ecial-]e\\ere Male lUina(oce-lalem ere) i(atg\n\nFe] qolelavemdac=m\u2019i(e)a (opm @L0) am al=) (otal (=t-10 [alsa =).40\\-1ance-] ale Ko(=(=] 0X\u00bb \u00a20\\-1a(-1a1eoe-] 10) Am Kome)ae)'i(el=\nlat=Xo gel UKcH-lar-I NA) coe ae) [FcLe) (oe =>. ole] a mm Koso) Mi nace lana] ale Rol-li- by ole) u/c) clem ole) (ava aarxe)anlanls)acer-1 ale lal\nice)amda-mW'co) (eu (-r-lel]ayca (-\\\" Mala tacce-lalemae)a olele-lalelace-smn (<1) 6-ea-t40) -1k0) eee] ale\n\njoie] gal tals) n leon \u00a9] 0] mm =,401e1 a (-)a(Kcm lal kat-4 @inVAr-|acem=reo)ace)eal(omlar: