Robert Read v. Amira Nature Foods Ltd. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Relief from This Courts Order on the Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

C.D. Cal.August 26, 2016

MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Peter Safirstein, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2855 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT READ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:2435 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. CLASS ACTION JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Hearing Date/Time: September 29, 2016 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22-5th Floor (Spring Street) DAVID C. SUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 8:15-cv-00280-FMO-PJW CLASS ACTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2436 i MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE ..............................2 III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................5 A. MOVANTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b) .....................................5 B. THIS COURT SHOULD APPOINT MOVANTS AS CO-LEAD PLAINTIFFS ........................................................................................7 1. Intervention as of Right Under Rule 24(a) Should Be Granted. ..9 a. The Motion to Intervene. .......................................................... 1710 b. Movants Have Significant Protectable Interest 12 2. Without Intervention, Movants’ Ability to Protect Their Interests Would Be Impaired or Impeded. .................................................... 13 3. Movants’ Interests Are Not Adequately Represented. .............. 14 C. In the Alternative, Movants Should be Granted Permissive Intervention Under Rule 24(b). ....................................................... 15 IV. THIS COURT SHOULD APPROVE MOVANTS’ SELECTION OF CO –LEAD COUNSEL .............................................................. 16 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 17 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:2437 ii MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 13 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................6 Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 15 Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co. v. Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff, Inc., 564 F. App'x 887 (9th Cir. 2014)......................................................... 15, 16 Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................9 Golden v. O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, No. CV148725CASAGRX, 2016 WL 4168853 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) .6 Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................6 Havensight Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China, No. CV 15-01206 DDP FFMX, 2015 WL 1966890 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015) .............................................................................................................6 Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................6 Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................6 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................... 11 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:2438 iii MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 215CV4061CASGJSX, 2015 WL 7185422 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015) .......................................................................................................................5 Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. v. Lifewatch, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-02184-CAS, 2014 WL 2115189 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) ..6 Pellegrino v. Nesbit, 203 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1953) ........................................................... 8, 11, 12 Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) ..........................................................................5 Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14-55224, 2016 WL 4011195 (9th Cir. July 27, 2016) ............ 9, 10, 14 Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 10 Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 8, 9, 13 U.S. ex rel. McGough v. Covington Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................. 10, 11 United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 97 S. Ct. 2464, 53 L. Ed. 2d 423 (1977) ........................ 8, 10 United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................... 8, 10, 13 United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 9, 14 United States v. State of Oregon, 745 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 10 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:2439 iv MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) ......................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(v) ...................................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b) ........................................................................................ 11 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B) .............................................................................1 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) ......................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) ...................................................................... 16 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ........................................................................................ 1, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) ................................................................................... 8, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) ........................................................................................8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3) ................................................................................ 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ............................................................................. 1, 5, 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) .............................................................................. 5, 6 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:2440 1 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 and 60(b)6, Plaintiff Robert Read and movant Hiroshi Suzuki (“Movants”) submit this motion for relief and respectfully request that this Court grant relief from the Court’s August 12, 2016 Order dismissing this action without prejudice. (ECF No. 144). Movants also request this Court appoint them representative plaintiffs in this action, and approve the substitution of their counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (“Rosen”) and Safirstein Metcalf LLP (“Safirstein”), as Co-Lead Counsel, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B). By Order dated May 18, 2015, pursuant to the PSLRA, this Court appointed Steamfitters Local 449 (“Steamfitters”) as Lead Plaintiff in this Action, approving its selection of Morgan & Morgan (“Morgan”) as lead counsel in this case. (ECF No. 54). Morgan filed the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 77) (“SAC”). Morgan opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 96, 105, 111) in October, 2015. On April 4, 2016, Steamfitters moved to replace Morgan as lead counsel with Labaton Sucharow, LLP (“Labaton”). (ECF No. 120). On April 20, 2016, Defendants filed notices of non-opposition to Local 449’s motion for appointment of Labaton as lead counsel. (ECF No. 138, 139). On April 25, 2016, this Court removed the hearing on the appointment of lead counsel scheduled for May 26, 2016 from the calendar and appointed Labaton as lead counsel. (ECF No. 140). On July 18, 2016 the Court entered an Order, dismissing the Complaint and requiring Steamfitters to file by August 4, 2016 an amended complaint, if any, curing any defects. (ECF No. 143). Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:2441 2 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Steamfitters chose not to amend the Complaint. Movants have suffered losses due to Defendant’s alleged violation of the federal securities laws, and believe that they can make sufficient progress in amending the Complaint and, if necessary, pursuing an appeal on behalf of themselves and the putative Class. Movants respectfully request, therefore, that this Court set aside its Order (ECF No. 54), appointing the Steamfitters and approving their attorneys as Lead Counsel, and, pursuant to the PSLRA, issue a new order, appointing Movants as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approving their selection of the Rosen and Safirstein firms as Co-Lead Counsel. In addition, Movants seek an order, extending the deadline to file a Third Amended Complaint, so that they can vigorously pursue the claims on behalf of themselves and absent class members, including on appeal. Movants support the following Memorandum with the accompanying Declarations of Laurence M. Rosen (“Rosen Decl.”), Alessandra C. Phillips (“Phillips Decl.”) and Peter Safirstein (“Safirstein Decl.”) filed contemporaneously herewith. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE On February 10, 2015, putative class member Robert Read, represented by Rosen, filed the first of the actions consolidated into this action, against Defendants for claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.1 The Read action alleged that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants: (a) according to Indian government export documents, fraudulently overstated 1 In the alternative, if this Court does not appoint Movants as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approving their selection of the Rosen and Safirstein firms as Co-Lead Counsel, they respectfully request that this Court vacate its May 18, 2015 Order consolidating these cases (ECF No.54), and allow them to pursue the claims they first filed in an amended complaint. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:2442 3 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amira’s Indian-produced basmati rice exports, thereby overstating revenues by at least 24% and 18.7% in FY 2013 and 2014, respectively; (b) concealed that many of its counterparties are secretly related parties, including its largest customer, one of its largest suppliers/National distributor, a company (secretly owned by Amira’s CEO) to whom Amira proposed to pay $30 million to buy land that company bought for far less, and over a dozen related parties that situated inside Amira’s headquarters, some of which are in the same business as Amira, that appear to be directed by Amira’s CEO or his wife, and that Amira had to disclose that transactions with these entities were related party transactions, but it did not; and, (c) allowed Amira’s CEO to use company money to pay his own personal household expenses, including salaries for a personal house manager and a chef for his farmhouse. The actions allege that the truth of these misstatements and omissions entered the market though partial corrective disclosures causing the Class to suffer damages. On May 18, 2015, the Court appointed Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan as lead plaintiff for the proposed Class, approving their counsel Morgan & Morgan, P.C. as Lead Counsel. (ECF No. 54). On behalf of Steamfitters and the Class, Morgan filed an Amended Complaint on June 1, 2015. (ECF No. 56). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 1, 2015 (ECF No. 65). Prior to any ruling on the motion to dismiss, Steamfitters, through Morgan, filed the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 77) (“SAC”) on September 17, 2015 (ECF No. 77), expanding the class period and adding claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition, the SAC named the underwriters as defendants. All Defendants filed motions to dismiss the SAC on October 8 and 21, 2015 (ECF Nos. 96, 100) and Plaintiff Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:2443 4 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 96, 105, 111) on October 22, 2015. On March 3, 2016, Steamfitters filed a notice of change of firm name and address from the Morgan firm to Labaton. (ECF No. 119). In April 2016, certain attorneys formerly from Morgan reformed as Safirstein Metcalf LLP. See Safirstein Decl. On April 4, 2016, Local 449 moved for the approval of Labaton as lead counsel. (ECF No. 120). On April 25, 2016, this Court approved the appointment of Labaton as lead counsel. (ECF No. 140). On July 18, 2016, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint but gave Steamfitters leave to amend by August 4, 2016. (ECF No. 143). After numerous discussions with Labaton Sucharow after July 18, 2016 and before August 4, 2016, Safirstein learned on the afternoon of August 3, 2016 that Labaton Sucharow would both not seek an extension of time to file an Amended Complaint and would not file an Amended Complaint. (Safirstein Decl para 6). On July 15, 2016, Indian credit rating company, Credit Analysis & Research Ltd. (“CARE”),2 issued a report, revising and suspending the ratings it assigned to the bank facilities of Amira, due to delays in debt servicing because of a “stretched liquidity position.” CARE told Movants’ counsel on August 23, 2016 that Amira was unresponsive to its requests for information it required to monitor the Company’s ratings. See Phillips Decl. 2 CARE is a credit ratings firm like Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:2444 5 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Movants are investors and class members with a financial stake in the prosecution and outcome of this litigation. Movant Read, a purchaser of Amira common stock, filed the first of several related, and now consolidated, cases against Defendants. Movant Suzuki sold put options of Amira during the Class Period. Both Movants suffered losses in connection with their transactions in Amira securities during the Class Period. See Rosen Decl. Ex. 2. Movants, through their counsel, will commit significant resources to the investigation and pleading of their claims, if warranted, or to an appeal. Movants have uncovered leads that may produce substantial and compelling evidence of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme and significant details not previously alleged. Movants, however, require time to pursue those leads and to draft and file a Third Amended Complaint. They request no more time than the Court previously afforded lead counsel to amend following dismissal. III. ARGUMENT A. MOVANTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), this Court may reconsider a final judgment or any order based on: “‘(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.’” Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 215CV4061CASGJSX, 2015 WL 7185422, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) is an equitable remedy requiring a party to “demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:2445 6 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Havensight Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China, No. CV 15-01206 DDP FFMX, 2015 WL 1966890, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015) (citing Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006); Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. v. Lifewatch, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-02184-CAS, 2014 WL 2115189, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2014). To receive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), “a party must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his case.” Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). Local Rule 7–18 sets forth the bases upon which the Court may reconsider the decision on any motion, including the emergence of a new fact. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–18(b). Additionally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Id. Under Local Rule 7-18, this Court examines whether the party seeking reconsideration could have known of the newly-presented factual or legal argument at the time the Court made its original order. Golden v. O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, No. CV148725CASAGRX, 2016 WL 4168853, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016). Due to the limits placed upon putative class members by the class litigation structure, this is not a situation where Movants could reasonably have raised their arguments earlier. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2003)(affirming denial of reconsideration where movant “could reasonably have raised his arguments earlier”). In equity, Movants’ sole remedy at this point as a putative member of the class is to seek to intervene or to appeal the Court’s decision to dismiss without Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:2446 7 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prejudice, as this Court did not appoint them as Lead Plaintiff and class representatives. In addition, Movants did not become aware of Steamfitters’ final decision to neither file for an extension of time nor to file an amended complaint until a day before the deadline this Court set for amending the SAC. Granting this motion will allow Movants either to continue to discover new facts to supplement the SAC and/or to file an appeal of this Court’s final order of dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. As explained below, through their investigation, Movants will address the Court’s reasons for dismissing the SAC, or if their investigation uncovers nothing substantially new, will file a notice of appeal. In light of the commitment of Movants and their counsel to pursuing the claims of the putative class and the potential for finding facts that will further support the SAC’s allegations, allowing the present judgment to stand would be “unjust” to Movants and the putative class. B. THIS COURT SHOULD APPOINT MOVANTS AS CO- LEAD PLAINTIFFS This Court should appoint Movants as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approve their selection of the Rosen and Safirstein firms as Co-Lead Counsel. First, Movant Read filed the first of several cases that this Court’s Order of May 18, 2016 (ECF No. 54) consolidated with subsequently-filed related actions. Second, when it becomes apparent that a class member’s interest is not being adequately protected by the class action device, that class member is permitted to intervene in the action as a plaintiff “to preserve some right which Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:2447 8 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cannot otherwise be protected.” Pellegrino v. Nesbit, 203 F.2d 463, 465 (9th Cir. 1953).3 Thus, for Movants Read and Suzuki the right to intervene is unconditional when there is either: (1) a federal statute conferring an unconditional right; or (2) the party has an interest in the property or transaction subject to the action and the disposition of the action might impair or impede the party from protecting that interest, unless the party is already adequately represented by other parties in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The right to intervene is permissive when there is either: (1) a federal statute conferring the conditional right; or (2) the party’s claim and the action at issue have a common question of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). In evaluating a motion to intervene, courts are “guided primarily by practical and equitable considerations, and the requirements for intervention are broadly interpreted in favor of intervention.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). Soon after it became clear to Movants that Steamfitters would not be filing a third amended complaint, they promptly moved for relief from both this Court’s lead plaintiff order, selecting Steamfitters and approving their counsel, and its Order of Dismissal. They could not move any sooner because, as the Supreme Court has stated, such a rule would result in the “multiplicity of activity which Rule 23 was designed to avoid.” United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 394, 97 S. Ct. 2464, 2470, 53 L. Ed. 2d 423 (1977). (citations omitted). Movants and their counsel understand their obligation not to burden the Court and not to expend unnecessary litigation resources. Movants seek a three- 3 That this motion to intervene occurred post-judgment does not necessarily require this Court to find that the motion was untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24; Advisory Committee Notes to the 1966 Amendments; “Rule 24 provides for intervention as of right and permissive intervention.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:2448 9 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 week extension of time from the Order requested of this Court, appointing them as co-lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of the Rosen and Safirstein firms as Co-Lead Counsel, to file a third amended complaint. If the leads they have developed through their own preliminary investigation yield insufficient facts in further support of their claims and the claims of the putative Class, Movants will not file a third amended complaint, but will, instead, seek appellate review of this Court’s order of dismissal and final judgment. 1. Intervention as of Right Under Rule 24(a) Should Be Granted. The Ninth Circuit applies a four-part test under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a): “(1) that the prospective Movant’s motion is ‘timely’; (2) that the would-be Movant has ‘a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to ... the subject of the action,’ (3) that the Movant is ‘so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [the Movant's] ability to protect that interest’; and (4) that such interest is ‘inadequately represented by the parties to the action.’” Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14-55224, 2016 WL 4011195, at *8 (9th Cir. July 27, 2016) (citing Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2011)); see also United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 817-18. Further, the Ninth Circuit “construe[s] Rule 24(a) liberally in favor of potential Movants.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition to mandating broad construction, [the Ninth Circuit’s] review is “‘guided primarily by practical considerations,’ not technical distinctions.” Id. Movants meet all criteria for intervention as of right. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:2449 10 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. The Motion to Intervene is Timely. Timeliness is determined by the totality of the circumstances facing would-be Movants, with a focus on three primary factors: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.” Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 2016 WL 4011195, at *9 (citing Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d at 919). In the Ninth Circuit, the “crucial date for assessing the timeliness of a motion to intervene is when proposed Movants should have been aware that their interest would not be adequately protected by the existing parties.” Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 2016 WL 4011195, at *9 (citing Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Post-judgment motions to intervene are not necessarily untimely, and have been allowed when made before the time to appeal has run. See U.S. ex rel. McGough v. Covington Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394–95 (9th Cir. 1992); United Airlines, Inc., 432 U.S. at 395–96. In analyzing the “stage of the proceedings” factor, the “[m]ere lapse of time alone is not determinative.” Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14-55224, 2016 WL 4011195, at *9 (court found motion to intervene timely despite two month delay because even after became clear that intervention was necessary, took time to organize and gather evidence to support motion to intervene) (citing United States v. State of Oregon, 745 F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir. 1984)). Where a change of circumstances occurs, and that change is the “major reason” for the motion to intervene, “the stage of proceedings factor should be analyzed by reference to the change in circumstances, and not the commencement of the litigation.” Id. Further, no prejudice to existing parties will occur here. If Movants’ leads generate additional information to aid the Class and Movants to successfully Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:2450 11 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pursue claims, it will only benefit the Class. Current Lead Counsel have not amended the Second Amended Complaint by this Court’s deadline. Accordingly, Movants’ motion is timely. The length of the delay – two weeks after the Court’s August 12, 2016 Order – is also not excessive and supports intervention.4 The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “additional delay [due to a motion to intervene] is not alone decisive (otherwise every intervention motion would be denied out of hand because it carried with it, almost [by] definition, the prospect of prolonging the litigation.)” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1304 (9th Cir. 1997). The Ninth Circuit has found post-judgment interventions permissible when a party with interests similar to the applicant's fails to take further action. It reversed and remanded a motion to intervene in United States ex rel. McGough v. Covington Technologies Co. That case involved a qui tam action against several corporations with government contracts, where the government moved to intervene after two defendants had been dismissed and a judgment entered against the third defendant, for the purpose of appealing the district court’s dismissal of one of the defendants with prejudice. 