Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 301

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. Motion set for hearing on 3/14/2016 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark C. Rifkin, # 2 Declaration of Daniel R. Roche, # 3 Declaration of James Chressanthis, # 4 Declaration of Rupa Marya, # 5 Declaration of Jennifer Nelson, # 6 Declaration of Robert Siegel, # 7 Proposed Order) (Manifold, Betsy)

1 BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
manifold@,whafh.com
2 WOLF IiALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
3 750 B Stree!; Suite 2770
San Diego, cA 92101
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
5
Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
6 and the [Proposed] Class
7 rADDITIONAL COUNSEL APPEAR
8 ON SIGNATURE PAGE]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 GOOD MORNING TO YOU
13 PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
14

Plaintiffs,

15 v.
16 WARNER/CHAPPELLMUSIC,
INC., et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
DECLARATION OF MARK C. RIFKIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
Date:
Time:
Room:
Judge:

March 14, 2016
9:30 a.m.
650
Hon. George H. King,
Chief Judge

1

I, Mark C. Rifkin deposes and states as follows:

2

1.

I am a member of the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &

3 Herz LLP, Interim Class Counsel for Plaintiffs in this Action. 1 I submit this
4 Declaration in support of Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
5 proposed Settlement of this Action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
6 herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.
7

2.

I have represented Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp.

8 ("GMTY), Robert Siegel ("Siegel"), Rupa Marya d/b/a Rupa & The April Fishes
9 ("Marya"), and Majar Productions, LLC ("Majar") in this Action. On September 6,
10 2013, the Court appointed my firm as Interim Class Counsel and we have served in
11 that capacity since then. See Dkt. No. 60.
12

3.

I have extensive experience in complex class action litigation, having

13 served as lead counsel in dozens of such matters in cases throughout the United
14 States over a period of more than 25 years. My firm has served as lead counsel in
15 complex class actions for nearly five decades. A copy of my firm's resume is
16 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

17 I.

INTRODUCTION

18

4.

The Parties have reached an agreement to settle this class action

19 against Defendants over the disputed copyright to Happy Birthday to You (the
20 "Song"), the world's most popular song. The Settlement also resolves the disputed
21 copyright claim recently asserted by the Intervenors, who recently asserted that
22 they own the Happy Birthday copyright. The Settlement includes an agreement by
23 Defendants and the Intervenors to forego collecting any more fees for use of the
24 Song. In addition, if the Settlement is approved by the Court, the Final Judgment
25
26 1 Unless otherwise defined herein, this Declaration incorporates by reference the
27 defined terms set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement dated February 5,
2016 and all such terms shall have the same meaning herein.
28

- 1-

1 and Order will declaring the Song to be in the public domain, ending more than
2 eighty years of uncertainty regarding the disputed copyright. The Settlement also
3 will provide a substantial payment by Defendants of $14 million for the Settlement
4 Class.
5

5.

The Settlement is the product of this lengthy and arduous litigation,

6 followed by extensive arm's-length negotiations between experienced and
7 knowledgeable counsel, facilitated by David A. Rotman, Esquire, a well-respected
8 and highly accomplished mediator.
9

6.

Before the Parties agreed in principle to the material terms of the

10 Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel had: (i) conducted an exhaustive
11 investigation of the Song's history, including a detailed review of records of the
12 Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, original historical source materials,
13 old court filings in multiple jurisdictions, various news reports, other publicly
14 available information, and formal discovery from Defendants and non-parties; (ii)
15 filed three original complaints and four successive amended complaints, with
16 several rounds of motion practice and extensive briefing on those pleadings; (iii)
17 defeated Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Complaint; (iv)
18 obtained partial summary judgment against Defendants declaring that they do not
19 own (and their predecessors never owned) a copyright to the Song's lyrics; (v)
20 conducted exhaustive research of the applicable law for the claims in this Action
21 and the potential defenses thereto; (vi) consulted with multiple experts; (vii)
22 reviewed damages documents and information provided informally by Defendants
23 and obtained from non-parties through discovery; (viii) fully prepared for the trial
24 of the remaining issues on Claim One; and (ix) participated in the lengthy, hard25 fought mediation and settlement negotiation process.
26

7.

Based on our thorough and well-informed evaluation of the facts and

27 govemmg legal principles, the advanced stage of the litigation, and their
28 recognition of the substantial risk and expense of continued litigation, we believe

-2-

1 the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate under Federal Rule of
2 Civil Procedure 23.

3 II.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION

4

8.

On June 13, 2013, my firm and my co-counsel, Randall S. Newman,

5 Esquire, on behalf of Plaintiffs GMTY, filed the first class action complaint against
6 Defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
7 York, alleging that Defendants did not own a copyright to the Song.
8

9.

Before filing that complaint, Mr. Newman and my firm conducted

9 exhaustive research of the historical facts surrounding the Song's creation and the
10 disputed copyright. We examined voluminous public records, we reviewed original
11 sources (such as original books and publications), and we reviewed a scholarly law
12 review article, entitled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song," written by
13 Robert Brauneis of the George Washington University Law School.
14

10.

Thereafter, my firm, together with Mr. Newman, filed a similar

15 complaint on behalf of Plaintiff Siegel in this Court on June 19, 2013.
16

11.

Two other similar complaints were filed in this Court on behalf of

17 Plaintiffs Marya and Majar on June 20, 2013, and July 17, 2013, respectively.
18

12.

On June 26, 2013, after two of the complaints were filed in this Court,

19 Plaintff GMTA voluntarily withdrew its original action in the Southern District of
20 New York without prejudice, to be re-filed in this Court.
21

13.

The actions pending in this Court were consolidated (Dkt. No. 56),

22 and on September 4, 2013, all four Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
23 Consolidated Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of all persons or entities
24 (other than Defendants' directors, officers, employees, and affiliates) who entered
25 into an agreement with Defendants or paid them for the use of the Song at any time
26 since June 18, 2009. See Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not own,
27 and that Defendants and their predecessors (collectively "Defendants") did not
28 own, a copyright to the Song, but rather owned at most a copyright limited to

-3-

1 specific piano arrangements composed by their employees-for hire, Preston Ware
2 Orem and R.R. Forman. Defendants vigorously dispute Plaintiffs' allegations.
3

14.

Throughout the litigation, Plaintiffs have sought to obtain a judicial

4 determination

that

Defendants'

copyrights

covered

only

specific

piano

5 arrangements for the Song, not the words and music themselves, and to recover
6 damages for themselves and all others who paid licensing fees to Defendants for
7 the Song under Defendants' allegedly false claim of copyright ownership.
8

15.

After the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendants'

9 motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. No. 71 ), Plaintiffs and
10 Defendants engaged in extensive written, document, and deposition discovery
11 between February and July 2014. Among other things: (i) Plaintiffs and
12 Defendants each answered numerous interrogatories and requests for admissions;
13 (ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants each produced thousands of pages of documents to
14 the other; (iii) Plaintiffs deposed Warner's designated corporate representative and
15 its Vice President of Administration; (iv) Plaintiffs produced an expert report; and
16 (v) Defendants deposed Plaintiffs' expert. Plaintiffs also subpoenaed tens of
17 thousands of pages of documents from third parties, including the Hill Foundation
18 and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("AS CAP").
19

16.

Because we could not locate any witness with relevant first-hand

20 knowledge, we also continued our exhaustive historical research. We inspected and
21 reviewed more original source materials, including the Hill sisters' manuscripts
22 and papers, documents at the U.S. Copyright Office and the Library of Congress,
23 historical court records in New York and Illinois, estate and corporate records in
24 various jurisdictions, as well as scores, manuscripts, and songbooks from a variety
25 of sources (including music college libraries and from members of the public).
26

17.

As the Court is aware, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed cross-motions

27 for summary judgment on November 26, 2014. See Dkt. No. 179. The cross28 motions were filed with an extensive factual record, comprised of more than 125

-4-

1 exhibits and more than 300 statements ofuncontroverted fact. See Dkt. Nos. 183 &
2 187. Plaintiffs and Defendants vigorously disputed many issues, including even
3 what document was the official registration under which Defendants claimed to
4 own the Happy Birthday copyright.
18.

5

The Court heard argument on the cross-motions on March 23, 2015.

6 See Dkt. No. 207. On June 15, 2015, at the Court's direction, Plaintiffs and
7 Defendants submitted a supplemental joint brief addressing whether Patty Hill had
8 abandoned the copyright to the Happy Birthday lyrics. See Dkt. Nos. 215 & 219.
9 The Court heard argument on the question of abandonment on July 29, 2015. See
10 Dkt. No. 229.
11

19.

On September 22, 2015, the Court issued its Mem. and Opinion on

12 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment granting in part and denying in part
13 Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying Defendants' cross-motion
14 for summary judgment in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 244. The Court found there was
15 no dispute that Defendants and their predecessors never owned a copyright to the
16 Song's lyrics. Id. at 43. However, the Court found a disputed question of fact
17 whether anyone else might own a copyright to the Song's lyrics. Id. at 17.
18

20.

2

The Court then held a status conference on October 19, 2015, at which

19 it scheduled a bench trial for December 15 and 16, 2015, on the disputed question
20 of fact whether anyone other than Defendants owned a copyright to the Song's
21 lyrics. See Dkt. No. 248.
22

21.

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend and file a

23 Fifth Amended Consolidated Complaint to extend the class period to September 3,
24 1949, the latest date on which the copyright to Good Morning to All in 1893, the
25
26

2

On October 15, 2015, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the Court's
summary judgment order or for certification of that order for interlocutory appeal
27
under 8 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dkt. No. 247.
28

-5-

1 musical composition from which Happy Birthday was derived, expired. Plaintiffs
2 proposed to add allegations that the statute of limitations on their claims was
3 equitably tolled under the delayed discovery rule and because Defendants
4 concealed material facts regarding the scope of the copyright they owned. See Dkt.
5 Nos. 258 & 259.
6

22.

On November 9, 2015, the Intervenors moved to intervene, which

7 Plaintiffs and Defendants did not oppose. See Dkt. No. 266. The Intervenors
8 claimed to own a copyright to the Song through a series of testamentary transfers
9 from Mildred Hill and Patty Hill, who wrote Good Morning to All.
10

23.

On December 7, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave

11 to amend, holding that the question whether they adequately alleged equitable
12 tolling or fraudulent concealment was better resolved by motion to dismiss. See
13 Dkt. No. 289. The Court also granted The Court granted the Intervenors'
14 unopposed motion on that same day, but did not decide whether they owned any
15 copyright to the Song. See Dkt. No. 288.
16

24.

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended

17 Consolidated Complaint, asserting the same seven claims set forth above on behalf
18 of a class of persons or entities (other than Defendants' directors, officers,
19 employees, and affiliates) who entered into a license with Defendants or their
20 predecessors-in-interest or paid Defendants or their predecessors-in-interest for use
21 of the Song at any time since September 3, 1949. See Dkt. No. 291.
22

25.

In late November and early December 2015, the Parties worked

23 cooperatively in preparation of their Joint Exhibit List and to complete preparation
24 for the bench trial scheduled for December 15 and 16, 2015. Those trial
25 preparations were substantially completed on December 8, 2015, on which date the
26 Parties contacted the Court and advised the Court that a settlement in principal had
27 been reached between the Parties.

On the same date, the Court issued a Minute

28 Order which then relieved the Parties of their immediate obligation to file the joint

-6-

1 trial materials and took the bench trial off calendar pending the Parties filing of a
2 joint status report. See Dkt. No. 290.
3

26.

On December 18, 2015, the Parties filed a joint status report

4 suggesting a proposed schedule and steps for implementing the Settlement. See
5 Dkt. 294. On December 22, 2015, the Court stayed this action until February 1,
6 2016 to allow the parties to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval on before
7 January 29, 2016. See Dkt. No. 295. This filing date was extended to February 5,
8 2016 by the Court (and the stay was extended to February 8, 2016) in response to a
9 Joint Stipulation filed by the Parties on January 29, 2016. See Dkt. Nos. 298 &
10 299.
11 III.

MEDIATION EFFORTS

12

27.

During the status conference on October 19, 2015, the Court directed

13 counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants to pursue mediation. See Dkt. No. 248. Mr.
14 Newman and I met in person with Glenn Pomerantz, Esquire, one of Defendants'
15 counsel, on October 29, 2015, to discuss mediation. Mr. Pomerantz and I then
16 spoke by telephone and exchanged email, ultimately agreeing to retain Mr. Rotman
17 to assist us as a settlement mediator. See Dkt. No. 250. We reported that to the
18 Court on November 13, 2015. See Dkt. No. 276.
19

28.

On December 1, 2015, counsel for the Parties attended an in-person

20 mediation with Mr. Rotman in San Francisco. Representatives of Defendants and
21 their insurer and the Intervenors also attended the mediation. The mediation began
22 early in the morning and lasted late into the evening. Substantial progress was
23 made during the mediation session, but no settlement was reached at that time.
24

29.

After the in-person mediation session, Mr. Rotman engaged in a series

25 of telephone discussions with counsel for the various Parties, and counsel for the
26 Parties also communicated directly with each other by telephone over the ensuing
27 few days. As a result of those additional communications, on December 6, 2015,
28 after a series of telephone and email communications with counsel for the parties

-7-

1 following the in-person mediation on December 1, 2015, Mr. Rotman made a
2 confidential mediator's proposal to counsel for the Parties of the material terms on
3 which to settle the Action.
4

30.

On December 8, 2015, after the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for

5 leave to amend and granted the Intervenors' motion for leave to intervene, and
6 after the Parties had substantially completed their preparation for the bench trial on
7 the remaining factual issues on Claim One, counsel for all the Parties advised Mr.
8 Rotman that their clients had accepted the terms of the mediator's proposal.
9 Counsel for the Parties promptly notified the Court of the settlement in principle
10 and began the process of preparing and executing the Settlement Agreement. See
11 Dkt. No. 290. During the process of negotiating the Settlement Agreement,
12 substantial disputes arose among the Parties which required Mr. Rotman's
13 ongoing, active participation to resolve. All Parties executed the Settlement
14 Agreement on February 5, 2016, and Plaintiffs promptly filed this motion for
15 preliminary approval of the Settlement.
16

31.

Defendants informally provided information to us, which we

17 confirmed through their own investigation and analysis, that Period One Class
18 Members paid approximately $11 million and Period Two Class Members paid
19 approximately $3 5-$40 million for use of the Song.
20 IV.

REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

21

32.

Plaintiffs agreed to this Settlement with a solid understanding of the

22 strengths and weaknesses of their claims. This understanding is based upon our
23 meticulous preparation of the case, including our exhaustive investigation of the
24 Song's history, including a detailed review of records of the Copyright Office and
25 the Library of Congress, original historical source materials, old court filings in
26 multiple jurisdictions, various news reports and other publicly available
27 information, and formal and informal discovery from Defendants and non-parties.
28 Plaintiffs' understanding also is informed by the Court's decision granting partial

-8-

1 summary judgment in their favor against Defendants, declaring that Defendants do
2 not own (and their predecessors never owned) a copyright to the Song's lyrics as
3 well as the Court's finding of a factual dispute whether anyone else (such as the
4 Intervenors) might own a copyright to the Song's lyrics. Plaintiffs also considered
5 the substantial risk the Court might not toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs
6 were aware of their counsel's preparations for trial, and were advised by their
7 counsel of the risk of continued litigation, including the risk posed by the
8 Intervenors' recent claim, and the risk, expense, and unavoidable delay of an
9 appeal or appeals.
10

33.

Based upon our careful review of all these factors, as well as the

11 substantial expense and length of time necessary to prosecute this Action through
12 the completion of merits and expert discovery, trial, and appeals, and the
13 considerable uncertainties in predicting the outcome of any complex litigation, we
14 concluded that substantial risk exists that the Song might not be declared in the
15 public domain and the Settlement Class might recover far less than the Settlement
16 provides or nothing at all if the Action were to continue. Mr. Rotman also
17 recommended and has endorsed the Settlement and, indeed, the Settlement is the
18 result of and embodies his mediator's proposal, made only after extensive arm's
19 length negotiations.
20

34.

Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class

21 throughout the litigation. Given the progress of the litigation thus far, there can be
22 no dispute that the work we have done in this Action has been of exceptionally
23 high quality. In addition, we have demonstrated that we have more than sufficient
24 resources to prosecute the litigation.
25

35.

My firm in particular, which the Court appointed as Interim Class

26 Counsel, has extensive experience in complex class action litigation. I have served
27 as lead or co-lead in many complex class actions in securities, antitrust, consumer,
28 and intellectual property cases. A firm resume describing my firm's qualifications

-9-

1 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2

36.

We are not aware of any other action by anyone challenging the scope

3 of the Happy Birthday copyright or the validity of Defendants' copyright claim.
4

37.

Class Counsel will seek a fee of 33% of the Settlement Amount of

5 $14 million, or $4.62 million, which request is subject to the Court's plenary
6 review at the final approval stage. The fee request equals just 16% of the present
7 value of the real cash relief - the $14 million Settlement Amount plus an additional
8 amount of approximately $14 million in future revenue that Defendants and
9 Intervenors agree to forego.
10

38.

The fee we intend to request is less than the actual value of the work

11 we performed. Plaintiffs Counsel collectively expended thousands of hours
12 litigating the Action, with a total lodestar of more than $5 million, with no
13 certainty of any payment at all. Thus, we will seek a negative multiplier on the
14 time we spent litigating the Action.
15

39.

With our fee petition, to be filed together with the papers seeking final

16 approval of the Settlement, we will furnish a detailed breakdown of our hours
17 worked and lodestar expended as a cross-check on the reasonableness of their fee
18 request. In addition, Defendants have reserved the right to oppose our fee request,
19 insuring that the Court will have sufficient opportunity to determine the
20 reasonableness of the fees to be awarded.
21

40.

In light of the excellent results achieved here, the work we performed,

22 and the quality of our work - which has been of the highest caliber - as well as the
23 risk of litigation and the contingent nature of our fee and the financial burden
24 carried we have carried, this request is well within the range of reasonableness.
25

41.

Plaintiffs' Counsel also will request reimbursement of out-of-pocket

26 expenses incurred to prosecute the case of not more than $400,000. That amount is
27 less than 10 percent of our lodestar, and is certainly within the range of reasonable
28 expenses in a case of this magnitude, importance, and complexity. We will an

- 10 -

1 itemization of the expenses we incurred and any additional detailed information the
2 Court may request in connection with the fee application.
3

42.

