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 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Katherine

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 48

1 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2 Katherine C. Lubin (State Bar No. 259826) 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 4 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

5 Liaison Counsel

6 7 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP MOTLEY RICE LLC Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice) James M. Hughes (pro hac vice) 8 Carol C. Villegas (pro hac vice) William S. Norton (pro hac vice) Alec T. Coquin (pro hac vice) Max N. Gruetzmacher (pro hac vice) 9 140 Broadway Michael J. Pendell (pro hac vice) New York, NY 10005 28 Bridgeside Blvd. 10 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 11 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450

12 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class Co-Lead Counsel for the Class 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 OAKLAND DIVISION

16 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of 17 all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

18 Plaintiffs, JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES 19 v. M. HUGHES IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ MOTION FOR 20 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF 21 RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. ALLOCATION AND CLASS SU, COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN 22 AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND Defendants. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES 23 Date: February 27, 2018 24 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor 25 Judge: The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 48

1 We, JONATHAN GARDNER and JAMES M. HUGHES, declare as follows pursuant to 2 28 U.S.C. §1746: 3 1. Jonathan Gardner is a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP 4 (“Labaton Sucharow”) and James M. Hughes is a member of the law firm of Motley Rice LLC 5 (“Motley Rice”). Labaton Sucharow and Motley Rice serve as court-appointed Class Counsel 6 for Class Representatives Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (“ATRS”) and KBC Asset 7 Management NV (“KBC”) (collectively, “Lead Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”).1 We 8 have been actively involved throughout the prosecution and resolution of the Action, are familiar 9 with its proceedings, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based upon our 10 supervision and participation in all material aspects of the Action. 11 2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we submit this 12 declaration in support of Class Representatives’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 13 Settlement and Plan of Allocation as well as Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ 14 Fees and Payment of Litigation Expenses. Both motions have the full support of the Class 15 Representatives. See Declaration of George Hopkins on Behalf of ATRS and Declaration of 16 Bart Elst on Behalf of KBC, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively.2

17 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 18 3. The Class Representatives have succeeded in obtaining a recovery for the Class in 19 the amount of $29,500,000, in cash, which has been funded by Defendants’ insurance carriers 20 and deposited in an interest-bearing escrow account for the benefit of the Class. As set forth in 21 the Stipulation, in exchange for this payment, the proposed Settlement resolves all claims 22 asserted by the Class Representatives and the Class in the Action and all Released Claims against 23 the Released Defendant Parties. 24

25 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as that set forth in 26 the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of October 9, 2017 (the “Stipulation”, ECF No. 333-1). 27 2 Citations to “Exhibit” or “Ex.___” herein refer to exhibits to this Declaration. For clarity, exhibits that themselves have attached exhibits will be referenced as “Ex. __-__.” The first 28 numerical reference is to the designation of the entire exhibit attached hereto and the second alphabetical reference is to the exhibit designation within the exhibit itself. C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) J OINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 48

1 4. This case has been vigorously litigated from its commencement in January 2014, 2 through the execution of the Stipulation. The Settlement was achieved only after Class Counsel, 3 inter alia, as detailed herein: (i) conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation 4 concerning the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations/omissions made by Defendants; 5 (ii) prepared and filed a detailed Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of 6 the Federal Securities Laws (the “CAC”); (iii) researched and drafted an opposition to 7 Defendants’ comprehensive motion to dismiss the CAC and successfully defeated the motion; 8 (iv) defeated Defendants’ motion to strike certain allegations in the CAC; (v) successfully moved 9 for class certification; (vi) engaged in extensive and diligent fact discovery, including 10 participating in 34 depositions (18 merits depositions, seven expert depositions, seven 11 confidential witness depositions, and two Class Representative depositions) and the production 12 and review of more than 2.5 million pages of discovery documents; (vii) engaged in extensive 13 and diligent expert discovery, including submission of expert and rebuttal reports from three 14 experts as well as the review and analysis of reports from Defendants’ four experts; (viii) 15 opposed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and moved for partial summary judgment as 16 to certain statements; (ix) exchanged Daubert motions with Defendants; and (x) engaged in 17 thorough mediation efforts, which included the exchange of comprehensive mediation 18 statements, and two separate full-day mediation sessions. At the time the Settlement was 19 reached, Class Counsel had a deep understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the Parties’ 20 positions. 21 5. Further, as discussed below, according to the Class Representatives’ damages 22 expert, maximum aggregate damages in the Action are approximately $430 million, if the Class 23 Representatives prevailed on each of their claims. The $29.5 million Settlement, therefore, 24 represents a recovery of approximately 7% of the Class Representatives’ expert’s maximum 25 estimated damages—an excellent recovery, particularly in light of the countervailing legal and 26 factual arguments and litigation risks. See, e.g., In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 27 1036, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ($13.75 million settlement yielding 6% of potential damages was 28 “higher than the median percentage of investor losses recovered in recent shareholder class

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 2 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 48

1 action settlements”); see also Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 2 Settlement and Plan of Allocation and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 3 Thereof (“Settlement Brief”), §I.B.4. 4 6. In choosing to settle, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel took into 5 consideration the significant risks associated with advancing the claims alleged in the CAC, 6 given the pending summary judgment and Daubert motions, as well as the duration and 7 complexity of the legal proceedings, including trial, which remained ahead. The Settlement was 8 achieved in the face of vigorous opposition by Defendants who would have, had the Settlement 9 not been reached, continued to raise serious arguments concerning, among other things, the 10 alleged material falsity of statements and omissions concerning the launch of Llano and loss 11 causation challenges. In the absence of a settlement, there was a very real risk that the Class 12 could have recovered nothing or an amount significantly less than the negotiated Settlement. 13 7. With respect to the proposed Plan of Allocation, as discussed in further detail 14 below and in the Settlement Brief, the proposed Plan of Allocation was developed by the Class 15 Representatives’ damages expert, and provides for the fair and equitable distribution of the Net 16 Settlement Fund to Class Members who submit Claim Forms that are approved for payment. 17 8. With respect to the Fee and Expense Application, as discussed in Class Counsel’s 18 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Payment of 19 Litigation Expenses (“Fee Brief”), the requested fee of 25% of the Settlement Fund is fair both to 20 the Class and to Class Counsel, and warrants the Court’s approval. This fee request is within the 21 range of fee percentages frequently awarded in this type of action, and, under the particular facts 22 of this case, justified in light of the benefits that Class Counsel conferred on the Class, the risks 23 counsel undertook, the quality of their representation, the nature and extent of the legal services, 24 and the fact that Class Counsel pursued the case at their financial risk.

25 II. SUMMARY OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ CLAIMS 26 9. AMD is a multinational semiconductor company. A majority of AMD’s revenue 27 during the Class Period was derived from the sale of computer microprocessors, chipsets, and 28 embedded processors. CAC ¶3. The Class Representatives’ claims center on the launch of

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 3 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 48

1 AMD’s “Llano” microprocessor, an Accelerated Processing Unit (“APU”) product that 2 combined a Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) with a Graphics Processing Unit (“GPU”) onto a 3 single computer chip. AMD touted Llano as part of its “brilliant, all-new computing 4 experiences” which “enable[d] unprecedented graphics and video performance in notebooks and 5 PCs.” Id. ¶72. Llano was set to launch in the fourth quarter of 2010 but problems at 6 GlobalFoundries (“GF”) (AMD’s chip manufacturing plant) prevented a timely release and the 7 launch was reset for the second quarter of 2011. Id. ¶7. As set forth in more detail below, the 8 CAC alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions 9 about Llano’s production, launch, demand, sales, and margins, among other things. In particular, 10 the CAC alleges that Defendants created the misleading impression that the manufacturing 11 problems that affected Llano in 2010 were “behind” the Company and that yield was “on target” 12 and “in line” with expectation. E.g. id., ¶¶8, 80, 155-56. Contrary to Defendants’ public 13 statements, AMD’s yield problems were not “behind” it, but instead remained an acute setback 14 that persisted, unabated, throughout almost all of 2011. Id. ¶¶93-111. 15 10. The operative complaint in the Action, the CAC, asserts violations of Section 16 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 17 promulgated thereunder by AMD and Rory P. Read (“Read”), Thomas J. Seifert (“Seifert”), 18 Richard A. Bergman (“Bergman”), and Lisa T. Su (“Su”) (collectively, the “Individual 19 Defendants” and with AMD, “Defendants”).

20 III. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 A. Commencement of the Action and Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel 22 11. The Action was commenced on January 15, 2014, by the filing of an initial 23 complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging 24 violations of the federal securities laws. ECF No. 1. On March 17, 2014, three movants, 25 including ATRS (ECF No. 16) and KBC (ECF No. 9), filed motions seeking appointment as lead 26 plaintiff and for approval of their selection of counsel. By Order dated April 4, 2014, and 27 pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 4 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 48

1 the Court appointed ATRS and KBC as Lead Plaintiffs and approved their selection of Labaton 2 Sucharow and Motley Rice to serve as Lead Counsel and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, 3 LLP as Liaison Counsel. ECF No. 37.

4 B. The Corrected Amended Complaint 5 12. On May 23, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Amended Class Action Complaint for 6 Violations of the Federal Securities Laws alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 7 Exchange Act of 1934. ECF No. 56. On June 11, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Corrected 8 Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. ECF No. 61. 9 13. The CAC was the result of a significant effort by Class Counsel that included, 10 among other things, the review and analysis of: (i) press releases, news articles, transcripts, and 11 other public statements issued by or concerning AMD and the Individual Defendants; 12 (ii) research reports issued by financial analysts concerning AMD’s business; (iii) reports filed 13 publicly by AMD with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”); (iv) news 14 articles, media reports and other publications concerning the microprocessor technology industry 15 and markets; (v) certain pleadings filed in derivative litigation naming AMD as a nominal 16 defendant; (vi) other publicly available information and data concerning AMD, its securities, and 17 the markets therefor; and (vii) information provided by a consultant with expertise in 18 microprocessor fabrication, and the microprocessor market. The investigation also included 19 Class Counsel’s in-house investigators locating numerous potential witnesses and interviewing 20 64 former employees of AMD, GF, and AMD’s customers, on a confidential basis (nine of 21 whom were cited in the CAC as confidential witnesses). 22 14. As noted above, the Class Representatives’ claims center on the launch and 23 subsequent lifecycle of AMD’s Llano microprocessor. The first signs of trouble allegedly 24 emerged in 2010 when production difficulties at GF forced AMD to delay Llano’s commercial 25 launch until midway through 2011. CAC ¶7. As alleged in the CAC however, on April 4, 2011, 26 Defendants told the market that the manufacturing problems that affected Llano were behind the 27 Company and that yield was “on target” and “in line” with expectations. Id. ¶¶8, 80, 153-56. As 28 detailed in the CAC, these statements were allegedly false and misleading because they led the

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 5 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 48

1 market to believe that the Company had overcome its yield problem and that Llano processors 2 were being produced in sufficient quantities for a successful launch, when in fact they were not. 3 Id. ¶156. 4 15. The CAC also alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made 5 materially false and misleading statements and omissions by “tout[ing]” strong customer demand 6 despite the fact that supply could not meet the demand due to the compromising yield problem. 7 E.g., id. ¶¶13, 89, 158, 201-02, 230, 236-54. Defendants continued to state that there was strong 8 customer demand for Llano and that the Company expected a significant increase in shipments, 9 while failing to tell the market that AMD could not supply its channel customer base with Llano. 10 In particular, Defendants failed to tell the market that due to the lack of Llano supply, the 11 Company was prioritizing Llano shipments to only one segment of its customers – its tier 1 12 original equipment manufacturers (“OEM”) customers – and neglecting to supply its important 13 distribution channel customers. E.g., id. ¶202. 14 16. Once AMD was finally able to supply the channel with Llano at the end of 2011, 15 clients had moved on from Llano and were instead focused on a newer and different AMD 16 technology (Trinity) which was set to launch in mid to late 2012. E.g., id. ¶¶16, 78, 133, 135. 17 The excess volume of Llano processors that AMD now had accumulated was virtually unsellable 18 at commercial rates, and caused an inventory glut, resulting in AMD’s inventory rising to the 19 highest levels it had been in years. E.g., id. ¶¶16, 19, 143, 230, 263. The CAC alleges, 20 nonetheless, that Defendants continued to tout Llano as a good product that continued to be 21 important moving forward and would continue to sell well. E.g., id. ¶¶20, 228-29, 246-47. 22 17. The CAC alleges that on September 28, 2011, AMD made a first partial 23 revelation of the truth, and reported that the Company would miss revenue guidance for the third 24 quarter by four to six percent due to “less than expected supply” of Llano. Id. ¶¶13, 199. 25 AMD’s stock price declined nearly 14% following this negative news. Id. ¶¶13, 200. 26 Defendants, however, continued to mislead the market by touting the purported “strong” 27 customer demand for Llano while omitting that the yield problems were so severe that AMD 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 6 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 48

1 prioritized shipments to its top tier OEM customers only, and was not supplying its channel 2 distributors with any Llano product. Id. ¶¶13, 202. 3 18. A series of additional partial disclosures were made beginning in July 9, 2012, 4 when AMD announced an expected revenue miss of 14% for its fiscal 2012 second quarter, and 5 AMD’s stock price fell more than 11% on July 10, 2012. Id. ¶¶225, 255-56. While the 6 information revealed that AMD had experienced lower channel demand for Llano, it did not 7 fully reveal the extent of the problems and that the issues with the channel stretched back to early 8 2011. Id. ¶258. Another partial disclosure was made on July 19, 2012, when the Company 9 reported that, among other things, revenue was down 11% from the previous quarter, and during 10 an earnings conference call that same day, when Read and Seifert revealed that AMD’s botched 11 rollout of Llano led to weak channel adoption that negatively impacted AMD’s business. Id. 12 ¶262. Another partial disclosure was made on October 12, 2012, when AMD issued a press 13 release revealing that gross margins were expected to decline 13% to 31% and that AMD needed 14 to record an approximate $100 million inventory write-down, mainly attributable to “lower 15 anticipated future demand for certain products.” Id. ¶273. 16 19. Finally, on October 18, 2012, the CAC alleges that for the first time, the Company 17 revealed that the $100 million write-down mainly comprised Llano, which adversely impacted 18 gross margin. Id. ¶¶275-76. In a conference call on October 18th, AMD’s then interim CFO 19 explained that the Llano inventory write-down accounted for approximately 8% of the 15% total 20 quarter-over-quarter decline in AMD’s gross margins. Id. ¶277. The CAC alleges that as of 21 October 18, 2012, the market understood that the Llano yield problems throughout most of 2011 22 delayed availability of the product to an important part of AMD’s customers, resulting in the 23 channel failing to adopt the product, and then simply moving on to the next technology. AMD’s 24 stock price fell 17% in response to this news. In total, AMD’s stock price dropped nearly 74% 25 during the Class Period. Id. ¶¶24, 152.

26 C. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the CAC 27 20. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on July 7, 2014. ECF No. 66. 28 Defendants argued, among other things, that: (i) the CAC relied on improper “puzzle pleading”;

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 7 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 48

1 (ii) the CAC contained vague allegations of manufacturing problems and disappointing channel 2 demand that failed to satisfy the PSLRA pleading standards; (iii) certain of the alleged 3 misstatements were non-actionable puffery; for example, Defendants argued that statements that 4 Llano yield was “on target” and “in line with expectations” were not false because plaintiffs 5 failed to state what AMD’s expectations were; (iv) the claims were nothing more than improper 6 fraud by hindsight and relied on forward-looking statements that were immune from liability 7 because they were protected by the safe harbor under the PSLRA both because they were 8 accompanied by meaningful cautionary language and because Lead Plaintiffs did not allege facts 9 showing actual knowledge of falsity; and (v) the CAC alleged no particularized facts supporting 10 the required strong inference of scienter. 11 21. Also on July 7, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to strike certain allegations in the 12 CAC that relied on statements of two former employees of AMD who are identified in the CAC 13 as confidential witnesses. ECF No. 70. Lead Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion on July 21, 14 2014. ECF No. 74. On February 6, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying the motion to 15 strike. ECF No. 107. 16 22. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the CAC 17 on July 28, 2014. ECF No 79. The Lead Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that by touting 18 Llano supply and demand, AMD gave the false impression that Llano yield was healthy and in 19 line with what was needed for a successful product launch to all customers. As to the falsity of 20 the statements, the Lead Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that: (i) the safe harbor did not 21 protect certain statements because each of the statements was false when made; (ii) mixed 22 statements of present fact and future prediction are not protected by the PSLRA safe harbor; (iii) 23 the cautionary language Defendants pointed to in the Company’s 2011 SEC filings and press 24 releases was not meaningful because the risks disclosed by Defendants had already come to pass; 25 and (iv) Defendants’ statements were not puffery. 26 23. Regarding Defendants’ scienter arguments, the Lead Plaintiffs argued that 27 Defendants ignored sections of the CAC that outlined their own admissions about what they 28 knew and when. For example, the Lead Plaintiffs pointed to Read’s admission that Defendants

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 8 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 48

1 saw the channel problems begin to manifest in the summer of 2011 when the Llano yield supply 2 was tight. Further, the CAC contains allegations that Defendants had access to information on 3 the Llano yield given that, for example, Bergman and Read attended weekly production meetings 4 to discuss the status of chips, launches, and issues at GF, with Bergman reporting the discussions 5 to Seifert. 6 24. On August 8, 2014, Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their 7 motion to dismiss the CAC. ECF No. 84.

