In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities Litigation

Filing 277

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: #234 MOTION to Approve Approval of Partial Settlement.. Document filed by Repex Ventures S.A. (Burke, Timothy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

______________________________________
)
In re HERALD, PRIMEO and THEMA FUND )
SECURITIES LITIGATION,
)
)
)
)
)
______________________________________ )
)
This Document Relates To:
)
)
NEVILLE SEYMOUR DAVIS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ALBERTO BENBASSAT et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 09 CIV 289 (RMB)(HBP)
(Consolidated with 09 CIV 2032 and
09 CIV 2558)
ECF Case
Class Action

Case No. 09 Civ. 2558 (RMB)
Class Action

LEAD PLAINTIFF REPEX VENTURES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NEVILLE SEYMOUR DAVIS’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A.
B.

Assignment of Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C.
III.

Proposed Definition of Released Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Agreement with Respect to Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A.

The Proposed Notice to Class Members is Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.

2.

IV.

To the Extent that the Settling Parties are Attempting to Release
Herald Investors’ Claims, the Proposed Settlement is Unfair . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.
B.

The Proposed Notice Fails to Adequately Inform Class Members
of the Scope of the Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Davis’ Claims are Atypical of Herald Fund Investor Claims . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Settling Parties’ Agreement to Cooperate With Respect to Discovery
Cannot Interfere With Discovery Sought by Any Non-Settling Party . . . . . . . . 10

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

-i-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE NO.
FEDERAL CASES
In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig.,
No. 00 Civ. 0648, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1713 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 9
In re Baldwin United Corp.,
770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust and Sav. Ass'n v. Gillaizeau,
766 F.2d 709 (2d Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank,
236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
01-C 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37704 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein,
516 U.S. 367, 134 L. Ed. 2d 6, 116 S. Ct. 873 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave,
588 F.3d 790 (2d Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litig.,
176 F.R.D. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exch.,
660 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 9, 10
TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp.,
675 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 9
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 8
Wilson v. DirectBuy, Inc.,
No. 3:09-CV-590, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51874 (D. Conn. May 16, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

-ii-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE NO.
STATE CASES
Van Wagner Adver. Corp. v. S&M Enters.,
501 N.Y.S.2d 628 (N.Y. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

-iii-

I.

INTRODUCTION
Repex Ventures, S.A., (“Repex”), Lead Plaintiff for investors in the Herald (LUX) and

Herald (USA) funds (collectively, the “Herald Funds”), hereby opposes the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Partial Settlement (the “Motion”) filed by Neville Seymour Davis,
Lead Plaintiff for investors in the Thema Fund on grounds that: (1) the proposed definition of
“Released Claims” is vague, overbroad and, without clarification, may adversely impact claims
of investors in funds other than the Thema Fund, including investors in the Herald Funds; (2)
similarly, the proposed Assignment of Claims is unclear and, without clarification, may result in
the assignment of claims other than for investments in Thema Fund; and (3) because the Davis
action and the Repex action have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes, the proposed
settlement should make plain that discovery sought by Repex will not be impacted in any way by
restrictions agreed to by Davis.
These defects are found not only in the parties Stipulation of and Agreement of Partial
Settlement (the “Stipulation”) (Exhibit A, Dkt. No. 234-1), and the amendment thereto, but also
in the proposed class notice (the “Notice”), resulting in a notice which does not comply with Due
Process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. For all these reasons, the Motion should be denied.
II.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
A.

Proposed Definition of Released Claims

The definition of Released Claims is set forth in the First Amendment to the Stipulation
and Agreement of Partial Settlement (Exhibit F-1, Dkt. No. 234-10)(the “Settlement
Amendment”), which states:
‘Released Claims’ shall mean all claims, counterclaims, rights, causes of action,
or liabilities of every nature and description, whether known or Unknown (as
-1-

defined herein), whether arising under federal, state, common or foreign law, that
were or could have been asserted in the Action or any other action in the United
States or elsewhere in any jurisdiction throughout the world in which the
Released Parties are domiciled or otherwise subject to jurisdiction, by any
Settlement Class Member, that arise out of, are based upon, or related to the
allegations, transactions, facts, matters, or occurrences set forth or referred to in
the Amended Complaint or the Proposed Amended Complaint concerning or
relating to investments in the Fund . . . .
‘Released Claims’ does not include claims, rights or causes of action or liabilities
whatsoever related to the enforcement of the Settlement, including, without
limitation, any of the terms of this Stipulation or orders or judgments issued by
the courts in connection with the Settlement or any claims asserted or that could
be asserted against the Non-Settling Defendants.
Exhibit F-1, Dkt. No. 234-10. (Emphasis added).
The term “Action” is defined in the Stipulation to mean the class action complaint filed
March 19, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Fabian Perrone and Chia-Hung Kao, captioned Perrone et al. v. Benbassat et al., Case No. 09
Civ. 2558. (Stipulation at 2, ¶ A). In that complaint, plaintiffs Perrone and Kao brought
claims on behalf of themselves and other persons and entities who purchased shares of
Thema International Fund plc, Primeo Select Fund, Herald USA Fund, and/or Herald (LUX)
Fund arising out of those funds’ investments with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
(“BLMIS”) and subsequent losses stemming from the Ponzi scheme perpetuated by Bernard L.
Madoff. Id.
Thus, claims on behalf of investors in the Herald Funds not only could have been
asserted in the Action as defined in the Stipulation, claims on behalf of Herald Fund investors
were asserted.
Since “Settlement Class” is defined as all persons who were registered or beneficial
owners of [Thema Fund], and who suffered damages thereby due to conduct alleged in the
-2-