To my knowledge, no Settlement Class Member has expressed any

4 disagreement to the terms of the settlement.
5

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

6 America that the above is true and correct and was executed in New York, New
7 York on this 5th day of February 2016.
8
9 DATED: February 5, 2016
10

~~~---

....

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

- 11 -

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A
Page 12

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

firm resume

EXHIBIT A
Page 13

Founded in 1888, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a full service law
firm specializing in complex litigation in federal and state courts nationwide. The firm
practice groups include: securities litigation, commercial litigation, general litigation,
ERISA, antitrust, wage & hour, REIT & partnerships, consumer fraud, false marketing,
whistleblower, false claims, trusts & estates, white collar and FINRA arbitration. The
Firm has a particular specialty in complex class action litigation – including
shareholder, antitrust, ERISA, consumer, and biotechnology matters – under both
federal and state law.
Wolf Haldenstein’s total practice approach distinguishes it from other firms. Our
longstanding tradition of a close attorney/client relationship ensures that each one of
our clients receives prompt, individual attention and does not become lost in an
institutional bureaucracy. Our team approach is at the very heart of Wolf Haldenstein’s
practice. All of our lawyers are readily available to all of our clients and to each other.
The result of this approach is that we provide our clients with an efficient legal team
having the broad perspective, expertise and experience required for any matter at hand.
We are thus able to provide our clients with cost effective and thorough counsel focused
on our clients’ overall goals.

270 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: 212-545-4653
www.whafh.com

SYMPHONY TOWERS
750 B STREET, SUITE 2770
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: 619-234-4599

ONE DEARBORN STREET
SUITE 2122
CHICAGO, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: 312-212-4401

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 2

EXHIBIT A
Page 14

THE FIRM
Wolf Haldenstein has been recognized by state and federal courts throughout the
country as being highly experienced in complex litigation, particularly with respect to
securities, consumer, ERISA, FLSA and state overtime and expense deductions, and
antitrust class actions and shareholder rights litigation.
Among its colleagues in the plaintiffs’ bar, as well as among its adversaries in the
defense bar, Wolf Haldenstein is known for the high ability of its attorneys, and the
exceptionally high quality of its written and oral advocacy on behalf of class action
clients.
The nature of the Firm’s activities in both individual and representative litigation is
extremely broad. In addition to a large case load of securities fraud and other investor
class actions, Wolf Haldenstein has represented classes of corn and rice farmers in
connection with the devaluation of their crops; contact lens purchasers for contact lens
manufacturers’ violations of the antitrust laws; merchants compelled to accept certain
types of debit cards; insurance policyholders for insurance companies’ deceptive sales
practices; victims of unlawful strip searches under the civil rights laws; and various
cases involving violations of Internet users’ on-line privacy rights.
The Firm’s experience in class action securities litigation, in particular public
shareholder rights under state law and securities fraud claims arising under the federal
securities laws and regulations, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (“PSLRA”), is particularly extensive. The Firm was one of the lead or other
primary counsel in securities class action cases that have recouped billions of dollars on
behalf of investor classes, in stockholder rights class actions that have resulted in
billions of dollars in increased merger consideration to shareholder classes, and in
derivative litigation that has recovered billions of dollars for corporations.
Its pioneering efforts in difficult or unusual areas of securities or investor protection
laws include: groundbreaking claims that have been successfully brought under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 regarding fiduciary responsibilities of investment
companies and their advisors toward their shareholders; claims under ERISA involving
fiduciary duties of ERISA trustees who are also insiders in possession of adverse
information regarding their fund’s primary stockholdings; the fiduciary duties of the
directors of Delaware corporations in connection with change of control transactions;
the early application of the fraud-on-the-market theory to claims against public

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 3

EXHIBIT A
Page 15

accounting firms in connection with their audits of publicly traded corporations; and
the application of federal securities class certification standards to state law claims often
thought to be beyond the reach of class action treatment.
Judicial Commendations
Wolf Haldenstein has repeatedly received favorable judicial recognition. The following
representative judicial comments over the past decade indicate the high regard in which
the Firm is held:


In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., No. 650607/2012 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Co.) – On May 2, 2013, Justice O. Peter Sherwood praised the Firm in its
role as chair of the committee of co-lead counsel as follows: "It is apparent to
me, having presided over this case, that class counsel has performed in an
excellent manner, and you have represented your clients quite well. You
should be complimented for that."
In awarding attorneys' fees, the
Court stated that the fee was "intended to reward class counsel handsomely
for the very good result achieved for the Class, assumption of the high risk of
Plaintiffs prevailing and the efficiency of effort that resulted in the settlement
of the case at an early stage without protracted motion practice." May 17, 2013
slip. op. at 5 (citations omitted).



Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) – On April 9, 2013, Justice
Richard B. Lowe III praised the Firm’s efforts as follows: “[W]hen you have
challenging cases, the one thing you like to ask for is that the legal
representation on both sides rise to that level. Because when you have lawyers
who are professionals, who are confident, who are experienced, each of you
know that each side has a job to do [. . . .] I want to tell you that I am very
satisfied with your performance and with your, quite frankly, tenacity on both
sides. And it took six years, but look at the history of the litigation. There were
two appeals all of the way to the Court of Appeals [. . . .] And then look at the
results. I mean, there are dissents in the Court of Appeals, so that shows you
the complexity of the issues that were presented in this litigation [. . . .] [I]t
shows you effort that went into this and the professionalism that was
exhibited [. . . .] So let me just again express my appreciation to both sides.”



K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555 (E.D. Mich.) –
where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Rosen, at the June 7, 2010 final
approval hearing, praised the Firm for doing “an outstanding job of

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 4

EXHIBIT A
Page 16

representing [its] clients,” and further commented that “the conduct of all
counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties
confirms that they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.”


Klein, et al. v. Ryan Beck Holdings, Inc., et al., 06-cv-3460 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.) –
where the Firm was Lead Counsel, Judge Deborah A. Batts described the
Firm’s successful establishment of a settlement fund as follows: “[a] miracle
that there is a settlement fund at all.” Judge Batts continued: "As I said earlier,
there is no question that the litigation is complex and of a large and, if you
will, pioneering magnitude ..." (Emphasis added).



Parker Friedland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.) – where
the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Laughrey said (on October 16, 2008), “[a]ll
of the attorneys in this case have done an outstanding job, and I really
appreciate the quality of work that we had in our chambers as a result of this
case.”



In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL-02-1486 (N.D.
Cal.) – where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Hamilton said (on August
15, 2007), “I think I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all,
watching this litigation progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the
results are exceptional. The percentages, as you have outlined them, do put
this [case] in one of the upper categories of results of this kind of [antitrust]
class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I thought that you all did an
exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters that really
required the Court’s attention. You did an exceptionally good job at
organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case.
There was excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs’
counsel with your group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . .
. So my conclusion is the case was well litigated by both sides, well managed
as well by both sides.”



In re Comdisco Sec. Litigation, 01 C 2110 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2005) – Judge Milton
Shadur observed: “It has to be said . . . that the efforts that have been extended
[by Wolf Haldenstein] on behalf of the plaintiff class in the face of these
obstacles have been exemplary. And in my view [Wolf Haldenstein] reflected
the kind of professionalism that the critics of class actions . . . are never willing
to recognize. . . . I really cannot speak too highly of the services rendered by
class counsel in an extraordinary difficult situation.”

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 5

EXHIBIT A
Page 17



In re MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896, 903 (E.D. Va. 2001)
– where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Ellis commented: “Clearly, the
conduct of all counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of
the parties confirms that they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.”
Recent Noteworthy Results

Wolf Haldenstein’s performance in representative litigation has repeatedly resulted in
favorable results for its clients. The Firm has helped recover almost seven billion
dollars on behalf of its clients in the cases listed below. Recent examples include the
following:


In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, MDL 1811 (E.D. Mo.) - Wolf
Haldenstein represented U.S. rice farmers in this landmark action against Bayer
A.G. and its global affiliates, achieving a global recovery of $750 million. The
case arose from the contamination of the nation's long grain rice crop by
Bayer's experimental and unapproved genetically modified Liberty Link rice.



Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) - a class action brought on
behalf of over 27,500 current and former tenants of New York City's iconic
Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village housing complexes. On April 9,
2013, Justice Richard B. Lowe III of the New York Supreme Court finally
approved settlement of the action, which totals over $173 million, sets aside
$68.75 million in damages, re-regulates the apartments at issue, and sets
preferential rents for the units that will save tenants significant monies in the
future. The settlement also enables the tenants to retain an estimated $105
million in rent savings they enjoyed between 2009 and 2012. The settlement is
by many magnitudes the largest tenant settlement in United States history.



In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litig., Index No. 650607/2012 – The
firm served as Chair of the Executive Committee of Co-Lead Counsel for the
Plaintiffs in a class action settlement finally approved on May 2, 2013 that
provides for the establishment of a $55 million settlement fund for investors, in
addition to substantial tax deferral benefits estimated to be in excess of $100
million.



American International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.
769-VCS (Del. Ch.) The Firm acted as co-lead counsel and the settlement
addressed claims alleging that the D&O Defendants breached their fiduciary

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 6

EXHIBIT A
Page 18

duties to the Company and otherwise committed wrongdoing to the detriment
of AIG in connection with various allegedly fraudulent schemes during the
1999-2005 time period.


In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, Master File No. 09 MD 2058 (S.D.N.Y.) (firm was
co-lead counsel in parallel derivative action pending in Delaware (In Re Bank of
America Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 4307-CS (Del. Ch.)) (increase
of settlement cash recovery from $20 million to $62.5 million).



The Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Service Transit Operating
Authority Pension Plan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:09-cv-04408-SAS
(S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $150 million).



In re Tremont Sec. Law, State Law and Insurance Litig., No. 08-civ-11117 (TPG)
(SDNY) (class recovered $100 million). The firm was court-appointed co-lead
counsel in the Insurance Action, 08 Civ. 557, and represented a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Variable Universal Life (“VUL”)
insurance policies or Deferred Variable Annuity (“DVA”) policies issued by
Tremont International Insurance Limited or Argus International Life Bermuda
Limited from May 10, 1994 - December 11, 2008 to the extent the investment
accounts of those policies were exposed to the massive Ponzi scheme
orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff through one or more Rye funds.



In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $586 million). Wolf Haldenstein served as Co-Lead Counsel of one
of the largest securities fraud cases in history. Despite the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision to vacate the district court’s class
certification decision, on remand, counsel for plaintiffs were able to press on to
a settlement on April 1, 2009, ultimately recovering in excess of a half-billion
dollars.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 7

EXHIBIT A
Page 19

FIRM PRACTICE AREAS
Class Action Litigation
Wolf Haldenstein is a leader in the class and derivative action litigation field and is
currently or has been the court-appointed lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or executive
committee member in some of the largest and most significant class action and
derivative action lawsuits in the United States. For example, the class action Roberts v.
Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009) was recently described by a sitting member of
the U.S. House of Representatives as the greatest legal victory for tenants in her lifetime.
In Roberts, the Firm obtained a victory in the New York Court of Appeals requiring the
reregulation of thousands of apartment units in the Stuyvesant Town complex in
Manhattan, New York. Many of the firm’s other successful results are summarized
within.
Private Actions for Institutional Investors
In addition to its vast class action practice, the Firm also regularly represents
institutional clients such as public funds, investment funds, limited partnerships, and
qualified institutional buyers in private actions. The Firm has represented institutional
clients in non-class federal and state actions concerning a variety of matters, including
private placements, disputes with investment advisors, and disputes with corporate
management.
The Firm has also acted as special counsel to investors’ committees in efforts to assert
and advance the investors’ interests without resorting to litigation. For example, the
Firm served as Counsel to the Courtyard by Marriott Limited Partners Committee for
several years in its dealings with Host Marriott Corporation, and as Special Counsel to
the Windsor Park Properties 7 and 8 limited partners to insure the fairness of their
liquidation transactions.
Antitrust Litigation
Wolf Haldenstein is a leader in the field of antitrust and competition litigation. The
Firm actively seeks to enforce the federal and state antitrust laws to protect and
strengthen the rights and claims of businesses, organizations, Taft-Hartley funds, and
consumers throughout the United States. To that end, Wolf Haldenstein commences
large, often complex, antitrust and trade regulation class actions and other cases that
target some of the most powerful and well-funded corporate interests in the world.
Many of these interests exert strong influence over enforcement policy that is in the

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 8

EXHIBIT A
Page 20

hands of elected officials, so that private enforcement provides the only true assurance
that unfair and anticompetitive conduct will be duly scrutinized for compliance with
the law. These cases frequently bring to light concealed, unlawful behavior such as
price fixing, monopolization, market allocation, monopoly leveraging, essential
facilities, tying arrangements, vertical restraints, exclusive dealing, and refusals to deal.
Wolf Haldenstein’s Antitrust Practice Group has successfully prosecuted numerous
antitrust cases and aggressively advocates remedies and restitution for businesses and
investors wronged by violations of the antitrust laws. For example, in In re DRAM
Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) the firm successfully prosecuted an
antitrust case resulting in a $315 million recovery. Many of the firm’s successful results
are summarized within.
Wolf Haldenstein attorneys currently serve as lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or as
executive committee members in some of the largest and most significant antitrust class
action lawsuits.
Biotechnology and Agricultural Litigation
Wolf Haldenstein is a leader in biotechnology and agricultural litigation. The firm has
represented U.S. row crop farmers and others harmed by crop supply contamination,
price fixing of genetically-modified crop seeds, and false claims and representations
relating to purportedly “organic” products. The firm has prosecuted actions in these
fields against domestic and international biotechnology and crop science companies
under the federal and state antitrust laws, consumer protection and deceptive trade
practice statues, and the common law. As a leader in this field, Wolf Haldenstein
pioneered approaches now commonly used in these types of cases, including the use of
futures-based efficient market analyses to fashion damages models relating to the
underlying commodity crops. The firm has served or is currently serving as lead or colead counsel in some of the most significant biotechnology and agricultural class actions
pending or litigated in the United States. For example, in In re Genetically Modified Rice
Litigation, MDL 1811 (E.D. Mo.) the firm prosecuted a multidistrict product liability
litigation brought on behalf of United States long-grain rice farmers that ultimately
settled in July 2011 for $750 million. Many of the firm’s other successful results are
summarized within.
Overtime and Compensation Class Actions
Wolf Haldenstein is a leader in the field of class action litigation on behalf of employees
who have not been paid overtime or other compensation they are entitled to receive, or

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 9

EXHIBIT A
Page 21

have had improper deductions taken from their compensation. These claims for
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws allege improper
failure to pay overtime and other wages, and improper deductions from compensation
for various company expenses. Wolf Haldenstein has served as lead or co-lead counsel,
or other similar lead role, in some of the most significant overtime class actions pending
in the United States, and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in recovered