8 D. The Court’s Order on the Motion to Dismiss 9 25. On March 31, 2015, after a hearing and thorough argument on October 28, 2014, 10 the Court issued its Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. See Hatamian v. Advanced Micro 11 Devices, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The Court found that the Lead Plaintiffs 12 sufficiently alleged the material and misleading nature of statements concerning the status of 13 Llano yield as AMD prepared for its delayed launch of the Llano product. Id. at 1157. 14 Specifically, the Court found that present-tense statements of fact, such as “[t]oday 32 nanometer 15 yields are in line with our expectations”; “yield is on expectations”; “yields on 32 nanometer are 16 on target”; and that “the previous issues [with Llano yields] had been resolved,” when made 17 without qualification, “created an ‘impression of a state of affairs that differ[ed] in a material 18 way from the one that actually exist[ed].’” Id. at 1159. The Court also held that “the confluence 19 of [Lead Plaintiffs’] specific allegations [regarding Llano yields and supply] supports this 20 Court’s finding that the PSLRA’s high standard for alleging scienter has been met.” Id. at 1163- 21 64. 22 26. On May 15, 2015, Defendants filed their Answer to the CAC, denying the CAC’s 23 substantive allegations and raising nine affirmative defenses. ECF No. 119.

24 E. Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 25 27. On September 4, 2015, the Lead Plaintiffs moved for certification of a class that 26 included all persons and entities that, during the period from April 4, 2011, through October 18, 27 2012, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of 28 AMD and were damaged thereby. ECF No. 143. The Lead Plaintiffs also moved for

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 9 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 48

1 appointment as class representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and the appointment of 2 Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC as Class Counsel. In connection with their 3 motion, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an expert report on market efficiency by Chad Coffman, CFA 4 (ECF No. 144-2) who conducted a detailed event study concerning AMD’s stock drops. 5 28. Defendants opposed the motion on the basis, among others, that there was no 6 meaningful change in AMD’s stock price under Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 7 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) and that the Lead Plaintiffs had not proven that they can calculate damages on 8 a class-wide basis under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). ECF No. 155. In 9 connection with their opposition, Defendants submitted an expert report from Paul A. Gompers, 10 Ph.D. (ECF No. 156-9), who responded to Mr. Coffman’s report and opined that Mr. Coffman’s 11 event study showed that there was no statistically significant stock price movement and failed to 12 provide any workable methodology for calculating class-wide damages arising from Lead 13 Plaintiffs’ liability theories. 14 29. The Lead Plaintiffs submitted their reply memorandum in further support of class 15 certification on December 7, 2015 (ECF No. 164), and a corrected reply brief on December 14, 16 2015 (ECF No. 169). Mr. Coffman submitted a rebuttal expert report in connection with Lead 17 Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum. ECF No. 165-2. Mr. Coffman was deposed, as was Defendants’ 18 expert, Professor Gompers. 19 30. On February 2, 2016, the Court held oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs’ class 20 certification motion and on March 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiffs’ 21 Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 181. 22 31. In connection with the Court’s certification of the Class, on October 3, 2016, the 23 Parties filed a joint motion to approve the Class Notice and Summary Notice of Pendency of 24 Class Action. ECF No. 226. On October 21, 2016, the Court approved the Class Notice 25 prepared by Class Counsel. ECF No. 227. Beginning with the initial mailing on November 11, 26 2016, the Class Notice was mailed to over 135,000 potential Class Members. ECF No. 239-3 27 ¶11. The Class Notice notified potential Class Members of, among other things: (i) the 28 pendency of the Action against Defendants; (ii) the Court’s certification of the Action to proceed

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 10 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 48

1 as a class action on behalf of the Court-certified Class; and (iii) their right to request to be 2 excluded from the Class, the effect of remaining in the Class or requesting exclusion, and the 3 requirements for requesting exclusion. Fifteen (15) valid requests for exclusion from the Class 4 were received in connection with the Class Notice. Id. ¶¶18-19.