Amended Complaints . . . [Stipulation, ¶1.35], the definitions of the terms Action and Released
Claims make it unclear whether a member of the Thema Settlement Class would release claims
for damages arising from investments in the alleged feeder fund scheme and other funds
described in the Action, including the Herald Funds.
In an effort to clarify this release language ambiguity in the proposed settlement
documents, and to assure that claims other than those for investments in the Thema Fund are
released in the proposed partial settlement, Repex proposed that release language be modified by
the underlined and bolded phrase so that it would read:
‘Released Claims’ does not include claims, rights or causes of
action or liabilities whatsoever related to investments in
securities other than in the Fund or to the enforcement of the
Settlement . . . .
See Email to A. Chang dated June 21, 2011, attached to the Declaration of Timothy J. Burke
filed in support hereof (“Burke Dec.”) as Exhibit “1.” Repex further requested that the proposed
release language be modified in all instances it appeared in the Stipulation and Proof of Claim.
See Email to A. Chang and E. Davis dated June 21, 2011, attached to Burke Dec. as Exhibit “2”
noting that the release language was mirrored in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part IV. Definitions and
Release and in paragraph 7 of the proposed Proof of Claim.
B.

Assignment of Claims

Assigned Claims is defined in the Stipulation as follows: ¶2.14:
In consideration of the Settlement Amount, Settlement Class Members who
elect to participate in the Settlement by filing a Proof of Claim, Release and
Assignment will execute an assignment in the form set forth in Part V(B) of
Exhibit A-4 attached hereto, irrevocably conveying to Lead Plaintiff the right to
pursue, on their behalf and for their benefit, claims arising out of, based upon, or
relating to the allegations, transactions, facts, matters, or occurrences set forth
or referred to in the Amended Complaint or the Proposed Amended Complaint
-3-

against all Non-Settling Defendants, any of their affiliates, or any other persons
or entities in any domestic or foreign forum (“the “Assigned Claims”). . .
Stipulation, ¶2.14.
Here again, the language in the proposed settlement papers is unclear and ambiguous as
to whether a Settlement Class Member’s participation in the partial settlement requires an
assignment of claims to Davis, not just for Thema Fund claims, but for other fund claims,
including Herald Fund claims, which arose out of the Madoff feeder fund scheme.
Thus, Repex requested clarification of the Assigned Claims definition to include the
words “Assigned Claims does not include claims, rights or causes of action related to
investments in securities other than in the Fund.” See June 22, 2011 Email from Burke to A.
Chang, E. Davis and F. Bottini attached as Exhibit “3” to Burke Dec.
C.

Agreement with Respect to Discovery

The Stipulation at ¶2.16 concerning discovery, among other things, restricts the timing
and amount of discovery sought from HSBC1 in the Action. For example, ¶2.16 provides that
“no discovery under this section shall occur until 12 months after the Effective Date” and limits
the production of HSBC witnesses to “no more than two” for deposition and testimony at trial.
Since the Davis and Repex actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings,
including discovery, Repex sought clarification that of the Stipulation would not apply to any
non-settling party in the Consolidated Action, by adding the the end of ¶2.16 the language: “This
agreement does not apply in any manner to discovery sought by any non-settling party to the

1

“HSBC” means and includes HSBC Securities Services (Ireland) Limited, HSBC
Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited and HSBC Holdings plc, the defendant parties to
the Settlement. HSBC Holdings plc is also a defendant in Repex’s action filed on behalf of itself
and the proposed Class of Herald Funds investors.
-4-

action consolidated for pre-trial purposes under the caption In re Herald, Primeo and Thema
Fund Litigations, Case No. 09 Civ. 289 (S.D.N.Y) under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Notwithstanding Repex’s counsels’ efforts to clarify the proposed settlement documents,
the Settling Parties have, thus far, declined each of the above requests. See Email dated June 22,
2011 from F. Bottini and June 24 from E. Davis, attached to Burke Dec as Exhibit “4.” Thus, for
the above reasons, the Court should deny the Motion.
III.