wages for its clients. For example, in LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C
07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.)) the firm secured a $108 million settlement. Many of the firm’s
other successful results in this field are summarized within.
Other Substantial Recoveries In Class Action And Derivative Cases in
Which Wolf Haldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another
Significant Role


In re Beacon Associates Litigation, Master File No. 09 Civ. 0777 (LBS) (S.D.N.Y.)
($219 million settlement in this and related action).



Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, No. 100956/2007 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.) ($173 Million
settlement).



In re Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.) (derivative
counsel in consolidated cases against numerous mutual fund companies
involved in market timing resulting in class/derivative settlements totaling
more than $300 million).



Inland Western Securities Litigation, Case No. 07 C 6174 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement
value of shares valued between $61.5 million and $90 million).



In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust, No. 09-Civ-8011 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $8 million).



In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1264 (JFN) (E.D.
Mo.) (class recovered $490 million).



In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, (MD-02 1486 (N.D.
Cal.) (class recovered $325 million).



In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (class
recovered $160 million in cash and securities).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 10

EXHIBIT A
Page 22



Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373, 94 Civ. 2546 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities
fraud) (class recovered $116.5 million in cash).



In re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $110
million).



In Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Sec. Litigation, 2:02-CV-1226 (E.D.N.Y.)
($130 million settlement in this and two related actions).



In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 02-12338 (MEL) (D. Mass.)
(classes recovered $52.5 million).



In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ
(D. Mass) (class recovered $50 million).



In re Iridium Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 99-1002 (D.D.C.) (class recovered $43
million).



In re J.P. Morgan Chase Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1783 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement
providing for adoption of corporate governance principles relating to potential
corporate transactions requiring shareholder approval).



LaVoice v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. C 07-801 (CW) (N.D. Cal.))
($108 million settlement).



Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Case No. 06-cv-2628 (BEN) (S.D. Cal.)
($50 million settlement).



Poole v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Case No. CV-06-1657 (D. Or.)
($43.5 million settlement).



In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 07-1807 DOC
(C.D. Cal.) ($39 million settlement).



In re Wachovia Securities, LLC Wage and Hour Litigation (Prudential), MDL No.
07-1807 DOC (C.D. Cal.) ($11 million settlement).



Basile v. A.G. Edwards, Inc., 08-CV-00338-JAH-RBB (S.D. Cal.) ($12 million
settlement).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 11

EXHIBIT A
Page 23



Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe’s Home Center, Inc. et al. – Case No. GIC 841120
(Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) (co-lead, $1.65 million settlement w/
average class member recovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded
separately).



Neil Weinstein, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. – Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D.Cal)
(co-lead, $7.4 million settlement).



Creighton v. Oppenheimer, Index No. 1:06 - cv - 04607 - BSJ - DCF (S.D.N.Y.)
($2.3 million settlement).



Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-CV-3460 (DAB)(S.D.N.Y.) ($1.3 million settlement).



In re American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated
C.A. No. 1823-N (Del. Ch. Ct.) ($14.3 million settlement).



Egleston v. Collins and Aikman Corp., 06-cv-13555 (E.D. Mich.) (class recovered
$12 million).



In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund Securities Litigation, 02 CV
7854 (JFK) (SDNY); and In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund
Securities Litigation, 02 CV 10221 (JFK) (SDNY) (class recovered $39 million in
combined cases).



In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 6:04-cv-1231 (Orl-31)
(class recovered $35 million, and lawsuit also instrumental in $225 million
benefit to corporation).



In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
06-CV-4130-DGT-AKT ($34.4 million recovery).



In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Stock Option Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
06cv4622 (S.D.N.Y.) ($32 million recovery and corporate governance reforms).



Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Docket No. 98-1148 (S.D. Tex.) (class
recovered $29 million).



In re Arakis Energy Corporation Securities Litigation, 95 CV 3431 (E.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $24 million).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 12

EXHIBIT A
Page 24



In re E.W. Blanche Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-258 (D. Minn.)
(class recovered $20 million).



In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $20 million).



In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation, No. CV 01-3285 (E.D.N.Y) (class
recovered $18.25 million).



In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, CV-00-2018 (C.D. Cal.) (class
recovered $13.75 million).



In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110 (MIS) (N.D. Ill.) (class
recovered $13.75 million).



In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-CV-1270
(E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13.65 million).



In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2097 (MA) (W.D. Tenn) (class
recovered $13.25 million).



In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6190 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.)
(class recovered $12.5 million).



In re Allaire Corp. Securities Litigation, 00-11972 (D. Mass.) (class recovered $12
million).



Bamboo Partners LLC v. Robert Mondavi Corp., No. 26-27170 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (class
recovered $10.8 million).



Curative Health Services Securities Litigation, 99-2074 (E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered
$10.5 million).



City Partnership Co. v. Jones Intercable, 99 WM-1051 (D. Colo.) (class recovered
$10.5 million).



In re Aquila, Inc., (ERISA Litigation), 04-865 (W.D. Mo.) ($10.5 million recovery
for the class).



In re Tenfold Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:00-CV-652 (D. Utah) (class
recovered $5.9 million).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 13

EXHIBIT A
Page 25



In re Industrial Gas Antitrust Litigation, 80 C 3479 and related cases (N.D. Ill.)
(class recovered $50 million).



In re Chor-Alkalai and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, 86-5428 and related cases
(E.D. Pa.) (class recovered $55 million).



In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.) (class
recovered $126 million).



In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:94-cv-00897,
M.D.L. 997 (N.D. Ill.) (class recovered $715 million).



Landon v. Freel, M.D.L. No. 592 (S.D. Tex.) (class recovered $12 million).



Holloway v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., No. 84 C 814 EU (N.D. Okla.) (class
recovered $38 million).



In re The Chubb Corp. Drought Insurance Litigation, C-1-88-644 (S.D. Ohio)
(class recovered $100 million).



Wong v. Megafoods, Civ-94-1702 (D. Ariz.) (securities fraud) (class recovered
$12.25 million).



In re Del Val Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4854 (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $11.5 million).



In re Home Shopping Network Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action
No. 12868, (Del. Ch. 1995) (class recovered $13 million).



In re Paine Webber Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 Civ 8547 (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $200 million).



In re Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, 92 Civ 4007 (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $19 million).



In re Spectrum Information Technologies Securities Litigation, CV 93-2245
(E.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $13 million).



In re Chase Manhattan Securities Litigation, 90 Civ. 6092 (LJF) (S.D.N.Y.) (class
recovered $17.5 million).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 14

EXHIBIT A
Page 26



Prostic v. Xerox Corp., No. B-90-113 (EBB) (D. Conn.) (class recovered $9
million).



Steiner v. Hercules, Civil Action No. 90-442-RRM (D. Del.) (class recovered $18
million).



In re Ambase Securities Litigation, 90 Civ 2011 (S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $14.6
million).



In re Southmark Securities Litigation, CA No. 3-89-1402-D (N.D. Tex.) (class
recovered $70 million).



Steiner v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., No. 86-M 456 (D. Colo. 1989) (securities
fraud) (class recovered $18 million).



Tucson Electric Power Derivative Litigation, 2:89 Civ. 01274 TUC. ACM
(corporation recovered $30 million).



Alleco Stockholders Litigation, (Md. Cir. Ct. Pr. Georges County) (class recovered
$16 million).



In re Revlon Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. 8362 (Del. Ch.) (class
recovered $30 million).



In re Taft Broadcasting Company Shareholders Litigation, No. 8897 (Del. Ch.) (class
recovered $20 million).



In re Southland Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 87-8834-K (N.D.Tex.) (class
recovered $20 million).



In re Crocker Bank Securities Litigation, CA No. 7405 (Del. Ch.) (class recovered
$30 million).



In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, No. 82 Civ. 8288 (JFK)
(S.D.N.Y.) (class recovered $17.5 million).



Joseph v. Shell Oil, CA No. 7450 (Del. Ch.) (securities fraud) (class recovered
$200 million).



In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 4-82-874,
MDL No. 517 (D. Minn.) (class recovered $50 million).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 15

EXHIBIT A
Page 27



In re Whittaker Corporation Securities Litigation, CA000817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles County) (class recovered $18 million).



Naevus International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 602191/99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
(consumer fraud) (class recovered $40 million).



Sewell v. Sprint PCS Limited Partnership, C.A. No. 97-188027/CC 3879 (Cir. Ct.
for Baltimore City) (consumer fraud) (class recovered $45.2 million).



In re Vytorin/Zetia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2:08cv-285 (D.N.J.) (class recovered $41.5 million).



Egleston v. Verizon, No. 104784/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – Wolf Haldenstein
represented a class of New York Verizon Centrex customers in an action
against Verizon stemming from overbilling of certain charges. The Firm
secured a settlement with a total value to the Class of over $5 million, which
provided, among other things, each class member with full refunds of certain
disputed charges, plus interest.



Zelouf Int’l Corp. v. Nahal Zelouf, Index No. 653652/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.
2015). In an important decision following an appraisal proceeding triggered
by the freeze-out merger of a closely-held corporation, which also included
shareholder derivative claims, Justice Kornreich of the New York Supreme
Court refused to apply a discount for lack of marketability to the minority
shareholder’s interest in the former corporation and found that the insiders
stole more than $14 million dollars from the company.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 16

EXHIBIT A
Page 28

Representative Reported Opinions Since 1990 in Which Wolf
Haldenstein Was Lead Counsel or Had Another Significant Role
Federal Appellate and District Court Opinions


DeFrees v. Kirkland, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52780 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012).



In re Beacon Associates Litigation., 745 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re
Beacon Associates Litig., 282 F.R.D. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)



Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, No. 10-2514 (7th
Cir. Jan. 13, 2012).



In re Text Message Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d, 622 (7th Cir. 2010).



In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98270 (N.D. Cal. July
8, 2010).



Freeland v. Iridium World Communications Ltd., 545 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).



In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litig., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008).



Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2007).



In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, No. 06 C 4674, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 93877 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2007).



Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 2007 WL 2768383 (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 20, 2007).



Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund, 99 Civ. 4174 (LMM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61454
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007).



Klein v. Ryan Beck, 06-Civ. 3460 (WCC), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51465 (S.D.N.Y.
July 13, 2007).



Cannon v. MBNA Corp. No. 05-429 GMS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48901 (D. Del.
2007).



In re Aquila ERISA Litig., 237 F.R.D. 202 (W.D. Mo. 2006).



Smith v. Aon Corp., 238 F.R.D. 609 (N.D. Ill. 2006).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 17

EXHIBIT A
Page 29



In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 52 (D. Mass. 2005).



In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 03-10165, 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 29656 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2005).



In re Luxottica Group, S.p.A. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9071
(E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2005).



In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38876,
No. 6:04-cv-1231-Orl-31KRS (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2005).



Johnson v. Aegon USA, Inc., 1:01-CV-2617 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2004).



Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2004).



In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, 03-CV-1270 (E.D.N.Y. June
22, 2004).



In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, 308 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2004).



In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-2697 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 7,
2004).



In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (1st Cir. May 9,
2003).



In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 02-Civ. 10288 (SWK)
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003).



In re PerkinElmer, Inc. Securities Litigation, 286 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 2003).



In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y.
2003).



In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01 C 2110, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5047
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003).



Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475 (2001), clarified, 279 F.3d 313 (5th
Cir. 2002).



City Partnership Co. v. Cable TV Fund 14-B, 213 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2002).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 18

EXHIBIT A
Page 30



In re Allaire Corporation Securities Litigation, Docket No. 00-11972 - WGY, 2002
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18143 (D. Mass., Sept. 27, 2002).



In re StarLink Corn Products Liability Litigation, 212 F.Supp.2d 828 (N.D. Ill.
2002).



In re Bankamerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 263 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2001).



In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, 166 F.Supp.2d 1260 (N.D. Ill. 2001).



In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457
JN, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14780 (W.D. Tx. Aug. 15, 2001).



In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Va. 2001).



Lindelow v. Hill, No. 00 C 3727, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10301 (N.D. Ill. July 19,
2001).



In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 148 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. Va. 2001).



Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the
Electrical Industry, 172 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).



Carney v. Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass.
2001).



Weltz v. Lee, 199 F.R.D. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).



Schoers v. Pfizer, Inc., 00 Civ. 6121, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 511 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,
2001).



Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2001).



Goldberger v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 98 Civ. 8677 (JSM), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18714
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2000).



In re Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 99 C 6853, 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 15190 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2000).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 19

EXHIBIT A
Page 31



Stanley v. Safeskin Corp., Case No. 99 CV 454 BTM (LSP), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14100, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 221 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2000).



In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 115 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Va. 2000).



In re USA Talks.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14823, Fed.
Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 231 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2000).



In re Sotheby’s Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, 00 CIV. 1041 (DLC), 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 12504, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 059 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000).



Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10906 (E.D. La. July 21, 2000).



Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 21424 (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2000).



In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 2000).



In re Carnegie International Corp. Securities Litigation, 107 F. Supp. 2d 676 (D.
Md. 2000).



Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. H-98-1148, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 21423 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2000).



In re Imperial Credit Industries Securities Litigation, CV 98-8842 SVW, 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 2340 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2000).



Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2000).



In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 82 F. Supp. 2d 227
(S.D.N.Y. 2000).



Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-2840, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 619 (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2000).



In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, 110 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D. Va. 2000).



In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 78 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Mo. 1999).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 20