5 IV. DISCOVERY 6 32. The Class Representatives propounded detailed discovery requests and ultimately 7 reviewed and analyzed hundreds of thousands of documents (totaling millions of pages) 8 produced by Defendants and third parties; took 18 depositions of fact witnesses; participated in 9 seven depositions of confidential witnesses referenced in the CAC; defended two depositions of 10 the Class Representatives; negotiated and resolved myriad discovery disputes (with the 11 assistance of the Court when necessary); took or defended seven expert depositions; and 12 exchanged 11 expert reports.

13 A. Discovery Propounded on Defendants 14 33. The Class Representatives served their first set of document requests on 15 Defendants on June 3, 2015, and a second set of document requests on AMD on July 28, 2015. 16 Thereafter, the Class Representatives served another three sets of document requests on AMD. 17 The Class Representatives served their first set of interrogatories on AMD on June 9, 2015, a 18 second set of interrogatories on August 10, 2015, and a third set on July 8, 2016. On July 8, 19 2016, the Class Representatives served their first set of interrogatories on the Individual 20 Defendants. They served their first set of Requests for Admission on Defendants on July 15, 21 2015, and a second set of Requests for Admission on Defendants on August 11, 2016. In total, 22 this discovery included five sets of document requests containing 108 individual requests, four 23 sets of interrogatories containing a total of 36 individual interrogatories, and two requests to 24 admit containing 192 requests for admission. 25 34. Over the span of many months, the Parties engaged in numerous meet-and-confer 26 conferences and exchanged letters, as to the scope and manner of the requested document 27 production, interrogatories, and requests for admission, including issues pertaining to search 28 terms and custodians for electronically stored information (“ESI”), the relevant time period,

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 11 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 48

1 privilege log issues, and other disputes related to the requests. Through this effort, the Parties 2 were able to reach an understanding as to the appropriate scope of Defendants’ discovery on 3 many issues, with a few notable exceptions that required the Court’s assistance. See infra §IV.E. 4 (Discovery Disputes). 5 35. The Class Representatives conducted an efficient review of documents produced 6 by Defendants, which exceeded more 2.3 million pages. Defendants began a rolling production 7 of documents on or around September 4, 2015. To facilitate a cost and time-efficient document 8 review process, all of the documents were placed in an electronic database that was maintained at 9 Motley Rice and administered by Ricoh. A platform called Relativity was used to organize the 10 data. A team of experienced attorneys was assembled to review and analyze the production. 11 These attorneys were focused on reviewing Defendants’ document production for the purpose of 12 preparing for depositions, and ultimately trial, with many of them assisting in additional stages of 13 deposition preparation, as well as providing documents to support statements and assertions in 14 the Class Representatives’ responses to interrogatories. 15 36. To efficiently focus on the most relevant documents, these attorneys used the 16 document platform and its analytical tools to analyze and search the data. This was 17 accomplished through TAR (technology assisted review) in culling, searching, and reviewing the 18 documents. TAR allowed the attorneys to narrow the universe of documents that needed to be 19 reviewed. Once the universe of documents was narrowed, the attorneys conducted targeted 20 searching through text, author and/or recipients, type of document (e.g., emails, memoranda, 21 SEC filings), date, Bates number, etc. to identify relevant, irrelevant, and hot documents for 22 additional review. 23 37. The document review attorneys did not only review documents. They also 24 participated in frequent meetings with more senior attorneys to discuss important documents, 25 deposition preparation efforts, and case strategy. The document review attorneys also had direct 26 responsibility for selecting relevant documents for expert review and in putting together binders 27 of evidence for use at deposition. 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 12 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 48