ARGUMENT
A.

The Proposed Notice to Class Members is Inadequate
1.

The Proposed Notice Fails to Adequately Inform Class Members of
the Scope of the Release

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) states that, when certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(3), the
court must “direct to class members the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.”
The required notice must include the following information: the nature of the action, the
definition of the class certified, the class claims, issues, or defenses, that a class member may
enter an appearance through counsel if the member so desires, that the court will exclude from
the class any member who requests exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be
excluded, and the binding effect of a class judgment on class members under Rule 23(c)(3). Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) provides that “[t]he court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all
class members who would be bound by the [settlement] proposal.” While Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
establishes no specific requirements for the notice, in interpreting the Rule the Second Circuit
has stated that:

-5-

The standard for the adequacy of a settlement notice in a class action under either
the Due Process Clause or the Federal Rules is measured by reasonableness.
There are no rigid rules to determine whether a settlement notice to the class
satisfies constitutional or Rule 23(e) requirements; the settlement notice must
“fairly apprise the prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed
settlement and of the options that are open to them in connection with the
proceedings.” Notice is “adequate if it may be understood by the average class
member.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal citations
omitted). See also McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 804 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[t]he
notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information ... and it must
afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance”) (quoting Soberal-Perez
v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 43 (2d Cir. 1983)) (additional internal quote omitted).
“In order to achieve a comprehensive settlement that would prevent relitigation of settled
questions at the core of a class action, a court may permit the release of a claim based on the
identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action even though
the claim was not presented and might not have been presentable in the class action.” TBK
Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456, 460 (2d Cir. 1982); see also In re Baldwin
United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 336-37 (2d Cir. 1985). Thus, a settlement may “prevent class
members from subsequently asserting claims relying on a legal theory different from that relied
upon in the class action complaint but depending upon the very same set of facts.” Nat’l Super
Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exch., 660 F.2d 9, 18 n.7 (2d Cir. 1981); see also Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 382, 134 L. Ed. 2d 6, 116 S. Ct. 873 (1996).
It is essential, however, that there be adequate notice of the effect of the release and
compensation for released claims. Super Spuds, 660 F.2d at 16, 18. See also TBK Partners, 675
F.2d at 460-62; In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1713, No. 00 Civ.
-6-

648 at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001). Here, the Notice fails to apprise class members of the
terms of the settlement or the effects of the release. Specifically, it remains unclear whether or
not the Settling Parties are trying to settle the claims Herald Funds investors have against HSBC.
The release is especially opaque for investors in both the Herald and Thema Fund. As noted
supra, the Settling Parties define the “Action” so that the term includes claims brought on behalf
of Herald Funds investors.
A release is a species of contract and “is governed by principles of contract law.” Bank
of Am. Nat'l Trust and Sav. Ass'n v. Gillaizeau, 766 F.2d 709, 715 (2d Cir. 1985) (applying New
York law). Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question for the court. Van Wagner Adver.
Corp. v. S&M Enters., 501 N.Y.S.2d 628, 631 (N.Y. 1986). “Where contract language is
ambiguous, the differing interpretations of the contract present a triable issue of fact.”
Gillaizeau, 766 F.2d at 715 (applying New York law). Thus, “[a]mbiguity within the release of
a class action settlement agreement all but requires future litigation.” Wilson v. DirectBuy, Inc.,
No. 3:09-CV-590, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51874, *50 (D. Conn. May 16, 2011).
When a release is so ambiguous that future litigation is needed to determine its scope,
then the Settlement Notice fails to “fairly apprise the prospective members of the class of the
terms of the proposed settlement.” Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 114. Here, the Notice and Release are
unreasonable because average class members, same as Repex, simply do not know whether their
claims against HSBC related to their investment in Herald Funds are released. Id. The
ambiguity of the proposed release language should be clarified now so that the potential for
future disputes and litigation will be avoided.

-7-

Additionally, the Settling Parties’ failure to identify pending actions that would be
impacted by the partial settlement negates the Settling Parties’ request for this Court’s approval
of the Notice as written. The Second Circuit has “strongly encourage[d]” courts to include
specific references to pending actions in class notices. Id. at 116, n. 22. “If class members are to
make informed decisions about what steps to take in response to the notice, it would indeed be
helpful for them to be aware that other actions have been filed against these defendants,
involving claims similar to those here.” Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 01-CV-6492, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37704, 24-25 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2011). Here, if the Settling Parties identified
all of the pending actions impacted by their partial settlement, then class members and the parties
to the litigation would better understand the scope of the release. The identity of all of the
pending actions would certainly assist in alleviating some of the release’s current ambiguities.
2.