EXHIBIT A
Page 32



Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos., 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18378
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1999).



In re Nanophase Technologies Corp. Litigation, 98 C 3450, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
16171 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 1999).



In re Clearly Canadian Securities Litigation, File No. C-93-1037-VRW, 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 14273 Cal. Sept. 7, 1999).



Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (W.D. Okla. 1999).



In re Spyglass, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99 C 512, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11382
(N.D. Ill. July 20, 1999).



Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 11595 (N.D. Ga. June 30, 1999).



Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 98 CV 3287, 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 11363 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999).



Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-CV-3183-TWT, 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1368, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90, 429 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 1999).



Longman v. Food Lion, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 331 (M.D.N.C. 1999).



Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998).



Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998).



Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998).



Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 669 (W.D. Pa. 1998).



Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 1998).



Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (N.D. Ga.
1998).



In re MobileMedia Securities Litigation, 28 F.Supp.2d 901 (D.N.J. 1998).



Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377 (D.N.J. 1998).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 21

EXHIBIT A
Page 33



In re Health Management Systems Securities Litigation, 97 Civ. 1865 (HB), 1998
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8061 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1998).



In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 999 F. Supp. 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).



Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 1:97-cv-3183-TWT, 1998 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 23222 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 1998).



Brown v. Radica Games (In re Radica Games Securities Litigation), No. 96-17274,
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32775 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 1997).



Robbins v. Koger Properties, 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997).



In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 95
Civ. 0167 (PKL), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18485 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1997).



Wright v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 97 Civ. 2189 (SAS), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13630
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1997).



Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23646 (C.D. Ill. July 7,
1997).



Felzen v. Andreas, No. 95-2279, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23647 (C.D. Ill. July 7,
1997).



A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 964 F.
Supp. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).



Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Companies, 94 Civ. 2373 (MBM), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
4451 (S.D.N.Y. April 8, 1997).



Bobrow v. Mobilmedia, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-4715, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
23806 (D.N.J. March 31, 1997).



Kalodner v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 200 (N.D.Tex. 1997).



In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).



A. Ronald Sirna, Jr., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 95 Civ.
8422 (LAK), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1226 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1997).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 22

EXHIBIT A
Page 34



In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnerships Litigation, 94 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996).



Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617 (1st Cir. 1996).



Alpern v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996).



Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996).



Dresner Co. Profit Sharing Plan v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 95 Civ. 1924 (MBM),
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17913 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 1996).



Simon v. American Power Conversion Corp., 945 F. Supp. 416 (D.R.I. 1996).



TII Industries, Inc., 96 Civ. 4412 (SAS), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14466 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 1, 1996).



In re TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust Securities Litigation, 941
F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 1996).



In re Painewebber Ltd. Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9195 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996).



In re Tricord Systems, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil No. 3-94-746, 1996 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 20943 (D. Minn. April 5, 1996).



In re Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS), 1996 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1265 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1996).



Riley v. Simmons, 45 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1995).



Stepak v. Addison, 20 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1994).



Zitin v. Turley, [1991 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96,123 (D.
Ariz. June 20, 1994).



In re Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership Investor Litigation, 151 F.R.D.
597 (W.D.N.C. 1993).



County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir. 1990).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 23

EXHIBIT A
Page 35

Notable State Court Opinions


McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, 56 Cal. 4th 613 (2013).



Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 89 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).



Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009).



Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th 241 (2011).



In re Tyson Foods, Inc., Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, 919 A. 2d 563 (Del. Ch.
2007).



Naevus Int’l v. AT&T Corp., 283 A.D.2d 171, 724 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2001).



Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. Super.
Ct. 1994).



In re Western National Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
15927, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 82 (May 22, 2000).



In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 2000 Del. Ch.
LEXIS 90 (May 5, 2000).



In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14634,
2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 27, 2000).



In re Marriott Hotels Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 24, 2000).



Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company, 132 N.C. App. 682, 513 S.E.2d
598 (Ct. App. 1999), aff’d, 351 N.C. 349, 524 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. 2000).



Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 1999).



Greenwald v. Batterson, C.A. No. 16475, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 158 (July 26, 1999).



Brown v. Perrette, Civil Action No. 13531, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 92 (May 18,
1999).



In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P. Litigation, C.A. No. 14634, 1997 Del. Ch.
LEXIS 146 (Oct. 15, 1997).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 24

EXHIBIT A
Page 36



In re Marriott Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 14961, 1997 Del. Ch. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 17, 1997).



In re Cheyenne Software Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14941,
1996 Del. Ch. LEXIS 142 (Nov. 7, 1996).



Seinfeld v. Robinson, 246 A.D.2d 291, 676 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. 1998).



Werner v. Alexander, 130 N.C. App. 435, 502 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 25

EXHIBIT A
Page 37

ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES
The qualifications of the attorneys in the Wolf Haldenstein Litigation Group are set
forth below and are followed by descriptions of some of the Firm’s attorneys who
normally practice outside the Litigation Group who contribute significantly to the class
action practice from time to time.
Partners

DANIEL W. KRASNER: admitted: New York; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S.
Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and
Eleventh Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New
York, Central District of Illinois, and Northern District of Michigan. Education: Yale
Law School (LL.B., 1965); Yeshiva College (B.A., 1962). Mr. Krasner, a partner in the
Firm’s New York office, is the senior partner of Wolf Haldenstein’s Class Action
Litigation Group. He began practicing law with Abraham L. Pomerantz, generally
credited as the "Dean of the Class Action Bar." He founded the Class Litigation Group
at Wolf Haldenstein in 1976.
Mr. Krasner received judicial praise for his class action acumen as early as 1978. See,
e.g., Shapiro v. Consolidated Edison Co., [1978 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) &
96,364 at 93,252 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (“in the Court’s opinion the reputation, skill and
expertise of . . . [Mr.] Krasner, considerably enhanced the probability of obtaining as
large a cash settlement as was obtained”); Steiner v. BOC Financial Corp., [1980 Transfer
Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) & 97,656, at 98,491.4, (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (“This Court has
previously recognized the high quality of work of plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Mr.
Krasner”). The New York Law Journal referred to Mr. Krasner as one of the “top rank
plaintiffs’ counsel” in the securities and class action fields. In connection with a failed
1989 management buyout of United Airlines, Mr. Krasner testified before Congress.
More recently, Mr. Krasner has been one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs in some of
the leading Federal multidistrict cases in the United States, including the IPO Litigation
in the Southern District of New York, the Mutual Fund Market Timing Litigation in the
District of Maryland, and several Madoff-related litigations pending in the Southern
District of New York. Mr. Krasner has also been lead attorney in several precedentsetting shareholder actions in Delaware Chancery Court and the New York Court of
Appeals, including American International Group, Inc. v. Greenberg, 965 A.2d 763 (Del. Ch.
2009) and the companion certified appeal, Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, Nos. 151, 152, 2010
N.Y. LEXIS 2959 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010); Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and City of
New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 26

EXHIBIT A
Page 38

American International Group, Inc., v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 152 (New York,
October 21, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377-VCL, 2010 Del. Ch.
LEXIS 119 (Del. Ch., May 25, 2010); In re CNX Gas Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 5377VCL, 2010 Del. Ch. LEXIS 139, (Del. Ch. July 5, 2010), appeal refused, 2010 Del. LEXIS
324, 2010 WL 2690402 (Del. 2010).
Mr. Krasner has lectured at the Practicing Law Institute; Rutgers Graduate School of
Business; Federal Bar Council; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Rockland
County, New York State, and American Bar Associations; Federal Bar Council, and
before numerous other bar, industry, and investor groups.

FRED TAYLOR ISQUITH: admitted: New York; Supreme Court of the United States;
U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Eighth Circuits; U.S.
District Courts for the Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York; District of
Columbia; District of Arizona; District of Colorado; Northern and Central District of
Illinois; Western District of Michigan and District of Nebraska. Education: Columbia
University Law School (J.D. 1971), City University of New York (Brooklyn) (B.A., 1968).
Mr. Isquith is a senior partner in the litigation department. He has been lead counsel in
numerous class actions in the fields of securities law and antitrust law (as well as
others) in his more than forty years of experience. Courts have commented about Mr.
Isquith as follows:
· Parker Friedland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.) – where the
Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Laughrey said (on October 16, 2008), “[a]ll of the
attorneys in this case have done an outstanding job, and I really appreciate the quality
of work that we had in our chambers as a result of this case.”
· In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL-02-1486 (N.D. Cal.) –
where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Hamilton said (on August 15, 2007), “I think
I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all, watching this litigation
progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the results are exceptional. The
percentages, as you have outlined them, do put this [case] in one of the upper categories
of results of this kind of [antitrust] class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I
thought that you all did an exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters
that really required the Court’s attention. You did an exceptionally good job at
organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case. There was
excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs’ counsel with your

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 27

EXHIBIT A
Page 39

group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . . So my conclusion is the
case was well litigated by both sides, well managed as well by both sides.”
· In re MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896, 903 (E.D. Va. 2001) – where
the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Ellis commented: “Clearly, the conduct of all
counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties confirms that
they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.”
· In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire Derivative Litigation, 84-220-D (D.N.H. 1986) –
involving the construction of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, where the Firm was
lead counsel, the court said of plaintiffs’ counsel that “the skill required and employed
was of the highest caliber.”
· In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F. Supp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y 1985) –
where the Firm served as co-lead counsel, the court noted the defendants’ concession
that “’plaintiffs’ counsel constitute the cream of the plaintiffs’ bar.’ The Court cannot
find fault with that characterization.”
· Steiner v. Equimark Corp., No. 81-1988 (W.D. Pa. 1983) – a case involving complex issues
concerning banking practices in which the Firm was lead counsel, then District Judge
Mannsman described, in part, the work the Firm performed: “We look at the complexity
of the issue, the novelty of it, the quality of work that, as the trial judge, I am able to
perceive, and then, finally, the amount of recovery obtained: I think I have certainly
said a lot in that regard. I think it’s been an extraordinary case. I think it’s an
extraordinary settlement. Certainly defense counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel as well are
all experienced counsel with tremendous amount of experience in these particular kinds
of cases. And under those circumstances. . . I think it was, really, the strategy and
ingenuity of counsel in dividing up the workload and strategizing the cases as to who
was to do what and what ultimately should be done to bring about the settlement that
was achieved.”
A frequent author, lecturer, and participant in bar committees and other activities, Mr.
Isquith has devoted his career to complex financial litigation and business matters.
Mr. Isquith currently writes a weekly column of class action for The Class Act, a
publication of the National Association of Shareholders and Consumer Attorneys and
appears monthly as a columnist for Law 360. Among his articles and writings are:
Further Thinking On Halliburton (December, 2013); State Mandated Student Pro Bono
Programs Are Inefficient (November, 2013); Let’s Really Consider The Idea Of A 2 Year Law

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 28

EXHIBIT A
Page 40

Degree (October, 2013); Spotlight on Spoliation (September, 2013); More Restrictions for
ERISA Fiduciaries (August, 2013); Questionable Constitutionality: Supreme Court’s Amex
Ruling (co-authored with Alexander Schmidt of Wolf Haldenstein) (July, 2013); How
Facebook Informs Exclusive Jurisdiction Provisions (May, 2013); Sui Generis At Supreme
Court (May, 2013); Another Look at Amgen (April, 2013); How Not To Plead A Multistate
Class Action (March, 2013); Supreme Court Spotlight: Sex, Race And ... Commerce (January,
2013); Rule 23 'Preliminary' Requirement As Seen By 7th Circ. (December, 2012); Exhaustion
- Patent And Copyright And The Supreme Court (November, 2012); Case Study: In Re AIG
Securities Litigation (October, 2012); Case Study: Rosado V. China North East Petroleum
(September, 2012); A Dissection Of Rule 23 (August, 2012); A 2nd Look At Class Action
Requirements (July, 2012); The Continued Robustness Of Rule 23(b)(2) (June, 2012); The
Simmonds Case (§16 Ruling) In The Litigation Context (May, 2012); A Look At Litigated And
Settled Class Certification (April, 2012); Concepcion Commands a Case-by-Case Analysis
(March, 2012); Dec. 20, 2011 - 3 Big Decisions (February, 2012); Case Study: Damasco v.
Clearwire (January, 2012).
Further he is a lecturer called upon by the Academy and Bar. For example, Class Actions
with Caution, (Touro School, 2011); The Federal Pleading Standards after Twombly;
Touro Law School (2010). Panelist with the Antitrust Committee of the New York City
Bar Association Regarding Private Equity Transactions and the Implications of the
Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions (2008); Developments in Class Actions; (NYSBA,
2007); IPO Tie In/Claims Seminar, Professional Liability Underwriter Society; Securities
Arbitration New York State Bar Association; Real Estate Exit Strategies, American
Conference Institute; Fundamental Strategies in Securities Litigation (NYSBA, CLE
Program). He has been active in the Bar Association’s activities: President’s Committee
on Access to Justice (2010); Committee on Evidence (2007 - ); Committees on Legislation
and Federal Courts, 1984-1988), Committee on Securities, The Association of the Bar of
the City of New York (Committee on Federal Courts; Committee on Antitrust); New
York County Lawyers’ Association (Former Chair: Business Tort/Consumer Fraud-Tort
Law Section); Brooklyn (Member: Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules,
1983-1987; New York State (Member: Committee on Legislation, Trial Lawyers Section,
1981- ); the District of Columbia Bar; and Legislation and Civil Practice Law and Rules
Committee of the Brooklyn Bar Association; Vice President if the Institute for Law and
Economic Policy. Mr. Isquith has been Chairman of the Business Tort/Consumer Fraud
Committee of the Tort Law Section of the New York State Bar Association and is a
member of that Association’s Committees on Securities Law and Legislation. He also
serves as a judge for the Moot Court Competition of Columbia University Law School.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 29

EXHIBIT A
Page 41