967 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1992). Similarly, in Pellegrino v. Nesbit, a corporation filed an action against corporate officers under 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b), for recovery of short-swing profits resulting from the corporation's own options agreements. 203 F.2d at 465. The lower court held the corporation to be estopped from recovering profits because it had itself drafted the agreements. Id. The corporation's board of directors, who may have been “reluctant to bring suit against its own beneficial owners, directors or officers,” id. at 467, announced 4 This delay was due in part to the one-week requirement of Local Rule 7-3. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:2451 12 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that it would not pursue an appeal. Id. at 465. Shortly thereafter, the stockholder who had urged the board to pursue the original case moved to intervene. Id. The Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, ruled that the motion was timely and the intervention should have been permitted. Id. at 469. In this case, after numerous discussions with Labaton Sucharow after July 18, 2016 and before August 4, 2016, Safirstein learned on the afternoon of August 3, 2016 of Labaton Sucharow final decision to both not seek an extension of time to file an Amended Complaint and not file an Amended Complaint--the day before the Court’s August 4, 2016 deadline for filing a third amended complaint. After reviewing the SAC and considering the Court’s July 18, 2016 Order and Opinion, Movants concluded that they should seek appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs to protect their interests and those of the putative Class. Pursuant to local rule, shortly thereafter, they met and conferred with Steamfitters’ counsel and Defendants, waited the mandatory seven days, and have moved to replace Steamfitters as lead plaintiff promptly within the time Steamfitters could have filed a notice for appeal of this Court’s Order of dismissal. While Movants have generated leads and begun their investigation, they have not had sufficient time to draft and to include with this filing a third amended complaint, especially where the alleged fraud involves key witnesses and documents in India, with accompanying delays due to time zone, distance, and language differences. b. Movants Have a Significant Protectable Interest. To establish a protectable interest sufficient to intervene as of right, Movants must establish that the interest asserted is “is protectable under some law, and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:2452 13 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claims at issue.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2006); accord Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 818. The Ninth Circuit has taken the view that “a party has sufficient interest for intervention purposes if it will suffer a practical impairment of its interests as a result of the pending litigation.” Lockyer, 450 F.3d 441. In Lockyer, the Court found that the health care providers represented by the proposed intervenors, the amendment whose constitutionality was at the heart of the action, had sufficient interest because the litigation would impair their interests by forcing them into a choice. Id. Here, Movants assert claims under the Federal securities laws, which are designed to protect shareholders like those represented by the proposed intervenors. Since they are the intended beneficiaries of this law, their interest is substantial and neither “undifferentiated” nor “generalized.” Id. (citing Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d at 920). 2. Without Intervention, Movants’ Ability to Protect Their Interests Would Be Impaired or Impeded. While the proposed intervenors' interests might not be impaired if they have “other means” to protect them, no such means exist here. Alisal, 370 F.3d at 921. In Alisal, one of the defendant's judgment creditors tried to intervene in the United States’ attempt to place defendant in receivership because it feared that the receiver's power to veto outlays would impair its ability to enforce its judgment. Id. at 918. The Ninth Circuit held that litigation would not impair the creditor's interests because there was a separate process for approving claims against the debtor that was sufficient to protect the proposed intervenor's interests. Id. at 921. In Lockyer, as here, however, Movants had no alternative forum to protect their interests. Lockyer, 450 F.3d at 442. Here, Movants’ ability to protect his and the Class’s assertions of violations of the federal securities Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:2453 14 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 laws against Defendants would be forfeited because Lead Counsel did not amend the Second Amended Complaint to address the issues raised by this Court in its July 18, 2016 Order. Movants should be allowed to intervene and to assume control of these consolidated action on behalf of themselves and the putative Class to file a third amended complaint, if warranted, or appeal the dismissal of the action. 3. Movants’ Interests Are Not Adequately Represented. To determine whether the existing parties adequately represent an applicant’s interest, this Court considers: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all the Movant[s’] arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether the would-be Movant[s] would offer any necessary elements to the proceedings that other parties would not. The prospective Movant[s] bear the burden of demonstrating that existing parties do not adequately represent [their] interests.” City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d at 398. This element of Rule 24(a) intervention only requires a “minimal showing” that existing parties’ representation “may be” inadequate. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14- 55224, 2016 WL 4011195, at *17. Here, Movants meet all three elements. As the Court noted, the Second Amended Complaint as currently drafted fails to explain to the Court’s satisfaction how the statements in Amira’s Prospectus, ’13 Form 20F, and ‘14 Form 20F were false or misleading. (ECF No. 143, at p. 25). Steamfitters did not file a third amended complaint to address this Court’s July 18, 2016 Order. Movants’ request for additional time to file a third amended complaint, in light Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:2454 15 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the investigation needed and so far incomplete, demonstrate that Movants would offer necessary elements to these proceedings. Absent this Court’s appointing Movants as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approving their selection of Co-Lead Counsel, Movants and other putative Class members of Amira securities will be adversely affected and potentially prejudiced since their interests will not otherwise be protected by the failure to file a third amended complaint, if warranted, or to file an appeal. Accordingly, this Court should determine Movants’ interests are not adequately represented and grant this Motion to Intervene and for Leave to Amend. C. In the Alternative, Movants Should be Granted Permissive Intervention Under Rule 24(b). “An applicant who seeks permissive intervention must prove that it meets three threshold requirements: (1) it shares a common question of law or fact with the main action; (2) its motion is timely; and (3) the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims.” Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co. v. Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff, Inc., 564 F. App'x 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir. 1998). “In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Each of these requirements is satisfied here. First, Movants’ claims share common questions of fact; they seek to further investigate to obtain sufficient detail to address the Court’s concerns and file a third amended complaint. Second, as explained above, the motion to intervene is timely and will not delay or prejudice the existing parties. Finally, Movants’ participation and investigation would contribute to the development of Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:2455 16 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the underlying factual issues and the equitable adjudication of the legal issues involved. Executive Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 564 F. App'x at 889. Accordingly, Movants should be permitted to intervene as representative plaintiffs. IV. THIS COURT SHOULD APPROVE MOVANTS’ SELECTION OF CO –LEAD COUNSEL The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject to the approval of the Court. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v); 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court should only interfere with the Lead Plaintiff’s selection when necessary “to protect the interests of the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa); 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa). Movants have selected the Safirstein and Rosen firms as Co-Lead Counsel. Safirstein, comprising attorneys formerly part of the Morgan firm, previously appointed counsel in this action, has prosecuted securities fraud class actions and other complex litigation and its attorneys have obtained substantial recoveries on behalf of investors. Safirstein conducted due diligence initially in investigating the facts underlying this action before the initial Complaint was filed, drafted the Complaints and the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.(See Safirstein Decl.) Rosen filed the initial complaint on Movant Read’s behalf and actively researched the Class Plaintiffs’ claims it has reviewed and gathered information in support of the claims against the defendants. Furthermore, The Rosen Law Firm is experienced in the area of securities litigation and class actions, having been appointed as lead counsel in securities class actions in this District and in other courts throughout the nation. The firm has prosecuted securities fraud class actions and other complex litigation and, like the attorneys at Safirstein, obtained substantial recoveries on behalf of investors. The resume Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:2456 17 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Safirstein is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Phillips Decl. The resume of Rosen is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Phillips Decl. As a result of the firms’ experience in litigation involving issues similar to those raised in this action, Movants’ counsel have the skill and knowledge that will enable the firm to prosecute this action effectively and expeditiously. Thus, the Court may be assured that by approving Movants’ selection of Lead Counsel, the members of the class will receive the best legal representation available. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Movants respectfully request that the Court issue an Order: (1) granting Movants’ Motion for Relief From This Court’s Order on the Motion To Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) and Leave To Substitute Lead Counsel and Amend Second Amended Complaint; (2) appointing Robert Read and Hiroshi Suzuki as Lead Plaintiffs of the class; (3) approving The Rosen Law Firm P.A. and Safirstein Metcalf LLP as Lead Counsel; and (4) granting such other relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper. Dated: August 26, 2016 Respectfully submitted, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. /s/ Laurence Rosen, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:2457 18 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Peter Safirstein, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2855 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:2458 19 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, counsel for Movants met and conferred with both counsel for Defendants and counsel for Steamfitters. Defendants oppose the relief Movants seek. Steamfitters do not oppose the relief Movants seek. Dated: August 26, 2016 /s/ Laurence M. Rosen Laurence Rosen Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148 Filed 08/26/16 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:2459 1 NOTICE OF MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Peter Safirstein, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2855 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT READ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW NOTICE OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2460 2 NOTICE OF MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. CLASS ACTION JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Hearing Date/Time: September 29, 2016 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22-5th Floor (Spring Street) DAVID C. SUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 8:15-cv-00280-FMO-PJW CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF MOTION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 and 60(b)6, Plaintiffs Robert Read and Hiroshi Suzuki (“Movants”) submit this notice of motion for relief and respectfully request that this Court grant relief from the Court’s August 12, 2016 Order dismissing this action without prejudice. (ECF No. 144). Movants also request this Court appoint them representative plaintiffs in this action, and approve the substitution of their counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (“Rosen”) and Safirstein Metcalf LLP (“Safirstein”), as Co-Lead Class Counsel, pursuant to Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2461 3 NOTICE OF MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u- 4(a)(3)(B). This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on August 15, 2016. Dated: August 26, 2016 Respectfully submitted, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. /s/ Laurence Rosen, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2462 1 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE ROSEN ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT READ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW DECLARATION OF LAURENCE M. ROSEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Hearing Date/Time: September 29, 2016 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22-5th Floor (Spring Street) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2463 2 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE ROSEN ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID C. SUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 8:15-cv-00280-FMO-PJW CLASS ACTION I Laurence M. Rosen, declare: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and before this Court. I am the managing partner of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., attorneys for Robert Read (“Movant”). I make this declaration in support of Movant’s motion for relief from this Court’s July 18, 2016 Order, for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of Movants' choice of counsel pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following documents: Exhibit 1: Certification of Robert Read regarding his holdings in Amira; Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2464 3 DECLARATION OF LAURENCE ROSEN ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 2: Certification of Hiroshi Suzuki regarding his holdings in Amira; Exhibit 3: The firm resume of Safirstein Metcalf LLP; Exhibit 4: The firm resume of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of August, 2016, at Los Angeles. /s/ Laurence M. Rosen Laurence M. Rosen Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2465 EXHIBIT 1 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-3 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2466 Certification and Authorization of Named Plaintiff Pursuant to Federal Securities Laws The individual or institution listed below (the "Plaintiff") authorizes and, upon execution of the accompanying retainer agreement by The Rosen Law Firm P.A., retains The Rosen Law Firm P.A. to file an action under the federal securities laws to recover damages and to seek other relief against Amira Nature Foods, Ltd.. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. will prosecute the action on a contingent fee basis and will advance all costs and expenses. The Amira Nature Foods, Ltd.. Retention Agreement provided to the Plaintiff is incorporated by reference, upon execution by The Rosen Law Firm P.A. First name: Robert Middle initial: Anthony Last name: Read Address: City: State: Zip: Country: Facsimile: Phone: Email: Plaintiff certifies that: 1. Plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing. 2. Plaintiff did not acquire the security that is the subject of this action at the direction of plaintiff's counsel or in order to participate in this private action or any other litigation under the federal securities laws. 3. Plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary. 4. Plaintiff represents and warrants that he/she/it is fully authorized to enter into and execute this certification. 5. Plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of the class beyond the Plaintiff's pro rata share of any recovery, except such reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the class as ordered or approved by the court. 6. Plaintiff has made no transaction(s) during the Class Period in the debt or equity securities that are the subject of this action except those set forth below: Acquisitions: Type of Security Buy Date # of Shares Price per Share Common Stock Oct 14, 2014 700 14.82 7. I have not served as a representative party on behalf of a class under the federal security laws during the last three years, except if detailed below. [ ] I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States, that the information entered is accurate: YES Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-3 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2467 By clicking on the button below, I intend to sign and execute this agreement and retain the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. to proceed on Plaintiff's behalf, on a contingent fee basis. YES Signed pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1633.1, et seq. - and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act as adopted by the various states and territories of the United States. Date of signing: 02/10/2015 Certification for Robert Read (cont.) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-3 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2468 EXHIBIT 2 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-4 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2469 CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSED PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS I, Hiroshi Suzuki, declare the following as to the claims asserted, or to be asserted, under the federal securities laws: 1. I have reviewed the complaint and I designate Safirstein Metcalf LLP as my counsel in this action for all purposes. 2. I did not sell put options or purchase securities of Amira Nature Foods, Ltd. at the direction of plaintiff’s counsel or in order to participate in any private action under the federal securities laws. 3. I am willing to serve as a lead plaintiff and/or class representative either individually or as part of a group. A class representative is a party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the action, and whose duties may include testifying at deposition and trial. 4. I will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party beyond its pro rata share of any recovery, except reasonable costs and expenses, such as lost wages and travel expenses, directly related to the class representation, as ordered or approved by the court pursuant to law. 5. I have not sought to serve or served as a representative party for a class in an action under the federal securities laws within the past three years, except: 6. I have made the following transactions in Amira Nature Foods, Ltd. during the Class Period specified in the complaint and will provide records of those transactions upon request: No. of Shares Buy/Sell Date Price Per Share SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _____________________ Hiroshi Suzuki DocuSign Envelope ID: 5EEEE508-CC28-412B-8A65-20E4BF872065Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-4 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2470 Schedule A Buy/Sell Date Option Description # of Contracts Cost Total Sell (open position() 2/6/2015 PUT ANFI Feb 20 15 $10 15 $0.25 $375.00 Sell (open position) 2/3/2015 PUT ANFI Feb 20 15 $10 10 $0.30 $300.00 Sell (open position) 2/5/2015 PUT ANFI Feb 20 15 $10 10 $0.20 $200.00 Buy (close position) 2/10/2015 PUT ANFI Feb 20 15 $10 20 $2.60 ($5,200.00) Buy (close position) 2/10/2015 PUT ANFI Feb 20 15 $10 15 $2.55 ($3,825.00) Hiroshi Suzuki Amira Nature Foods (NYSE: ANFI) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-4 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2471 EXHIBIT 3 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:2472 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 1 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. BIOGRAPHY I. ATTORNEYS LAURENCE ROSEN - MANAGING PARTNER Laurence Rosen is a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law. He earned an M.B.A. in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and a B.A. in Economics from Emory University. Mr. Rosen served as a law clerk to the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Rosen entered private practice as an associate at the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in New York City where he participated in a number of complex securities class action and derivative litigation matters. He later served as an associate at McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey where he specialized in securities and business litigation. After practicing general securities and commercial litigation in New York City with Solton Rosen & Balakhovsky LLP, Mr. Rosen founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent investors exclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation. Mr. Rosen is admitted to practice law in New York, California, Florida, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. Mr. Rosen is also admitted to practice before numerous United States District Courts throughout the country and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits. PHILLIP KIM – PARTNER Mr. Kim graduated from Villanova University School of Law in 2002. He received a B.A. in Economics from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in 1999. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Kim served as Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York in the Special Federal Litigation Division. In that position, Mr. Kim defended a Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:2473 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 2 number of class action lawsuits, litigated numerous individual actions, and participated in more than seven trials. Mr. Kim focuses his practice on securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Mr. Kim is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York and the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. SARA FUKS – ATTORNEY Ms. Fuks graduated from Fordham University School of Law, cum laude, in February 2005, where she was a member of Fordham Law Review. She received her B.A. in Political Science, magna cum laude, from New York University in 2001. Ms. Fuks began her practice at Dewey Ballantine, LLP where she focused on general commercial litigation and then went on to prosecute numerous ERISA and securities class actions as an associate at Milberg LLP. Ms. Fuks is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Southern and Eastern District Courts of New York. JONATHAN STERN – ATTORNEY Mr. Stern graduated from New York University School of Law in May of 2008, where he was a Development Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law. He received his B.A. in Philosophy with Honors from McGill University. Mr. Stern began his practice in the litigation department of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and then went on to practice at the litigation boutique of Simon & Partners LLP, where he participated in a Federal trial. Mr. Stern is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Southern and Eastern District Courts of New York. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:2474 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 3 JONATHAN HORNE- ATTORNEY Mr. Horne is a 2009 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he received the Lederman/Milbank Law, Economics, and Business fellowship, and holds a B.A. in Economics & Philosophy from the University of Toronto. Mr. Horne began his practice at Kaye Scholer LLP. Mr. Horne specializes in securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the District of Colorado and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. YU SHI – ATTORNEY Mr. Shi received his J.D. from Columbia University School of Law in 2011 and his B.A., cum laude, from Columbia University in 2008. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Shi served as a Special Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New York City Law Department’s Economic Development Division, where he worked on business and commercial transactions involving the City of New York. Mr. Shi focuses his practice on securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in the State of New York and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. KEVIN CHAN - ATTORNEY Mr. Chan graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2012. He received an A.B. in Psychology from Harvard University in 2007. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Chan gained substantive experience as an intern with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as part of its Summer Honors Law Program. He is admitted to practice in the State of New York and in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:2475 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 4 ERICA STONE- ATTORNEY Ms. Stone graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2013. She received her B.A. in Political Science and Communications, cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania in 2009. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey. JING CHEN - ATTORNEY Ms. Chen received a Juris Doctor degree from Pace University School of Law in 2011, Juris Master degree from China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, China and B.A. in English Literature and Linguistics from Shandong University in Jinan, China. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey and China. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm, Ms. Chen practiced corporate law, commercial transactions and arbitration for over two years. CHRISTOPHER S. HINTON – OF COUNSEL Mr. Hinton is admitted to the bars of the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. He received a B.A. degree in Economics and Political Science in 1997, magna cum laude, from Marquette University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and received a J.D. degree, cum laude, from University of Illinois College of Law at Champaign in 2002. His primary area of practice is securities and ERISA class action litigation. He co-authored Foreign Investors Serving as Lead Plaintiffs in U.S.- Based Securities Cases, International Practice Section Newsletter (Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Washington, D.C.), Winter 2004 and Spring 2005. Mr. Hinton has been a member of the plaintiffs’ bar since 2003 and has focused on class action litigation. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:2476 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 5 II. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 12-CV-9456 (JSR). The Rosen Law Firm was counsel to lead plaintiff in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $14 million in cash. Hellum v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc., No. CGC-08-482329. The Rosen Law Firm was class counsel in this certified class action in California Superior Court, San Francisco County alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the California Corporations Code in connection with defendants’ offer and sale of unregistered securities. Plaintiffs settled this action for $10 million in cash. In re Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., No. CGC 05-440303. The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the assets of six related publicly traded limited partnerships. After winning the first phase of a multi-phase bench trial, Plaintiffs obtained a $10 million cash settlement for class members. Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No. CIV-08-936-M. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel on behalf of purchasers of Quest Resource Corporation’s securities in this consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s former CEO and CFO misappropriating nearly $10 million. All classes and parties to this litigation settled this action for $10.1 million in cash. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:2477 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 6 Hufnagle v. RINO International Corporation, No. CV 10-8695-VBF (VBKx) (Partial Settlement). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings. The parties agreed to a partial settlement for $7 million in cash. Blitz v. AgFeed Industries, No. 3:11-0992. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $7 million in cash. Cole v. Duoyuan Printing, Inc., Case No. 10-CV-7325(GBD). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving a Co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and adequacy of the Company’s internal controls. Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants agreed to a partial settlement of $4.3 million cash payment to class members. Plaintiffs and the underwriters agreed to a separate $1,893,750 cash payment to class members pending court approval. The total settlement is $6,193,750 in cash. In re Nature’s Sunshine Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS- SA. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Class Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:2478 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 7 concerning its financial statements and business practices. Following the certification of the class and extensive discovery, Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case for $6 million in cash. Bensley v. FalconStor Software, Inc., No. 10-CV-4672 (ERK) (CLP). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial and business condition. The parties agreed to settle this action for $5 million in cash. In re Entropin, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 04-6180-RC. The Rosen Law Firm was counsel to Plaintiff in this securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Lead Counsel in the related class action brought in California state court against Entropin, Inc., a defunct pharmaceutical company. These actions alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and violations various state securities laws arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s lead drug candidate Esterom, respectively. On the eve of trial, Defendants agreed to settle these cases for a $4.5 million cash payment to class members. Fitzpatrick v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., No. 13-CV-01649. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties agreed to settle this action for $4.5 million consisting of $2.35 million in cash and $2.15 million in stock, pending court approval. Munoz v. China Expert Technology, Inc., Case No. 07-CV-10531 (AKH). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:2479 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 8 District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of: (a) the Company’s issuance of materially false statements of revenues and earnings; and (b) the Company’s auditors’ issuance of materially false and misleading “clean” audit opinions. The parties settled this action for $4.2 million cash payment to class members. Stanger v. China Electric Motor, Inc., Case no. CV 11-2794-R (AGRx). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s $22.5 million initial public offering. The parties agreed to settle this action for $3,778,333.33 in cash. In re L&L Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-CV-6704 (RA) The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties have preliminarily agreed to settle this action for $3.5 million in cash, pending court approval. Sood v. Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., No. 13-CV-23878-UU. The Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Company failed to disclose material facts about its primary drug candidate. The parties agreed to settle this action for $3.5 million in cash. In re StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-00177. The Rosen Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b, 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading press Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:2480 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 9 releases regarding certain contracts the Company claimed to have signed. Plaintiffs settled this class action for $3.4 million cash payment to class members. Mallozzi v. Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., Case No. 07-CV-10321 (GBD). The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenues and earnings. During the pendency of the Company’s bankruptcy, the parties settled this class action for $3.4 million in cash. Meruelo Capital Partners 2, LLC et al. v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., Case no. BC 352498. The Rosen Law Firm was co-counsel to plaintiffs in this action brought in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County for violations of the California State securities laws against the securities issuer and broker-dealer in connection with the sale of $2.5 million worth of securities. On the eve of trial, plaintiffs settled the claims against the issuer for a cash payment of $1 million. Following an eight day jury trial, Plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict in their favor and against the underwriter for over $2.2 million (which included prejudgment interest). In sum, plaintiffs recovered over $3.2 million, which represented 100% of plaintiffs’ principal investment of $2.5 million and over $700,000 in prejudgment interest. The verdict was affirmed by the California 2nd District Court of Appeal. Ray v. TierOne Corporation, Case No. 10CV199. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of earnings and the Company’s banking operations and business. The parties settled this action for $3.1 million in cash. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:2481 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 10 In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-CV-5416-DOC (RZx). The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings. Plaintiffs settled this action for $3 million in cash. Madden v. Pegasus Communications Corp, Case No. 2:05-cv-0568. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s direct broadcast satellite agreement with DirecTV and the Company’s reported subscriber growth and totals. Plaintiffs settled this action for a $2.95 million cash payment to class members. In re TVIA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-06-06403-RMW. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b, 20(a), 20A of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements by virtue of the Company improper recognition of revenues in violation of GAAP. Plaintiffs settled this action for a $2.85 million cash payment to class members. Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., Case No. 3:06-CV-1654-D. The Rosen Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of § 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:2482 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 11 statements in violation of GAAP. Plaintiffs settled this case for $2.75 million cash payment to class members. Romero v. Growlife, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03015-CAS (JEMx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The parties have preliminarily agreed, subject to court approval, to settle this action for total consideration of $2.7 million, comprise of $700,000 in cash and $2 million in stock. Nguyen v. Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Case No. CV11-0405-DOC (MLGx). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s clinical trial involving its principal product. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.5 million in cash. In re Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, Case No. SA CV-04-0876 DOC (PJWx). The Rosen Law Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the related California state court class actions. This action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the sale of partnership interests that corresponded to the securities of Chaparral Network Storage and AirPrime, Inc., n/.k/a Sierra Wireless, Inc. Plaintiffs settled this and the related state court actions for an aggregate $2.485 million cash payment to class members. In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C 10-9239-CAS (JCx). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:2483 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 12 District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings. The parties settled this action for $2.425 million in cash. Kubala v. SkyPeople Fruit Juice, No. 11-CV-2700 (PKC). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s failure to disclose material related party transactions that rendered the Company’s financial statements false. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.2 million in cash. In re Fuwei Films Securities Litigation, Case no. 07-CV-9416 (RJS). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company’s $35 million IPO. The parties settled this action for $2.15 million cash payment to class members. Rose v. Deer Consumer Products, Inc., Case No. CV11-3701 –DMG (MRWx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The parties agreed to a partial settlement for $2.125 million in cash. The case is ongoing against Deer’s auditor. Snellink v. Gulf Resources, Inc., No.CV11-3722-ODW (MRWx). The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:2484 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 13 California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s failure to disclose the related party nature of certain transactions, and the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.125 million in cash. Snellink v. Universal Travel Group, Inc., Case No.11-CV-2164 (SDW). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The parties have preliminarily agreed to a partial settlement of this action for $2 million in cash, pending court approval. Henning v. Orient Paper, Inc., No. CV 10-5887-VBF (AJWx). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and certain violations of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and business prospects. The parties settled this action for $2 million in cash. Campton v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 12-CV-2196. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for the company’s IPO. The parties have preliminarily agreed to the settle this action for $1.8 million in cash, pending court approval. Hayden v. Wang, et al., No. Civ. 518333. The Rosen Law Firm is sole lead counsel in this class action pending in the California Superior Court of San Mateo County brought on Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:2485 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 14 behalf of purchasers of Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc. common stock in two private placements. The Complaint alleges that the offering documents contained were materially false. The parties have preliminarily agreed to the settle this action for $1,615,000 in cash, pending court approval. Burritt v. Nutracea, Inc., Case No.CV-09-00406-PHX-FJM. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. This action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Arizona securities laws in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of earnings and revenues. During the pendency of the Company’s bankruptcy, Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million in cash and a remainder interest of 50% of the issuer’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy. Press v. Delstaff LLC, No. MSC 09-01051. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, brought in connection with a “going private” transaction valued at $1.25/share for the 6.4 million shares implicated in the transaction. The parties settled this action for $1,642,500 in additional compensation to shareholders. In re Lightinthebox Holding Co., Ltd., 13-CV-6016 (PKC). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties have agreed to settle this action for $1.55 million, pending court approval. Guimetla v. Ambow Education Holding Ltd., No. CV-12-5062-PSG (AJWx). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:2486 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 15 of 1934 in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million. Lee v. Active Power, Inc., No. l:13-cv-00797. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating to a purported distribution agreement with a major information technology provider. The parties have agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million, pending court approval. In re Northfield Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 06 C 1493. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements concerning its PolyHeme blood substitute product and business prospects. Following extensive class discovery and litigation activity in bankruptcy court, the parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million in cash. In re PartsBase.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-8319. The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The action arose from a $45.5 million initial public offering of common stock by the defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including Roth Capital Partners and PMG Capital Corp. Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million cash settlement for class members. In re Empyrean Bioscience Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02CV1439. This class action in which the Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The action alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on misrepresentations in defendants’ SEC filings and press Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:2487 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 16 releases concerning the clinical testing of the Company’s GEDA Plus microbicide gel. After the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the parties briefed the issue of whether the securities were traded in an efficient market. Prior to a decision on market efficiency, Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.4 million payment to class members. In re Himax Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C 07-4891-DDP. The Rosen Law Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s IPO. Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case for $1.2 million cash payment to class members. In re Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-1175. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the defendants alleged failure to disclose material adverse information concerning the Company’s products under development and misrepresenting the amount of time it would take to commercialize the products. Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.2 million cash payment to class members. In re: M.H. Meyerson & Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-2724. This class action, in which the Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel, was filed in U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on allegedly false and misleading SEC filings related to the planned launch of an online brokerage business, and other material misrepresentations, which allegedly inflated the price of Meyerson stock during the class period. Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.2 million payment to class members. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:2488 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 17 In re OPUS360 Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-Civ-2938. The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel for this action brought in the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from a $75.0 million initial public offering of common stock by the defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including JP Morgan and Robertson Stephens, Inc. The Court certified the action as a class action and approved a final settlement. Ansell v. National Lampoon, Inc., Case No. CV10-9292-PA (AGRx). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of a market manipulation scheme involving National Lampoon’s common stock. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1 million in cash. Fouladian v. Busybox.com, Inc., Case No. BC 248048. The Rosen Law Firm was Co- Lead Counsel in this class action brought in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The action arose from a $12.8 million initial public offering of securities by the defendant issuer and underwriter. California and federal securities laws claims (Cal. Corp. Code §25401 and §11 of 1933 Act) were brought on behalf of a nationwide class of public offering investors. The Court approved a $1.0 million cash settlement to a nationwide class of investors. Howard v. Chanticleer Holdings, Inc.., No. 12-CV-81123-JIC. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for the Company’s public offering of common stock and warrants. The parties have agreed to settle this action for $850,000 in cash. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 18 of 28 Page ID #:2489 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 18 Katz v. China Century Dragon Media, Inc., Case no. CV 11-02769 JAK (SSx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. Following entry of default against the issuer and certification of the class, the non- issuer defendants and Plaintiffs have preliminarily agreed to resolve the claims against the non- issuer defendants for $778,333.33, subject to court approval. In re China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:11-CV- 02768 PSG (SSx). The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties agreed to partially settle this action for $631,600 in cash. A default judgment was obtained against the issuer. Gianoukas v. Tullio and Riiska, Case No. 02CC18223. The Rosen Law Firm was lead counsel to a group of twenty-one plaintiffs that brought claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation in California Superior Court, Orange County against the former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers of a publicly traded software company, NQL Inc. The complaint alleged that the officers issued a series of false and misleading press releases concerning the business of NQL for the purpose of inducing the purchase and retention of NQL securities. Plaintiffs settled the action favorably for a confidential amount. The BoxLot Company v. InfoSpace, Inc., Case No. GIC 779231. The Rosen Law Firm was plaintiff’s counsel for this action filed in California Superior Court, San Diego County Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 19 of 28 Page ID #:2490 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 19 which arose from the aborted merger agreement and ultimate sale of The BoxLot Company’s assets to InfoSpace. The action alleged violations of California securities laws (Cal. Corp. Code §25400 & §25401) and common laws and sought damages of $92.8 million from InfoSpace and its CEO, Naveen Jain. The case settled favorably for plaintiffs for a confidential amount. Teague v. Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., No. 10-CV-634-BLW. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements and business condition. The parties settled this action for $450,000. Huttenstine v. Mast, Case No. 4:05-cv-152 F(3). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s material misstatements and omissions concerning the nature of certain sales contracts it had entered into. Plaintiffs have preliminarily agreed to settle this action for a $425,000 cash payment to class members. Kinzinger v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Case No. 03-0922608. The Rosen Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this class action filed in Utah state court alleged violations of the Utah Securities Act against Paradigm Medical arising out of false and misleading statements made to investors in a $5.0 million private placement of securities. The court approved a $625,000 settlement on behalf of the private placement purchasers. III. SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. IS CURRENTLY LEAD COUNSEL Hufnagle v. RINO International Corporation, No. CV 10-8695-VBF (VBKx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 20 of 28 Page ID #:2491 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 20 the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violation of §10b of the Securities Exchange Act against RINO International’s auditor. This action is in discovery. Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., No. C 09-4208-JSW. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings, and the Company’s banking operations and business. This action is in discovery. Kevin Lam v. Iradimed Corporation, No. 14-cv-23337-KMM. The Rosen Law firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s failure to properly disclose adverse information about the regulatory compliance of its products. This action is at the pleading stage. Cheung v. Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., No. CV 11-9495-PSG (JCGx). The Rosen Law firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s failure to disclose material related party transactions in periodic reports it filed with the SEC. This action is in discovery. Omanoff v. Patrizio & Zhao LLC, No. 2:14-cv-723-FSH-JBC. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Patrizio & Zhao, LLC, as auditor for Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 21 of 28 Page ID #:2492 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 21 Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., issued materially false and misleading audit opinions. This action is at the pleading stage. Cianci v. Blue Earth, Inc., No. CV-14-08263 DSF (JEMx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. This action is at the pleading stage. In re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, No. 11-CV-2598 (DLC). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act and Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The class is certified and this action is in discovery. In re Lihua International, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 14-CV-5037 (RA). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. This action is at the pleading stage. Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, No. 14-CV-6637 (FB) (SMG). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violation of §10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s misstatements about its true financial condition and prospects. This action is at the pleading stage. Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., Case no. 10-728-SLR. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in the class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 22 of 28 Page ID #:2493 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 22 the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. This action is in discovery. Abrams v. MiMedx Group, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-03074-TWT. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating the regulatory compliance of its products. This action is in discovery. In re China XD Plastics Company Limited Securities Litigation, No. 1:14-cv-05308 (GBD). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. This action is at the pleading stage. In re Montage Technology Group Limited Securities Litigation, No. 3:2014-cv-0722 (SI). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating to certain undisclosed related party transactions and the Company’s revenue. This action is in discovery. Yang v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 14-cv-3538 (FSH). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 23 of 28 Page ID #:2494 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 23 Statement and Prospectus issued for the Company’s public offering of common stock. The action is in discovery. Luo v. Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc., No. 12-45-WAL-GWC. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The action is at the pleading stage. In re Poseidon Concepts Securities Litigation, No. 13-CV-1213 (DLC). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. This action is at the pleading stage. In re DNTW Chartered Accountant Securities Litigation, No. 13-CV-4632 (PGG). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole lead counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that DNTW, as auditor for Subaye Inc., issued materially false and misleading audit opinions. This action is at the pleading stage. In re Petrochina Company Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 12: Cv-6180 (ER). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole lead counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading information about its business practices in China. This action is at the pleading stage. Berry v. KIOR, Inc., No. 13-CV-2443. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co- Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 24 of 28 Page ID #:2495 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 24 Texas. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. This action is at the pleading stage. Deering v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv;00367-SI. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing an undisclosed stock promotion scheme. This action is at the pleading stage. Singh v. Tri-Tech Holding, Inc., No. 13-CV-9031 (KMW). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. Simmons v. FAB Universal Corp., No. 13-CV-8216 (RWS). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01269 (SRC). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 25 of 28 Page ID #:2496 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 25 Kelsey v. Textura Corporation, No. 14 C 7837. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out allegations that the Company misstated its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. Pena v. iBio, Inc., 14-CV-1343-RGA. The Rosen Law Firm is sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out misstatements and omissions relating to the Company’s purported involvement with an Ebola treatment. This action is at the pleading stage Miller v. Global Geophysical Services, No. 14-CV-708. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern of Texas. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out a financial restatement. This action is at the pleading stage. In re Amtrust Financial Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-736 (VEC). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. In re COTY Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14 Civ. 0919 (RJS). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 26 of 28 Page ID #:2497 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 26 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. Beck v. Walter Investment Management, No. 14-cv-20880-UU. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. This action is at the pleading stage. Pollock v. China Ceramics Co. Ltd, No. 1:14-cv-4100 (VSB). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s lack of internal controls. This action is at the pleading stage. Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, No. 14-CV-3251 (JPO). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The case is at the pleading stage. Li v. Aeterna Zentaris. Inc., No. 14-CV-07081 (PGS). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The case is at the pleading stage. Taormina v. Annie’s, Inc., CV-14-02711-BLF. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 27 of 28 Page ID #:2498 ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 27 California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The case is at the pleading stage. Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., No. SACV 10-0252-DOC (RNBx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action. Following dismissal of the complaint by the district court, the Rosen Firm obtained a reversal of the dismissal from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Company’s publicly stated internal policies. The action is in discovery. In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Sec. Litig., No. CV 12-4621- JFW (PLAx). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action currently on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company overstating it assets and cash balances and misstating the Company’s internal controls. In re Zagg Securities Litigation, No. 12-CV-852-DB. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action currently on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b, 20(a), 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of undisclosed stock transactions involving Zagg’s CEO and Chairman. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 28 of 28 Page ID #:2499 EXHIBIT 4 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2500 SA S FIR ecuriti STE es Frau Cla Attorn IN d ∙ Co ss Act ey & Prof ME nsume ion Lit essional S TCA r Frau igation taff Résu LF d ∙ Ant mé LL itrust P Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2501 SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP    SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001∙ 1‐800‐221‐0015 ∙ 212‐201‐2855 www.safirsteinmetcalf.com Peter Safirstein Peter primarily represents plaintiffs in securities, antitrust, commodities and consumer class actions and also represents whistleblowers before the SEC. Prior to entering private practice, Peter served in the Enforcement Division of the Securities Exchange Commission and in the United States Attorneys’ Offices for the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida where he concentrated on prosecuting white collar crime. He has played a prominent role in important class actions including the mammoth IPO Securities litigation that settled for more than $500 million. In addition, Peter’s practice includes Human Rights Litigation and Peter successfully represented Nigerian children allegedly victimized by Pfizer’s improper medical experiments involving the drug Trovan. Peter was also part of the team that represented consumers in an antitrust case against Sirius XM Radio which was resolved for $180 million. Peter serves as co‐chair of the Securities Subcommittee of the ABA Class Actions and Derivative Suits Committee. He has lectured on class actions before various professional associations. Education: B.A., George Washington University, 1978 M.A., Georgetown University, 1980 J.D., Brooklyn Law School, 1985 Bar Admissions: United States Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit United States District Court, Southern District of New York United States District Court, Eastern District of New York United States District Court, District of New Jersey New York State Bar New Jersey State Bar psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com (212) 201-2845 (direct) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2502 SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP    SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001∙ 1‐800‐221‐0015 ∙ 212‐201‐2855 www.safirsteinmetcalf.com Elizabeth S. Metcalf Elizabeth focuses her practice on antitrust and class action securities litigation, shareholder derivative litigation, and whistleblower actions in the New York office. Recent litigation includes In re Massey Energy Co. Derivative & Class Action Litigation, which followed the 2010 mining disaster, and Reid et al v. Unilever United States, Inc., a class action on behalf of purchasers and users of a Suave brand hair treatment that allegedly causes unwanted, significant hair loss. Currently, she serves as a member of the team prosecuting In re North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation, an antitrust action alleging a conspiracy to manipulate prices of North Sea Brent Crude Oil, and as a member of the team prosecuting In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, an action alleging the manipulation of prices of aluminium and monopolization of the warehousing of London Metal Exchange (LME)‐approved aluminium in the United States. Prior to law school, she worked as a financial research analyst at a class action securities fraud law firm. During law school, she was a member of the Fordham International Law Journal, and she served as a legal intern at the Securities Arbitration Clinic of Fordham University School of Law, obtaining a punitive damages award before an arbitration panel under the Financial Industry and Regulatory Authority. Education: B.A., Colorado College, 1992 J.D., Fordham University School of Law, 2008 Bar & Court Admissions: United States District Court, Southern District of New York New York State Bar emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com (212) 201-2843 (direct) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2503 SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP    SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001∙ 1‐800‐221‐0015 ∙ 212‐201‐2855 www.safirsteinmetcalf.com Sheila Feerick Director of Shareholder Communications Sheila has nearly ten years of securities litigation experience. She performs extensive investigative financial analysis for potential class action lawsuits, identifying and analyzing potential cases for securities class action litigation by applying the federal securities law principles such as scienter, loss causation, materiality, and reliance to help evaluate whether a prospective case is meritorious. In addition, Sheila is responsible for communicating with individual and institutional investors about securities class actions and analyzes and prepares client data calculations for class action filings. Prior to joining Safirstein Metcalf LLP, she managed the Shareholder Services Department at a New York‐based securities litigation firm. Sheila earned a BA in English from Villanova University and a MBA in Finance from Stern School of Business at NYU (2000). sfeerick@safirsteinmetcalf.com (212) 201-2856 (direct) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2504 1 DECLARATION OF ALESSANDRA C. PHILLIPS ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT READ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW DECLARATION OF ALESSANDRA C. PHILLIPS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Hearing Date/Time: September 29, 2016 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22-5th Floor (Spring Street) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2505 2 DECLARATION OF ALESSANDRA C. PHILLIPS ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID C. SUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 8:15-cv-00280-FMO-PJW CLASS ACTION I Alessandra C. Phillips, declare: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of Pennsylvania. I am an associate with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., attorneys for Robert Read (“Co-Movant”). I make this declaration in support of Co-Movant’s motion for relief from this Court’s July 18, 2016 Order, for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of Movant’s choice of counsel pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On August 23, 2016, I spoke by telephone with Ms. Ankita Sehgal, Analyst for Indian credit rating firm Credit Analysis & Research Ltd. (“CARE”), headquartered in Mumbai, India. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2506 3 DECLARATION OF ALESSANDRA C. PHILLIPS ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. During our telephone conversation, Ms. Sehgal said that the reason CARE suspended ratings was because Amira was not responsive to requests to produce information CARE required to monitor its ratings. 4. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following documents: a. CARE Ratings’ July 15, 2016 Brief concerning the ratings assigned to Amira Pure Foods PVT Ltd., (accessed on 8/24/2016 at http://www.careratings.com/upload/CompanyFiles/PR/AMIRA%20 PURE%20FOODS%20PVT%20LTD-07-15-2016.pdf). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of August, 2016, at Jenkintown, PA. /s/ Alessandra C. Phillips Alessandra C. Phillips Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2507 EXHIBIT A Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2508 Brief Rationale JULY 15, 2016 CARE REVISES THE RATINGS ASSIGNED TO THE BANK FACILITIES OF AMIRA PURE FOODS PVT LTD TO ‘CARE D / CARE D’ AND SUSPENDS THE RATINGS Ratings Facilities Ratings1 Remarks Long term/Short term Bank Facilities Suspended Revised from CARE BBB/CARE A3+ (Triple B/ A Three Plus) to CARE D / CARE D (Single D / Single D) and Suspended Rating Rationale CARE has revised the ratings assigned to the bank facilities of Amira Pure Foods Pvt Ltd (Amira India) to ‘CARE D / CARE D’ on account of the delays in debt servicing due to stretched liquidity position. CARE has also suspended, with immediate effect, the ratings, as the company has not furnished the information required by CARE for monitoring of the rating(s). Background Amira India incorporated in 1993, is engaged in the business of milling, processing and marketing of basmati rice, non- basmati rice and various other food products including ready to eat and organic food. The processing of rice is undertaken primarily at its milling plant at Gurgaon with installed processing capacity of 32MTPH (Metric Tonnes Per Hour). Amira India, mills, processes, and sells basmati rice(83%)and non-basmati rice(16%) in both the domestic (66%) and export(34%) markets under the umbrella brand of Amira. The company is part of the Amira Group founded in 1915 and is promoted by Mr. Karan A. Chanana and affiliates along with Amira Nature Foods Ltd (Mauritius) which is a 100% subsidiary of Amira Nature Foods Limited (ANFI), British Virgin Islands listed on the NYSE. The group has an established presence in the domestic and international market with presence across 60 countries. During FY15 (refers to the period April 01 to March 31), the company derived total operating income of Rs.2707.71 crore with PAT of Rs.50.69 crore as against total operating income of Rs.2440.11 crore and PAT of Rs.46.70 crore during FY14. Analyst Contact Name: Ms Ankita Sehgal Tel: 011-45333226 Cell: + 91 9958700336 Email: ankita.sehgal @careratings.com **For detailed Rationale Report and subscription information, please contact us at www.careratings.com CARE has classified instruments rated by it on the basis of complexity. This classification is available at www.careratings.com. Investors/market intermediaries/regulators or others are welcome to write to care@careratings.com for any clarifications. 1Complete definition of the ratings assigned are available at www.careratings.com and other CARE publications Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2509 Brief Rationale Disclaimer: CARE’s ratings are opinions on credit quality and are not recommendations to sanction, renew, disburse or recall the concerned bank facilities or to buy, sell or hold any security. CARE has based its ratings on information obtained from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. CARE does not, however, guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of such information. Most entities whose bank facilities/instruments are rated by CARE have paid a credit rating fee, based on the amount and type of bank facilities/instruments. In case of partnership/proprietary concerns, the rating assigned by CARE is based on the capital deployed by the partners/proprietor and the financial strength of the firm at present. The rating may undergo change in case of withdrawal of capital or the unsecured loans brought in by the partners/proprietor in addition to the financial performance and other relevant factors. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2510 Brief Rationale CONTACT Head Office Mumbai Mr. Saikat Roy Mr. AmodKhanorkar Mobile: + 919820998779 Mobile: + 91 9819084000 E-mail: saikat.roy@careratings.com E-mail: amod.khanorkar@careratings.com CREDIT ANALYSIS & RESEARCH LIMITED Corporate Office: 4th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Somaiya Hospital Road, Off Eastern Express Highway, Sion (East), Mumbai - 400 022 Tel: +91-22-6754 3456 | Fax: +91-22-6754 3457 | E-mail: care@careratings.com AHMEDABAD Mr. Mehul Pandya 32, Titanium, Prahaladnagar Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380 015 Cell: +91-98242 56265 Tel: +91-79-4026 5656 E-mail: mehul.pandya@careratings.com BENGALURU Mr. Deepak Prajapati Unit No. 1101-1102, 11th Floor, Prestige Meridian II, No. 30, M.G. Road, Bangalore - 560 001. Cell: +91-9099028864 Tel: +91-80-4115 0445, 4165 4529 E-mail: deepak.prajapati@careratings.com CHANDIGARH Mr. Sajan Goyal 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 196-197, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh - 160 022. Cell: +91 99888 05650 Tel: +91-172-5171 100 / 09 Email: sajan.goyal@careratings.com CHENNAI Mr. V Pradeep Kumar Unit No. O-509/C, Spencer Plaza, 5th Floor, No. 769, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. Cell: +91 98407 54521 Tel: +91-44-2849 7812 / 0811 Email: pradeep.kumar@careratings.com COIMBATORE Mr. V Pradeep Kumar T-3, 3rd Floor, Manchester Square Puliakulam Road, Coimbatore - 641 037. Tel: +91-422-4332399 / 4502399 Email: pradeep.kumar@careratings.com HYDERABAD Mr. Ramesh Bob 401, Ashoka Scintilla, 3-6-502, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 029. Cell : + 91 90520 00521 Tel: +91-40-4010 2030 E-mail: ramesh.bob@careratings.com JAIPUR Mr. Nikhil Soni 304, PashupatiAkshatHeights, Plot No. D-91, Madho Singh Road, Near Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur - 302 016. Cell: +91 – 95490 33222 Tel: +91-141-402 0213 / 14 E-mail: nikhil.soni@careratings.com KOLKATA Ms. Priti Agarwal 3rd Floor, Prasad Chambers, (Shagun Mall Bldg.) 10A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071. Cell: +91-98319 67110 Tel: +91-33- 4018 1600 E-mail: priti.agarwal@careratings.com NEW DELHI Ms. Swati Agrawal 13th Floor, E-1 Block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi - 110 055. Cell: +91-98117 45677 Tel: +91-11-4533 3200 E-mail: swati.agrawal@careratings.com PUNE Mr.Pratim Banerjee 9th Floor, Pride KumarSenate, Plot No. 970, Bhamburda, SenapatiBapat Road, ShivajiNagar, Pune - 411 015. Cell: +91-98361 07331 Tel: +91-20- 4000 9000 E-mail:pratim.banerjee@careratings.com CIN - L67190MH1993PLC071691 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:2511 1 DECLARATION OF PETER J. SAFIRSTEIN ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Peter Safirstein, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2855 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT READ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW DECLARATION OF PETER SAFIRSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Hearing Date/Time: September 29, 2016 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22-5th Floor (Spring Street) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2512 2 DECLARATION OF PETER J. SAFIRSTEIN ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID C. SUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 8:15-cv-00280-FMO-PJW CLASS ACTION I, Peter Safirstein, declare: 1. I am a founding Partner at Safirstein Metcalf LLP. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. and I formed the firm in April 2016. I previously served as co-chair of the Morgan & Morgan Securities Class Action Practice and was Managing Partner of the Morgan & Morgan New York office. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. served as an attorney working in the Morgan & Morgan Securities Class Action Practice. 2. Morgan & Morgan was appointed lead counsel in this litigation on May 18, 2015 and its client, Steamfitters Local 449, was appointed as Lead Plaintiff on that same date. 3. Elizabeth Metcalf and I were the primary attorneys on this matter and were principally responsible for the investigation underlying the facts alleged in the Complaints. Ms. Metcalf and I were the principal attorneys involved in the drafting of the First Amended and Second Amended Complaints in this matter and were the principal attorneys handling motion practice in this matter. Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2513 3 DECLARATION OF PETER J. SAFIRSTEIN ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Domenico Minerva, Esq., also formerly of Morgan & Morgan, joined Labaton Sucharow earlier this year. Mr. Minerva was principally responsible for certain client relationships at Morgan & Morgan and was the primary attorney communicating with the Court appointed lead plaintiff in this matter, Steamfitters Local 449. Labaton Sucharow, on behalf of the lead plaintiff, Steamfitters Local 449, moved to replace Morgan & Morgan as lead counsel and was appointed lead counsel on May 26, 2016. 5. Following the dismissal of this action without prejudice on July 18, 2016, Labaton Sucharow was permitted by the Court to file a Third Amended Complaint by August 4, 2016. 6. After numerous discussions with Labaton Sucharow after July 18, 2016 and before August 4, 2016, we learned on the afternoon of August 3, 2016 that Labaton Sucharow would both not seek an extension of time to file an Amended Complaint and would not file an Amended Complaint. 7. Since Ms. Metcalf and I were the primary attorneys having done extensive work in investigating and prosecuting this matter, we believe that together with the Rosen Law firm, we are well qualified to resume our work on this matter and to continue on with the investigation that we believe would likely result in the filing of a Third Amended Complaint. 8. Safirstein Metcalf LLP represents Mr. Suzuki, one of the Movants in this action. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of August, 2016, at New York, New York. /s/ Peter Safirstein Peter Safirstein Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2514 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT READ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CLASS ACTION JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Hearing Date/Time: September 29, 2016 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22-5th Floor (Spring Street) Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-10 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID C. SUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD., KARAN A. CHANANA, BRUCE C. WACHA, RITESH SUNEJA, AND ASHISH PODDAR, Defendants. No. 8:15-cv-00280-FMO-PJW CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Laurence M. Rosen, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows: I am the managing attorney of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., with offices at 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of eighteen. On August 26, 2016 I electronically filed the following: • MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-10 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2516 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • NOTICE OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT • DECLARATION OF LAURENCE ROSEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT • DECLARATION OF ALESSANDRA PHILLIPS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT • DECLARATION OF PETER SAFIRSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-10 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2517 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to counsel of record. Executed on August 26, 2016 /s/ Laurence Rosen Laurence M. Rosen Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-10 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2518 1 MEMO. P&As ISO MTN. OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT READ AND HIROSHI SUZUKI FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, SUBSTITUTE LEAD COUNSEL AND AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -- No. 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 2:15-cv-00957-FMO-PJW Document 148-10 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2519