To the Extent that the Settling Parties are Attempting to Release
Herald Investors’ Claims, the Proposed Settlement is Unfair

As written, the release is so ambiguous that it could constitute a waiver of all claims
against HSBC that could be brought by Herald Funds investors. If it is true that the Settling
Parties are attempting to settle claims against HSBC that could be brought by Herald Funds
investors, then the Proposed Settlement is unfair to Herald Funds investors, and the Motion
should be denied.
A proposed settlement of a class action should be preliminarily approved where it
“appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious
deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or
segments of the class and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Nasdaq
Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 176 F.R.D. 99, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citation omitted). “When a
-8-

settlement is negotiated prior to class certification, as is the case here, it is subject to a higher
degree of scrutiny in assessing its fairness.” D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85 (2d
Cir. 2001).
The Second Circuit has recognized that when reviewing the fairness of a proposed class
action settlement, the court must take “special care. . . to ensure that the release of a claim . . .
not shared alike by all class members does not represent ‘an advantage to the class. . . [bought]
by the uncompensated sacrifice of claims of members, whether few or many.’” TBK Partners,
Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456, 461 (2d Cir. 1982) (quoting National Super Spuds,
Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 660 F.2d 9, 19 (2d Cir. 1981). In other words, there is
no reason why some class members should receive a benefit at the expense of other class
members. In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 Civ. 0648, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1713
at *56 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001).
Here, it appears that Herald Funds investors, especially those who also invested in the
Thema Fund, may be making an uncompensated sacrifice of their Herald Funds related claims
against HSBC. The Proposed Settlement does not provide compensation to Herald Funds
investors for releasing Herald Fund related claims against HSBC. Only Thema Fund investors
will be compensated. This potential sacrifice of Herald Funds related claims, with all of the
compensation going to Thema Fund investors, makes the Partial Settlement unfair. Id.
3.

Davis’ Claims are Atypical of Herald Fund Investor Claims

Davis cannot represent a class of Herald Funds investors because his interests and theirs
collide. National Super Spuds, 660 F.2d at 17. As show above, Herald Funds investors are

-9-

making an uncompensated, and thus impermissible, sacrifice of their Herald Funds related
claims against HSBC in order for Thema Fund investors to be compensated. Id.
Furthermore, because there is no evidence that Davis ever was an investor in the Herald
Funds, he does not have standing to pursue claims on behalf of the Herald Funds investors. See
Repex Ventures v. Madoff, 09 Civ. 289, Opp. at 6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2009) (plaintiffs cannot
meet the injury requirement for claims relating to funds in which they have not purchased shares
because they cannot claim to be personally injured by the violations relating to those funds).
Thus, Davis cannot serve as class representative for Herald Funds investors nor can he settle
their claims. Id.
B.

The Settling Parties’ Agreement to Cooperate With Respect to
Discovery Cannot Interfere With Discovery Sought by Any
Non-Settling Party

This Court consolidated the Herald and Primeo actions with the Thema action for pretrial
purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8. The
Stipulation at ¶2.16 contains an agreement that potentially relates to the timing and scope of
discovery of allegations common to the three complaints. The Stipulation covers requests for
documents, including the Settling Defendants’ productions of documents to third parties. Id.
The Stipulation limits the number of depositions of HSBC witnesses to “no more than two.” Id.
Further, the Stipulation prohibits the taking of such discovery until 12 months after the Partial
Settlement’s Effective date. Id.
Additionally, the Settling Parties have conducted what they characterize as “confirmatory
discovery” without notice to any other party. This discovery included, inter alia, the production

-10-

of documents by the HSBC and a deposition of a senior HSBC official with knowledge of
HSBC’s dealings with and due diligence of BLMIS. See Stipulation at 6.
Given the Court’s order consolidating these cases for purposes of discovery, it should be
made clear that the Stipulation does not apply in any manner to discovery sought by any
non-settling party to the action consolidated for pre-trial purposes under the caption In re
Herald, Primeo and Thema Fund Litigations. The Stipulation contains no such limitation. The
Court should ensure that the non-settling parties can proceed with discovery unimpeded by the
Settling Parties’ agreement.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons outlined herein, Repex respectfully requests that this Court deny the

Motion unless the changes Repex seeks are made to the Settlement papers.
Dated: June 30, 2011

STULL, STULL & BRODY

/s/Timothy J. Burke
Timothy J. Burke (Admitted pro hac vice)
10940 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2300
Los Angeles, California 90024
[phone] (Tel)
[phone] (Fax)
Email: [e-mail]
STULL, STULL & BRODY
Jules Brody (JB-9151)
Patrick Slyne (PS-1765)
6 East 45th Street
New York, New York 10017
[phone] (Tel)
[phone] (Fax)
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Repex Ventures,
Plaintiff Dana Trezziova and the Proposed Class
(Repex action only)

-11-