Mr. Isquith served as President of the National Association of Securities and
Commercial Law Attorneys in 2003 and 2004.
Mr. Isquith is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and
other national publications.
The April 1987 issue of Venture magazine listed Mr. Isquith as among the nation’s top
securities class action attorneys. Since 2006 Mr. Isquith has been elected as among the
top 5% of attorneys in the New York City metropolitan area chosen to be included in
the Super Lawyers Magazine. Martindale Hubbell registers Mr. Isquith as one of the
Preeminent Lawyers (2010), Avenue Magazine, Legal Elite (2010).

JEFFREY G. SMITH: admitted: New York; California; Supreme Court of the United
States; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York, Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California
and the Districts of Colorado and Nebraska. Education: Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs, Princeton University (M.P.A., 1977); Yale Law School
(J.D., 1978); Vassar College (A.B., cum laude generali, 1974). At Yale Law School, Mr.
Smith was a teaching assistant for the Trial Practice course and a student supervisor in
the Legal Services Organization, a clinical program. Member: The Association of the
Bar of the City of New York; New York State and American (Section on Litigation) Bar
Associations; State Bar of California (Member: Litigation Section); American Association
for Justice. Mr. Smith has frequently lectured on corporate governance issues to
professional groups of Fund trustees and investment advisors as well as to graduate
and undergraduate business student groups, and has regularly served as a moot court
judge for the A.B.A. and at New York University Law School. Mr. Smith has substantial
experience in complex civil litigation, including class and derivative actions, tender
offer, merger, and takeover litigation. Mr. Smith is rated “AV” by Martindale Hubble
and, since its inception in 2006, has been selected as among the top 5% of attorneys in
the New York City metropolitan area chosen to be included in the Super Lawyers
Magazine.

FRANCIS M. GREGOREK: admitted: California; New York; United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits; United States District Courts for the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Southern, Central, and Northern
Districts of California. Education: University of Virginia (B.A., magna cum laude, 1975).
Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Alpha Theta International Historical Honor Society; University

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 30

EXHIBIT A
Page 42

College, Durham University, England; New York University School of Law (J.D., 1978).
Mr. Gregorek is the Managing Partner of the Firm’s San Diego office. Throughout his
32 year career, Mr. Gregorek’s practice has focused on complex commercial litigation
and class action practice on both the trial and appellate court levels, in federal and state
courts nationwide, in the areas of securities, antitrust, consumer protection, and
technology. Mr. Gregorek has also represented foreign governments involved in
complex commercial litigation in United States federal courts. As part of that
representation, Mr. Gregorek has worked in conjunction with the heads of ministerial
departments, ambassadors, and consular officials of those countries charged by their
governments with overseeing the litigations, as well as the attorney general of a
government he was representing. Throughout these litigations, Mr. Gregorek met with
such government officials to advise and plan strategy in addition to keeping them fully
up-to-date on the progress of the litigation.
Mr. Gregorek has served as lead counsel, co-lead counsel, or in other leadership
positions in numerous class and other complex litigations throughout the United States.
For example, In re Dole Shareholder Litigation, Case No. BC281949 (recovered $172
million for shareholders) (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2003). At the time of the
case’s settlement, the $172 million recovered for the class was one of the top 10
recoveries ever achieved on behalf of a class. Judge Anthony J. Mohr, who presided
over the action, stated at the final settlement hearing: “Co-Lead Counsel did excellent
first class work.” Id.
As an additional example, Mr. Gregorek and the Firm served as co-lead counsel in
Bamboo Partners LLC v. The Robert Mondavi Corp., et al., Case No. 26-27170 (Super. Ct.
Napa County, 2004), a class action arising from an unsolicited $1.3 billion offer (cash
and debt assumption) from Constellation Brands, Inc. for The Robert Mondavi Corp.
CHARLES J. HECHT: admitted New York, United States Supreme Court, United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York; United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; United
States District Court for the; Eastern District of Wisconsin and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Education: Mr. Hecht is a graduate of Cornell
University and Cornell University Law. Charles J. Hecht is a partner of the firm, with

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 31

EXHIBIT A
Page 43

over 40 years’ experience in securities and commodities transactions, litigation, and
arbitration. He has more than 50 published decisions on cases in which he was the sole
or lead counsel, in areas ranging from securities and commodities fraud to
constitutional and contract disputes.
Mr. Hecht has provided expert testimony before the Internal Revenue Service with
respect to the impact of proposed tax regulations on preferred stock hedged with
commodity futures and options. He has authored articles on mergers and acquisitions,
earn outs, commodities, hedging, derivatives, and arbitration jurisdiction and damages.
Since 2005 he has been the legal columnist for smartpros.com, an online newsletter for
financial professionals.
He has been active in the New York State Bar Association’s continuing legal education
program, regularly speaking about class actions and serving as the Chairman of the
program on securities arbitration in 1995. In 1996, Mr. Hecht was a principal coauthor of
the New York Federal Practice Section's Report on Securities Class Fees. He is also an
arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association and COMEX.
Before entering private practice, Mr. Hecht was with the Division of Corporate Finance
(Washington, D.C. main office) of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He is
actively involved with businesses in China and is a member of the United States-China
Chamber of Commerce.
Notable Cases include, CMIA Partners Equity Ltd. v. O'Neill, 2010 NY Slip Op 52068(U)
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2010), Hecht v. Andover Assocs. Mgmt. Corp., 27 Misc 3d 1202(A) (Sup.
Ct. Nassau Co., 2010), and Sacher v. Beacon Assoc. Mgmt. Corp., 27 Misc 3d 1221(A) (Sup.
Ct. Nassau Co., 2010). The CMIA case is the first time that a New York state court
examined shareholder derivative suits under Cayman Islands law.

PETER C. HARRAR: admitted; New York; United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern
Districts of New York. Education: Columbia Law School (J.D. 1984); Princeton
University, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude. Mr. Harrar is a partner in the firm and
has extensive experience in complex securities and commercial litigation on behalf of
individual and institutional clients.
He has represented investment funds, hedge funds, insurance companies and other
institutional investors in a variety of individual actions, class actions and disputes
involving mortgage-backed securities and derivative instruments. Examples include In

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 32

EXHIBIT A
Page 44

re EMAC Securities Litigation, a fraud case concerning private placements of securitized
loan pools, and Steed Finance LDC v. LASER Advisors, Inc., a hybrid individual and class
action concerning the mispricing of swaptions.
Over the years, Mr. Harrar has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous
securities class and derivative actions throughout the country, recovering hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved investors and corporations. Recent examples
are some of the largest recoveries achieved in resolution of derivative actions, including
American International Group Consolidated Derivative Litigation) ($90 million), and Bank of
America/Merrill Derivative Litigation ($62.5 million).

LAWRENCE P. KOLKER: admitted: New York; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second
and Eleventh Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of
New York, Western District of Michigan and the District of Colorado. Education: State
University of New York at Binghamton (B.A., 1978); Brooklyn Law School (J.D., 1983).
Editor, Brooklyn Law Review, 1982-1983. Panelist, Early Neutral Evaluator for the
Eastern District of New York, 1992-1997. Lecturer, Brooklyn Law School, 1989. Assistant
Corporation Counsel, City of New York, 1983-1987. Member: The Association of the Bar
of the City of New York; New York State Bar Association.
Mr. Kolker has often represented investors in direct investments, such as REITs and
limited partnerships, including Inland Western REIT, Wells REIT, CNL Hotels &
Resorts, Inc., General Electric (Polaris Aircraft limited partnerships), Jones Intercable,
Nooney and Sierra Pacific (American Spectrum roll-up), Real Estate Associates
(NAPICO roll-up), and Marriott Hotel Properties II. He was appointed Counsel to the
Courtyard by Marriott Limited Partners Committee in its dealings with Host Marriott
Corporation, and Special Counsel to the Windsor Park Properties 7 and 8 limited
partners to insure the fairness of their liquidation transactions.
He has tried several securities actions to verdict. His notable judicial decisions include
Stepak v. Addison, 20 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1994); In re Comdisco Securities Litigation, 2003
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5097 (N.D. Ill. March 3, 2003); City Partnership Co. v. Cable TV Fund 14-B,
213 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2002); Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D.
Ga. 2000); In re Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership Investor Litigation, 151 F.R.D.
597 (W.D.N.C. 1993); Prostic v. Xerox Corp., [1991 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
(CCH) ¶ 96,1967 (D. Conn. July 19, 1991); In re Cencom Cable Income Partners, L.P.
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 14634, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 27, 2000); and
Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 1999). Mr. Kolker is a frequent speaker at

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 33

EXHIBIT A
Page 45

conferences of the American Conference Institute, the Investment Program Association
and the Strategic Research Institute, and has published articles in Standard & Poor's
Review of Securities and Commodities Regulation entitled “Litigation Strategies for Limited
Partnership Tender Offers" (February 1996) and "Limited Partnership Five Percent
Tender Offers” (October 1997). Mr. Kolker has acted as lead counsel in numerous class
and derivative actions asserting the rights of investors since joining Wolf Haldenstein in
1989. He also counsels investment management firms in transactional and securities
matters and represents them in corporate and business litigation.

MARK C. RIFKIN: admitted: New York; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; U.S. Supreme
Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits; U.S.
District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern and
Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of
Wisconsin and the Western District of Michigan. Education: Princeton University (A.B.,
1982); Villanova University School of Law (J.D. 1985). Contributor, PACKEL &
POULIN, Pennsylvania Evidence (1987).
An experienced securities class action and shareholder rights litigator, Mr. Rifkin has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of corporate fraud and abuse in
federal and state litigation across the country. Since 1990, Mr. Rifkin has served as lead
counsel, co-lead counsel, or trial counsel in many class and derivative actions in
securities, intellectual property, ERISA, antitrust, insurance, consumer and mass tort
litigation throughout the country. Mr. Rifkin has extensive trial experience.
Over the past thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has tried many complex commercial actions in
federal and state courts across the country in class and derivative actions, including In
re National Media Corp. Derivative Litig., C.A. 90-7574 (E.D. Pa.), Upp v. Mellon Bank, N.A.,
C.A. No. 91-5229 (E.D. Pa.), where the verdict awarded more than $60 million in
damages to the Class (later reversed on appeal, 997 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir. 1993)), and In re
AST Research Securities Litigation, No. 94-1370 SVW (C.D. Cal.), as well as a number of
commercial matters for individual clients, including Zelouf Int’l Corp. v. Zelouf, Index
No. 653652/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), in which he obtained a $10 million judgment for
for his client. Mr. Rifkin also has extensive appellate experience. Over thirty years, Mr.
Rifkin has argued dozens of appeals on behalf of appellants and appellees in several
federal appellate courts, and in the highest appellate courts in New York, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and Delaware.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 34

EXHIBIT A
Page 46

Mr. Rifkin has earned the AV®-Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell® for more
than 20 years, and has been selected for inclusion in the New York Metro Super
Lawyers® listing since 2010. In 2014, Mr. Rifkin was named a “Titan of the Plaintiff’s
Bar” by Law360®.
Mr. Rifkin lectures frequently to business and professional organizations on a variety of
securities, shareholder, intellectual property, and corporate governance matters. Mr.
Rifkin is a guest lecturer to graduate and undergraduate economics and finance
students on corporate governance and financial disclosure topics. He also serves as a
moot court judge for the A.B.A. and New York University Law School. Mr. Rifkin
appears frequently in print and broadcast media on law-related topics in corporate,
securities, intellectual property, antitrust, regulatory, and enforcement matters.

MICHAEL JAFFE: admitted: California; New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York. Education: University of California at Berkeley
(B.S., with highest distinction, 1982); Hastings College of the Law, University of
California (J.D., 1987). Judicial Extern to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson,
Northern District of California, 1986-1987. Member: The Association of the Bar of the
City of New York. Languages: French.

BETSY C. MANIFOLD: admitted: Wisconsin; New York; California; U.S. District Courts
for the Western District of Wisconsin, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and
Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California. Education: Elmira College;
Middlebury College (B.A., cum laude, 1980); Marquette University (J.D., 1986); New
York University. Thomas More Scholar. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Award in
Agency. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Languages:
French.
Ms. Manifold served as co-lead counsel in the following cases to recovery on behalf of
employees: Miguel Garcia, et al. v. Lowe’s Home Center, Inc. et al. – Case No. GIC 841120
(Barton) (Cal. Sup. Ct, San Diego) ($1.65 million settlement w/ average class member
recovery of $5,500, attorney fees and cost awarded separately) and Neil Weinstein, et al.
v. MetLife, Inc., et al. – Case No. 3:06-cv-04444-SI (N.D. Cal) ($7.4 million settlement).
Ms. Manifold also served as co-lead counsel in the following derivative actions: In re
Atmel Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File No. CV 06-4592-JF (N.D. Cal.) ($9.65
million payment to Atmel) and In re Silicon Storage Technology Inc. Derivative Litig., Case
No. C 06-04310 JF (N.D. Cal.) (cash payment and re-pricing of options with a total value
of $5.45 million). Ms. Manifold also worked as lead counsel on the following class

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 35

EXHIBIT A
Page 47

action: Lewis v. American Spectrum Realty, Case No. 01 CC 00394, Cal. Sup. Ct (Orange
County) ($6.5 million settlement).

ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT: admitted: New York; New Jersey; United States Supreme
Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States
Court of Federal Claims. Education: State University of New York, Stony Brook (B.A.,
1981); Brooklyn Law School (J.D., 1985). Mr. Schmidt concentrates on sophisticated
commercial litigation, including matters involving antitrust, class actions, real estate,
banking, commercial factoring, securities fraud, civil RICO, intra-corporate and
partnership disputes, and legal and accounting malpractice. Most recently, he acted as
lead counsel in the landmark Roberts v. Tishman Speyer, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (N.Y. 2009),
described by a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives as the greatest legal
victory for tenants in her lifetime. In Roberts, Mr. Schmidt obtained a victory in the New
York Court of Appeals requiring the reregulation of thousands of apartment units in the
Stuyvesant Town complex in Manhattan, New York. Mr. Schmidt was also the sole
plaintiffs' counsel in Dresses For Less, Inc. v. CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc.
(S.D.N.Y.), in which the court sustained Sherman Act claims he brought on behalf of
victims of group boycotts by the commercial factoring industry. The case resulted in a
very satisfying, confidential settlement for his clients and ended the garment center
factors' 80-year old practice of conducting illegal twice-weekly meetings to discuss and
make joint credit decisions concerning their common customers. Among other
noteworthy matters, Mr. Schmidt also conceived and helped sustain a precedent setting
Kodak aftermarket monopolization claim in an antitrust and computer fraud and abuse
act class action brought by purchasers of Apple's highly popular iPhone, who are
challenging Apple's undisclosed, five-year exclusive service contract with AT&T
Mobility. In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ca.). In Atkins & O’Brien L.L.P. v.
ISS Int’l Serv. Sys. (N.Y. App. Div.), Mr. Schmidt resurrected an archaic estoppel
exception to the general rule that a client can fire its lawyer at any time, enabling his
law firm clients to recover several years of future fees under a general retainer contract.
Recently, without filing a lawsuit, Mr. Schmidt successfully represented the tenants
association of a multi-building, 1400 apartment complex in renegotiating a ten-year old
settlement agreement. The amended agreement reduced rents and plugged a loophole
that had enabled rent-protected units to be converted to fully deregulated market
apartments. Mr. Schmidt is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and
before the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Second
and Ninth Circuits, and the United States Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Schmidt was an
Assistant Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School in 1998 and 1999, where he

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 36

EXHIBIT A
Page 48

co-taught a seminar on Federal Discovery Practice. He served as the Executive Notes &
Topics Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review.

GREGORY M. NESPOLE: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York; United States Court of Appeals for the Second,
Fourth, and Fifth Circuits. Education: Bates College (B.A., 1989); Brooklyn Law School
(J.D., 1993). Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York; New York
State Bar Association. Mr. Nespole’s experience includes complex civil and criminal
litigation. Mr. Nespole is responsible for the investigation, initiation and prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigations on behalf of the firm throughout the
country. Mr. Nespole also devotes a considerable amount of time to litigating issues
surrounding mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Nespole also represents corporate
defendants with respect to class certification issues and structuring class-wide
settlements. He has been approved as a panel attorney by a major insurance company
to address certification issues. Mr. Nespole is the co-chair of the firm’s Madoff Litigation
Task Force. He has been elected a “Super Lawyer” each year since 2009.

DEMET BASAR: admitted: New York; New Jersey; U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Southern District of New York; Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits.
Education: Fairleigh Dickinson
University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1984), Phi Omega Epsilon; Rutgers University School
of Law (J.D., 1990). Recipient, West’s Scholarship Award, Senior Notes and Comments
Editor, Rutgers Law Review. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New
York. Languages: Turkish.
Ms. Basar’s practice is primarily concentrated in securities class actions and derivative
litigation. She is the co-chair of the firm’s Madoff Litigation Task Force. Her recent cases
include In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, No. 08-civ-11117
(TPG) (SDNY) ($100 million settlement for investors in the Tremont family of Madoff
feeder funds), In re Beacon Associates Litigation, Master File No. 09 Civ. 0777 (LBS)
(SDNY) ($219 million settlement for investors in the Beacon family of Madoff feeder
funds, among others), and other Madoff feeder fund-related securities class actions,
including In re J. Ezra Merkin and BDO Seidman Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-10922
(SDNY) and Newman v. Family Management Corp., No. 08-cv-11215 (SDNY). She has
served as lead counsel, co-lead counsel or individual counsel in In re American
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 1823-N (Del.
Ch. Ct. ($14.3 million settlement), In re Loral Space & Communications Shareholders
Securities Litigation, 03-cv-8262 (SDNY) ($3.45 million settlement), Steed Finance LDC v.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 37

EXHIBIT A
Page 49

LASER Advisors, No. 99-cv-4222 (SDNY), In re AMBAC Financial Group, Inc., C.A. No.
3521 (Del. Ch. Ct.), and several multidistrict securities litigations, including In re Mutual
Fund Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.) and In re J.P. Morgan Chase Securities
Litigation, MDL No. 1783 (N.D. Ill.).

ANITA B. KARTALOPOULOS: admitted: New York. Education: University of Toledo,
B.A.; Seton Hall University, J.D. Ms. Kartalopoulos, a former member of Milberg LLP,
litigates claims in the areas of securities fraud, derivative litigation, and mergers and
acquisitions. She focuses her practice on lead plaintiff litigation, as well as breach of
fiduciary and transactional litigation. She works closely with the institutional investor
clients, including trustees of public and private funds, throughout the U.S. providing
counsel on asset recovery, fiduciary education, and risk management.
Ms. Kartalopoulos has extensive experience in litigating complex securities cases
including In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Securities Litigation ($215 million settlement), In re
Chiron Corp. Securities Litigation ($30 million settlement), and others. Ms. Kartalopoulos
has also achieved noteworthy results including improved corporate governance and
disclosures as well as increased share value in recent litigations including in In re Topps
Co. Shareholder Litigation, In re Anheuser-Busch Cos. Shareholders Litigation, In re Net Logic,
In re Smith International, In re L-3 Communication Holdings, Inc., In re Republic Services,
Derivative Litigation, and many others.
Prior to entering private practice, Ms. Kartalopoulos served in senior regulatory
positions involving insurance and health in the State of New Jersey, including serving
as Deputy Commissioner of Insurance, for Life and Health; Director of Legal and
Regulatory Affairs (Department of Health); and Executive Director of the New Jersey
State Real Estate Commission. She managed the New Jersey Insurance Department's
Multi-State Task Force investigating the sales practices of the Prudential Insurance
Company, which resulted in a $50 million fine against Prudential and a $4 billion
recovery for policyholders. She also served on the Board of Directors of MBL Insurance
Company as a rehabilitator and managed litigation on behalf of the company.
Ms. Kartalopoulos is a regular speaker at numerous conferences focused on fiduciary
education, ethics, and U.S. securities litigation, including the Investment Education
Symposium, the Institutional Investor European Pensions Symposium, the Canadian
Hedge Funds Investment Roundtable, the New York Hedge Funds Roundtable, and the
AEDBF (Association Europeenne de Droit Bancaire et Financier), FPPTA Trustee School,
GAPPT, MATTER, LATEC. She also speaks regularly on the complex legal

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 38

EXHIBIT A
Page 50

environment that institutional investors face when addressing losses due to securities
fraud as well as their proactive and reactive alternatives.
Ms. Kartalopoulos has co-authored “Deterring Executive Compensation Excesses:
Regulatory Weaknesses, Litigation Strengths” (03/05, NY, NY), and “Vintage Wine in
New Bottles: The Curious Evolution of the Concept of Loss Causation” (11/05, NY, NY).
Ms. Kartalopoulos is admitted to the bar of the State of New Jersey, the U.S. Courts of
Appeals for the Federal and Third Circuits.

BENJAMIN Y. KAUFMAN: admitted: New York. Education: Yeshiva University, B.A.;
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D. Mr. Kaufman focuses on
class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. Mr. Kaufman’s
successful securities litigations include In re Deutsche Telekom AG Securities Litigation,
No. 00-9475 (S.D.N.Y.), a complex international securities litigation requiring
evidentiary discovery in both the United States and Europe, which settled for $120
million. Mr. Kaufman was also part of the team that recovered $46 million for investors
in In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation, No. 01-7351 (S.D.N.Y.); and $43.1 million,
with contributions of $20 million, $14.85 million and $8.25 million from Motorola, the
individual defendants, and defendant underwriters respectively, in Freeland v. Iridium
World Communications, Ltd.
Mr. Kaufman’s outstanding representative results in derivative and transactional
litigations include: In re Trump Hotels Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Trump personally
contributed some of his holdings; the company increased the number of directors on its
board, and certain future transactions had to be reviewed by a special committee);
Southwest Airlines Derivative Litigation (Carbon County Employee Retirement System v. Kelly
(Dist. Ct. Dallas Cnty., Tex.)) (a derivative matter that resulted in significant reforms to
the air carrier’s corporate governance and safety and maintenance practices and
procedures for the benefit of Southwest and its shareholders).
He argued the appeal in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litig., 56 A.D.3d 49 (1st
Dep’t 2008) which led to the seminal New York Appellate Division opinion which
clarified the standards of demand futility, and held that a board of directors loses the
protection of the business judgment rule where there is evidence of self-dealing and
poor judgment by the directors; and In re Topps Company, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
which resulted in a 2007 decision which vindicated the rights of shareholders under the
rules of comity and doctrine of forum non conveniens and to pursue claims in the most
relevant forum notwithstanding the fact that jurisdiction might exist as well in the state

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 39

EXHIBIT A
Page 51

of incorporation. Mr. Kaufman has also lectured and taught in the subjects of corporate
governance as well as transactional and derivative litigation.
In addition, Mr. Kaufman represents many corporate clients in complex commercial
matters, including Puckett v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 108802/98 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
Cnty. 2002) (a complex copyright royalty class action); Shropshire v. Sony Music
Entertainment, No. 06-3252 (S.D.N.Y.), and The Youngbloods v. BMG Music, No. 07-2394
(S.D.N.Y.); and Mich II Holdings LLC v. Schron, No. 600736/10 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.)
(represented certain defendants in connection with real estate dispute and successfully
litigated motion to dismiss all claims against those defendants; he continues to
represent those clients’ interests in several related litigations in New York and
Delaware). Mr. Kaufman has also represented clients in arbitrations and litigation
involving oppressed minority shareholders in closely held corporations.
Prior to joining WHAFH and Milberg in August of 1998, Mr. Kaufman was a Court
Attorney for the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (1988-1990) and
Principal Law Clerk to Justice Herman Cahn of the Commercial Division of the New
York State Supreme Court, New York County (1990-1998).
Mr. Kaufman is an active member of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of
the New York State Bar Association, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers
and Jurists and the Jewish Lawyers Guild. He has also lectured on corporate
governance issues to institutional investor conferences across the United States and
abroad. Mr. Kaufman is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Hebrew Academy of
the Five Towns and Rockaways.

JANINE L. POLLACK: admitted: New York (1990); New Jersey (1989); U.S. District
Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of New
Jersey, among others. Education: Rutgers University (1986), with high honors, Phi Beta
Kappa; University of Pennsylvania School of Law (1989), Editor - Journal of
International Business Law. Ms. Pollack has successfully prosecuted many consumer
and securities cases. She is one of the lead counsel in the recent $28.5 million settlement
in In re Reebok EasyTone Litigation (D. Mass.), as well as the $45 million settlement in In re
Skechers Toning Shoes Product Liability Litigation (Grabowski) (W.D. Ky.), false advertising
class actions involving toning shoes. She is also lead counsel in numerous other class
actions involving consumer fraud, including Bezdek v. Vibram USA Inc. (D. Mass.),
against the maker of so-called barefoot running shoes. In addition, Ms. Pollack recently
won a jury trial against R.J. Reynolds in a wrongful death tobacco case in Florida state

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 40

EXHIBIT A
Page 52

court. She was also lead trial counsel in a federal court case against a major mutual
fund advisor.
Ms. Pollack is co-chair of the Women’s Initiative of the National Association of
Shareholder & Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), for which she organizes meetings and
charity events. A frequent public speaker, Ms. Pollack has given lectures on such topics
as consumer fraud, securities regulation, time and stress management, Cy Pres, and
other related topics. Ms. Pollack was recently appointed to the New York City Bar
Association’s Women in the Profession Committee. Ms. Pollack’s recent achievements
include being named as a New York Super Lawyer in 2012.

THOMAS H. BURT: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan. Education: American
University (B.A., 1993); New York University (J.D., 1997). Articles Editor with New
York University Review of Law and Social Change. Mr. Burt is a litigator with a practice
concentrated in securities class actions and complex commercial litigation. After
practicing criminal defense with noted defense lawyer Jack T. Litman for three years, he
joined Wolf Haldenstein, where he has worked on such notable cases as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)(a novel and sweeping
amalgamation of over 300 class actions which resulted in a recovery of $586 million); In
re MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.) (recovery of $192 million);
In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-cv-1486 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust case
resulting in $315 million recovery); In re Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Securities
Litigation, No. 02-cv-1226 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.)(settled, together with a related fraud case,
for over $133 million); K.J. Egleston L.P. v. Heartland Industrial Partners, et al., 2:06-13555
(E.D. Mich.) (recovery included personal assets from former Reagan Administration
budget director David A. Stockman); and Parker Friedland v. Iridium World
Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.)(recovery of $43.1 million). Mr. Burt has spoken
on several occasions to investor and activist groups regarding the intersection of
litigation and corporate social responsibility. Mr. Burt writes and speaks on both
securities and antitrust litigation topics. He has served as a board member and officer
of the St. Andrew’s Society of the State of New York, New York’s oldest charity.

RACHELE R. RICKERT: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,
Northern, Central and Eastern Districts of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Education: Point Loma Nazarene College (B.A., 1994); University of
California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1997). Member: State Bar of California.
Former Deputy Alternate Public Defender for the County of San Diego. Ms. Rickert is

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 41

EXHIBIT A
Page 53

located in the firm’s San Diego office. She practices corporate derivative and class action
litigation including securities, consumer, antitrust, employment and general corporate
and business litigation. Ms. Rickert has played a significant role in litigating numerous
class and derivative actions, including In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litigation, Master
File No. C 07-05152 JW (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust class action against Apple Inc. and AT&T
Mobility LLC regarding aftermarkets for iPhone wireless service and applications);
Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 241 (challenging the City of Los Angeles’
telephone users tax on behalf of the City’s taxpayers); McWilliams v. City of Long Beach,
2013 Cal. LEXIS 3510, Cal. Supreme Ct. No. S202037 (April 25, 2013) (challenging the
City of Long Beach’s telephone users tax on behalf of the City’s taxpayers); DeFrees, et al.
v. Kirkland, et al., No. CV 11-04272 GAF(SPx) (C.D. Cal.) (shareholder derivative action);
Bamboo Partners LLC, et al. v. Robert Mondavi Corp., et al. (shareholder class action that
settled for $10.8 million in 2007); and Lewis, et al. v. American Spectrum Realty, Inc., et al.,
(shareholder class action that settled for $6.5 million in 2004).

JEREMY A. COHEN: admitted: New York, U.S. District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits.
Education: University of Michigan (B.A., 1996); Columbia Law School (J.D., 2000). Mr.
Cohen is an experienced litigator whose practice encompasses all aspects of business
litigation on behalf of corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and individuals, with a
particular focus on real estate, securities/broker-dealer, employment, and advertising
matters. In 2014, he was recognized as one of 42 Rising Stars of the New York Bar by the
New York Law Journal, he has twice been named a Rising Star by New York Super
Lawyers, and was the 2013 recipient of the New York State Bar Association Committee
on Law, Youth & Citizenship’s Distinguished Service Award.
Mr. Cohen’s experience includes first-chair roles in federal court, the Commercial
Division of the New York Supreme Court and in FINRA arbitrations. In the courtroom,
he has briefed and argued dozens of motions, including motions to dismiss, summary
judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctions, temporary restraining orders,
attachments, Daubert motions and discovery disputes. He has examined and crossexamined fact and expert witnesses in trials and arbitrations, and has taken and
defended depositions throughout the country. He has also assisted clients with
regulatory and internal investigations.
In real estate matters, Mr. Cohen has represented some of New York’s leading property
owners and developers in state and federal litigation involving condominiums, mixed

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 42

EXHIBIT A
Page 54

residential and commercial developments, hotels, marinas, sports arenas, and real estate
investment funds.
His other commercial experience includes complex business litigation, employment
disputes, securities arbitrations, and the representation of pharmaceutical, consumer
products and apparel corporations in false advertising actions. Mr. Cohen also has
represented high-profile individuals and entities in the sports and entertainment field,
including musicians, athletes and teams in a wide range of litigation and arbitration.
Mr. Cohen has served on the Judicial Screening Panel for the First District, which
considers applicants for judgeships on the New York County Civil Court.
Mr. Cohen graduated from the University of Michigan (B.A. with distinction, 1996) and
Columbia Law School (J.D. cum laude, 2000), where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone
Scholar and was Executive Editor of The Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems.
He is admitted to practice in New York and before the United States District Courts for
the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Cohen was an
associate with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, and served as a law clerk to the
Honorable Richard Owen of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York.
Since 2001, Mr. Cohen has been a member of the Advisory Board of Legal Outreach,
Inc., a non-profit organization that prepares high school students from underserved
communities in New York City to compete at high academic levels by using intense
legal and educational programs as tools for facilitating the pursuit of higher education.

MATTHEW M. GUINEY: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern District of New York. Education: The College of William & Mary (B.A. in
Government and Economics 1998); Georgetown University Law Center (J.D. 2002). Mr.
Guiney’s primary areas of practice are securities class actions under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, complex commercial litigation, Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) actions on behalf of plan participants, Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 actions concerning overtime payment, and fiduciary duty actions under
various state laws. Mr. Guiney has helped recover hundreds of millions of dollars for
victims of corporate fraud and abuse in federal and state litigation across the country.
Some of Mr. Guiney’s notable results on behalf of investors include: Mallozzi v.
Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. et al., 1:07-cv-10321-DLC (S.D.N.Y.) ($3.4 million

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 43

EXHIBIT A
Page 55

settlement on behalf of shareholders); In re Luxottica Group S.p.A. Securities Litigation,
No. CV 01-3285 (JBW) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.) ($18.5 million settlement on behalf of
shareholders); In re MBNA Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master Docket No. 05-429 (GMS), (D.
Del) ($4.5 million settlement on behalf of plan participants). Recent publications
include: Citigroup and Judicial Immunity in ERISA: An Emerging Trend?, Compensation
and Benefits Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, 172-78 (May/June 2010) (with Mark C. Rifkin); Case
of the Moenchies: Moench Provision Expansion, Employment Law360/Securities Law360
Newswires, Guest Column (June 2, 2010) (with Mark C. Rifkin).
Special Counsel

JUSTICE HERMAN CAHN: admitted: New York. Education: Harvard Law School and a
B.A. from City College of the City University of New York. Justice Herman Cahn was
first elected as Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York in 1976. He
subsequently served as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court from 1980 until 1992,
when he was elected to the Supreme Court. Throughout his decades on the bench, he
principally handled civil cases, with the exception of 1981 until 1987, when he presided
over criminal matters. Justice Cahn was instrumental in the creation of, and a founding
Justice in, the Commercial Division within the New York State Supreme Court. He
served as a Justice of the Commercial Division from its inception in 1993.
Among his most notable recent cases are the consolidated cases stemming from the Bear
Stearns merger with JP Morgan (In re Bear Stearns Litigation); litigation regarding the
America’s Cup Yacht Race (Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Société Nautique de Genève);
litigation stemming from the attempt to enjoin the construction of the new Yankee
Stadium (Save Our Parks v. City of New York); and the consolidated state cases regarding
the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site (World Trade Center Properties v. Alliance
Insurance; Port Authority v. Alliance Insurance).
Justice Cahn is a member of the Council on Judicial Administration of the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York. He has also recently been appointed to the
Character and Fitness Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department. He is on
the Register of Mediators for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York.
Before ascending the bench, Justice Cahn practiced law in Manhattan. He was first
admitted to the New York bar in 1956. He is admitted to practice in numerous courts,
including the New York State courts, the Southern District of New York and the United
States Supreme Court.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 44

EXHIBIT A
Page 56

Of Counsel

ROBERT ABRAMS: admitted: New York; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit;
U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Eastern District
of Missouri, District of Maryland, and District of Delaware. Education: Haverford
College (B.A., 1961); Columbia University (Ph.D., 1966), Brooklyn Law School (J.D.,
1992). Woodrow Wilson Fellow; International Business Law Fellow. Adjunct Professor,
Mediation Clinic, Brooklyn Law School, 1983-1984. Mr. Abrams was formerly a
Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York. Member: New York State Bar Association. Mr. Abrams is the
author of books on the theory of collective choice (Columbia University Press) and
voting theory (Sage), as well as articles on Soviet politics, game theory and bargaining
and negotiations. He has focused his practice on wage and hour litigation representing
financial advisors in claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and various
state wage and hour laws. In addition, Mr. Abrams has participated in shareholder
derivative litigation, partnership litigation and consumer class actions. Recently, Mr.
Abrams participated with the Cardozo Law School Bet Tzedek Legal Services in a
successful pro bono litigation in New York state court in defense of an elderly disabled
person threatened with eviction.
He was co-lead counsel in In re Tyson Foods, Inc., before the Delaware Chancery Court,
which settled claims of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with related party
transactions and spring loading of options for Tyson management.
He played a major role in litigation on behalf of securities brokers that successfully
settled claims for overtime pay and improper deductions from compensation against six
major brokerage houses under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and various state
wage and hour laws including New York and California. These cases included Lavoice v.
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; Basile v. A.G. Edwards, Inc.; Rosenthal v. A.G. Edwards &
Sons, Inc.; Palumbo v. Merrill Lynch; Garrison v. Merrill Lynch; Roles v. Morgan Stanley;
Lenihan v. Morgan Stanley; Klein v. Ryan Beck; and Badain v. Wachovia. Currently, he is
representing financial advisors in litigation against Morgan Stanley (MDL New Jersey),
Merrill Lynch (C.D. Cal.) and UBS (S.D.N.Y.). The UBS litigation is currently sub judice
before the Second Circuit which is considering the important issue of forced arbitration
and waiver of class and collective actions in employment contracts of adhesion.
Mr. Abrams was the firm’s primary representative to the executive committee
representing NationsBank shareholders in In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., which

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 45

EXHIBIT A
Page 57

resulted in an award of $490 million to NationsBank and BankAmerica shareholders.
He was also co-lead counsel in a New York state consumer protection class action
against AT&T Wireless Corp., Naevus v. AT&T Corp., which resulted in an award valued
at $40 million for the class members. Mr. Abrams was named a Super Lawyer from
2010 through 2015.

ROBERT ALTCHILER: admitted: New York; Connecticut. Education: State University of
New York at Albany (B.S., 1985); George Washington University Law School (J.D.,
1988). Mr. Altchiler heads the firm’s White Collar and Investigations practice group.
Robert’s practice focuses primarily in the areas of White Collar criminal investigations,
corporate investigations, litigation, tax and general corporate counseling. Robert has
successfully defended individuals and corporations in a wide array of multifaceted
investigations in areas such as mortgage fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, prevailing
wage, money laundering, Bank Secrecy Act, embezzlement, bank and wire fraud, theft
of trade secrets, criminal copyright infringement, criminal anti-counterfeiting, Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), International Traffic In Arms Regulations (ITAR),
racketeering, continuing criminal enterprises, and circumvention of trade restrictions,
among many others. Robert also specializes in non-criminal investigations related to
various topics, including finding money allegedly being hidden by individuals,
ascertaining the identities of individuals actually involved in corporate matters (when a
client believes those identities are being concealed), and running undercover “sting”
operations as part of civil and commercial litigation support.
Robert conducts corporate investigations and, when appropriate, when the client
instructs, refers the results to law enforcement for prosecution. In one recent example, a
corporate CEO came to learn assets and materials were being diverted by employees,
and that the corporation was “bleeding” money as a result. The CEO needed assistance
in ascertaining the identities and extent of involvement of the wrongdoers, as well as
the level of theft involved. Robert directed a corporate investigation that revealed the
nature of the problem. He then referred the investigation to federal authorities, which
arrested the wrongdoers and prosecuted them. The wrongdoers were convicted. In
addition, the amount of the theft was included in a court ordered restitution judgment
and the corporation will be repaid in full.
In 1988, Robert started his legal career as a prosecutor in New York City. As a
prosecutor, in addition to trying several dozen serious cases, ranging from murder to
fraud to narcotics violations, he also ran wiretap and grand jury investigations

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 46

EXHIBIT A
Page 58

involving money laundering and other financial crimes, as well as a wiretap and
investigation concerning a plot to assassinate a prominent NYC judge.
In addition to his practice, Robert has been an adjunct law professor at Pace University
Law School since 1998, where he teaches trial advocacy. Robert has also been a featured
participant and lecturer at Cardozo Law School’s acclaimed Intensive Trial Advocacy
Program in New York City, and has also taught at Yale Law School. Robert’s trial
advocacy teaching requires him to constantly integrate new developments in
communication theory and trial techniques into his pedagogical methods. Given the
changing way students (and prospective jurors) communicate and digest information
(via Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, for example) Robert is able to adapt his teaching
to the needs of his students. By actively participating in the mock trials and by
frequently demonstrating methods, he is able to continually adapt his own
communication skills and integrate cutting-edge developments into his own practice.
Robert graduated from the George Washington University Law School, and graduated
with honors from the Business School at the State University of New York at Albany in
1985. He is also a 1996 graduate of the National Criminal Defense College and a 1997
graduate of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy’s Harvard Teacher Training
Program. In 2014, Robert was asked to teach at the prestigious EATES Program at
Stetson University Law School, a program designed to teach trial advocacy professors
how to better teach their students. Robert has also made dozens of television
appearances on Fox, Court TV, and Tru TV, providing legal commentary on televised
trials, and participating in discussions related to pertinent issues.

THEODORE B. BELL: admitted: Illinois; Michigan; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit; U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of
Illinois and the Eastern District of Michigan. Education: University of Michigan (B.A.,
Sociology, 1988), University of Detroit, Mercy School of Law (J.D., 1992). Mr. Bell is Of
Counsel to the firm and is the managing member of the firm’s Chicago office. He
worked with the firm as a contract attorney for several years before eventually joining
the firm as an associate in 2006.
Mr. Bell has nearly 20 years of civil litigation experience. His practice is focused on
class actions with an emphasis on antitrust actions. Some of the notable cases that Mr.
Bell has played or is currently playing a significant role in litigating include The Shane
Group, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-cv-14360-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mi.)
(price fixing through the use of most favored nation agreements); In re Dairy Farmers of

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 47

EXHIBIT A
Page 59

America, Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation, No. 09-3960, M.D.L. No. 2031, (N.D. Ill.)
(manipulation of cheese and milk futures to raise prices of dairy products); In re
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. (ENH) Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-4446-JHL (N.D.
Ill.) (illegal monopolization and attempted monopolization of relevant market); In re
McDonough, et al. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., et al., No. 06 CV 00242-AB (E.D. Pa.) (retail price
maintenance antitrust litigation); and In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-4576,
M.D.L. No. 1536 (N.D. Ill.) (price fixing and output restriction antitrust litigation).

GEORGE BISCHOF: admitted: New York; Connecticut. Education: Amherst College
(1989); Yale Law School (1993). As a wills, trusts, and estates attorney, George Bischof
helps families with some of the most important aspects of financial and family
responsibility. His approach to estate planning combines direct personal attention with
legal expertise: clients protect their loved ones while preserving their wealth, and, in so
doing, they express their deepest commitments, goals, and values.
Because every family is unique, an engagement begins with a meeting to discuss client
objectives and questions, and then George drafts clear, binding documents. When
young children are involved, clients are assured that the right people will become
guardians/trustees and that those fiduciaries will have appropriate guidance. Clients
who need more specialized provisions, such as those with non-U.S. spouses, with
children from different marriages, or with special-needs children (or parents), or who
are same-sex partners, also benefit from custom document drafting.
With proper planning, many of George’s clients prudently address their estate tax
exposure, leaving more for their family, friends, and charities. His commitment is not
to make his clients experts in estate taxation, but rather to explain choices so that tax
planning opportunities can be coordinated with investment, philanthropic, and family
objectives. Personal service is a hallmark not only during the client engagement, but
afterward: George believes that in the estate planning field, the attorney-client
relationship should be an ongoing source of advice and guidance as families and
balance sheets grow over time (and as tax laws change…). George also appears in New
York’s probate courts to counsel families on estate administration, advising executors,
administrators, beneficiaries, creditors, and other interested parties. He also handles
trust matters, including accountings and trustee replacements.

KATE MCGUIRE: admitted: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York. Education: University of California at Santa Cruz (B.A.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 48

EXHIBIT A
Page 60

1995), Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1998); Member: Georgetown Immigration
Law Journal.

Associates

MALCOLM T. BROWN: admitted: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, United States
District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of New
Jersey and Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Education: University of Pennsylvania
(B.A., Political Science 1988) and Rutgers University School of Law (J.D. 1994).

KEVIN COOPER: admitted: New York; New Jersey; U.S. District Courts for the Southern
District of New York and the District of New Jersey. Education: Fordham University
(B.A., Legal and Policy Studies, 2011); Brooklyn Law School (J.D., 2014), where he
served as an Associate Managing Editor on the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial
& Commercial Law and as a Barry L. Zaretsky Fellow in Commercial and Bankruptcy
Law. Mr. Cooper’s primary areas of focus are securities, derivative and M&A litigation.

BRITTANY N. DEJONG: admitted: California; U.S. District Courts for the Southern,
Northern, Central and Eastern Districts of California. Education: University of Phoenix
(B.S. 2005); Golden Gate University, School of Law (J.D. 2008), Graduated with Highest
Honors, Editor – Law Review, Merit Scholarship Recipient, Member: State Bar of
California. Prior to joining WHAFH, Ms. DeJong was an associate at a boutique trial
firm in San Francisco where her practice focused on multiparty litigation involving
catastrophic property damage. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. DeJong worked as
a Research Attorney for the Honorable Peter Busch in the Law & Motion Department at
the San Francisco Superior Court. Additionally, while in law school, Ms. DeJong
externed for the Honorable Susan Illston of the Northern District of California and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

PATRICK DONOVAN: admitted: New York (2012). Education: Iona College (B.A.,
Business Management, 2007); St. John's University School of Law (J.D., 2011). Mr.
Donovan’s primary areas of focus are securities, derivative and M&A litigation.

CORREY A. KAMIN: admitted: New York (2012); New Jersey (2011). Education:
Georgetown University (B.S.B.A., Finance & Management, 2008) and Ohio State
University Moritz College of Law (J.D., 2011).

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 49

EXHIBIT A
Page 61

MARISA LIVESAY: admitted: California; United States District Courts for the Southern,
Central and Northern District of California; Ninth Circuit. Education: University of
Arizona (B.A., History & Spanish, 1999); University California Los Angeles Law School
(J.D. 2002).

MICHAEL LISKOW: admitted: California, New York, U.S. District Courts for the
Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California and the Southern and Eastern
Districts of New York. Education: University of Kansas (B.A., Psychology, 2001);
University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 2005), where he was the Symposium Editor
of the Journal of Constitutional Law. Before joining Wolf Haldenstein, Mr. Liskow was a
clerk for the Honorable Steven H. Levinson of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, and a
Fulbright Teaching Assistant to the Slovak Republic.

CARL MALMSTROM: admitted: Illinois; Minnesota; Northern District of Illinois.
Education: University of Chicago (B.A., Biology, 1999; M.A., Social Science, 2001);
University of Hawaii at Manoa (M.A. Anthropology, 2004); Loyola University Chicago
(J.D., 2007).

GLORIA KUI MELWANI: admitted: New York (2006), New Jersey (2005), United States
District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of New
Jersey. Education: New York University (B.M., Piano Performance, 2000); Benjamin N.
Cardozo School of Law (J.D., 2005), where she served as a Notes Editor on the Cardozo
Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal. Ms. Melwani’s primary areas of focus are
securities, stockholder derivative litigation, M&A litigation, and consumer litigation.

DANIEL TEPPER: admitted: New York. Education: University of Texas at Austin
(National Merit Scholar); New York University School of Law. Mr. Tepper is an
associate of the firm concentrating on commercial litigation, FINRA arbitration and
securities class actions. His reported cases include: Zelouf Int’l Corp. v. Zelouf, 45
Misc.3d 1205(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2014), rejecting application of a discount for lack of
marketability in an appraisal proceeding triggered by the freeze-out merger of a closely
held corporation; Sacher v. Beacon Assocs. Mgmt. Corp., 114 A.D.3d 655 (2d Dep’t 2014),
affirming denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss shareholder derivative suit by Madoff
feeder fund against the fund’s auditor for accounting malpractice; In re Belzberg v. Verus
Investments Holdings, 95 A.D.3d 713 (1st Dep’t 2012), compelling a non-signatory to
arbitrate a dispute arising out of a brokerage agreement under the doctrine of direct
benefits estoppel; CMIA Partners Equity Ltd. v. O'Neill, 2010 NY Slip Op 52068(U) (Sup.
Ct. N.Y. Co., 2010), which was the first time that a New York state court examined

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 50

EXHIBIT A
Page 62

shareholder derivative suits under Cayman Islands law; and Hecht v. Andover Assocs.
Mgmt. Corp., 27 Misc 3d 1202(A) (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co., 2010), aff’d, 114 A.D.3d 638 (2d
Dep’t 2014), which was the first Madoff-related feeder fund case in the country to
survive a motion to dismiss.

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 51

EXHIBIT A
Page 63

Non-Discrimination Policies
Wolf Haldenstein does not discriminate or tolerate harassment against any employee or
applicant because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital
status, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status and designs its hiring
practices to ensure that minority group members and women are afforded equal
employment opportunities without discrimination. The Firm is in compliance with all
applicable Federal, State, County, and City equal employment opportunity laws.
Wolf Haldenstein is proud of its long history of support for the rights of, and
employment opportunities for, women, the disadvantaged, and minority group
persons, including the participation in civil rights and voter registration activities in the
South in the early 1960s by partners of the Firm; the part-time employment of
disadvantaged youth through various public school programs; the varied pro bono
activities performed by many of the Firm’s lawyers; the employment of many women
and minority group persons in various capacities at the Firm, including at the partner
level; the hiring of ex-offenders in supported job training programs; and the use of
minority and women-owned businesses to provide services and supplies to the Firm.

270 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: 212-545-4653
www.whafh.com

SYMPHONY TOWERS
750 B STREET, SUITE 2770
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: 619-234-4599

ONE DEARBORN STREET
SUITE 2122
CHICAGO, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: 312-212-4401

Providing Exemplary Legal Service Since 1888
Page 52

EXHIBIT A
Page 64