1 B. The Class Representatives’ Depositions of Fact Witnesses 2 38. Class Counsel conducted 18 fact-witness depositions, including the depositions of 3 the four Individual Defendants, and one 30(b)(6) deposition. The depositions Class Counsel 4 conducted included: 5 (a) Scott Kehm (AMD Corporate Vice President and its 30(b)(6) 6 representative) on February 11, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 7 (b) Derrick Meyer (AMD’s former Chief Executive Officer, from 2008 8 through January 10, 2011) on June 7, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 9 (c) Darren Grasby (AMD’s President of EMEA Region and Global Channel 10 Sales) on June 22, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 11 (d) Devinder Kumar (AMD’s former Corporate Controller and current Chief 12 Financial Officer) on June 30, 2016, in Menlo Park, California; 13 (e) Michael Massetti (former AMD Corporate Vice President, Integrated 14 Supply Chain) on July 1, 2016, in Tampa, Florida; 15 (f) Dr. Lisa T. Su (Senior Vice President and General Manager of AMD’s 16 Global Business Unit, and current AMD CEO) on July 13, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 17 (g) John Zucker (GlobalFoundries Vice President of Sales) on July 19, 2016 18 on July 19, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 19 (h) John Docherty (AMD’s former Senior Vice President of Manufacturing 20 Operations) on July 22, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 21 (i) Rory Read (AMD’s former President and CEO of AMD) on July 29, 2016, 22 in Austin, Texas; 23 (j) Richard Bergman (AMD’s former Senior Vice President and Head of 24 Products Group) on August 2, 2016, in Palo Alto, California; 25 (k) Thomas Seifert (AMD’s former Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief 26 Financial Officer) on August 11, 2016, in Menlo Park, California; 27 (l) Tony A. Prophet (former Hewlett Packard Senior Vice President, 28 Operations Printing & Personal Systems) on August 12, 2016, in Seattle, Washington;

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 13 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 48

1 (m) Chris Cloran (former AMD Corporate Vice President and General 2 Manager, Client Business Unit) on August 25, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 3 (n) Doug Yacek (AMD’s Finance Director in the Client Computing Group) on 4 October 20, 2016, in Austin, Texas; 5 (o) Emilio Ghilardi (AMD’s former Chief Sales Officer) on October 25, 2016, 6 in Menlo Park, California; 7 (p) Ruth Cotter (AMD’s Director of Investor Relations and current Chief 8 Human Resources Officer) on October 27, 2016, in Palo Alto, California; 9 (q) Darla Smith (AMD’s Corporate Vice President of Finance) on October 28, 10 2016, in Menlo Park, California; and 11 (r) Bruce Claflin (Chairman of AMD’s Board of Directors) on November 4, 12 2016, in Austin, Texas.

13 C. Discovery Propounded on the Class Representatives 14 39. Defendants aggressively sought discovery from the Class Representatives. 15 Defendants’ discovery requests led to production of thousands of pages of documents, two 16 depositions of the Class Representatives’ personnel, participation in multiple meet-and-confer 17 sessions, and contentious motion practice. Defendants served two sets of document requests on 18 ATRS and KBC. AMD served one set of interrogatories on ATRS and KBC and Individual 19 Defendant Dr. Lisa T. Su served a separate set of interrogatories on ATRS and KBC. In all 20 instances, the Class Representative objected on the basis that Defendants’ discovery requests 21 were exceedingly broad and sought documents that were protected by various privileges and 22 protections. As a result of the breadth of Defendants’ requests, the Parties engaged in a series of 23 meet-and-confer conferences to negotiate the scope of the Class Representatives’ production. 24 While the Parties were able to resolve many disputes, some required the assistance of the Court. 25 See infra §IV.E. (Discovery Disputes). 26 40. Defendants then deposed the Class Representatives. Defendants deposed Tine 27 Procureur, Legal Advisor for KBC, who testified as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for KBC, on 28 September 10, 2015, in New York, New York, and deposed Rodney Graves, Senior Investment

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 14 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 48

1 Manager at ATRS, who testified as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for ATRS, on September 23, 2015, 2 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

3 D. Non-Party Discovery 4 41. The Class Representatives served non-party discovery, including a subpoena on 5 GF, on July 16, 2015, seeking documents related to, among many other things, communications 6 concerning Llano production, delayed launch, supply chain issues, and sales and operation 7 planning relating to Llano. GF produced approximately 148,000 pages of documents. The Class 8 Representatives also served non-party discovery on Arrow Electronics, Inc., Hewlett-Packard 9 Company, and Ernst & Young, among others. In total, approximately 200,000 pages of 10 documents were produced by various non-parties. 11 42. Subpoenas were also served on certain confidential witnesses mentioned in the 12 CAC. As noted above, the depositions of seven confidential witnesses were taken by the Parties.

13 E. Discovery Disputes 14 43. As described above, discovery in this matter was both intense and voluminous. 15 The Parties held dozens of meet-and-confer sessions throughout discovery and, for the most part, 16 were able to resolve many disputes in the absence of Court intervention. On several occasions, 17 however, the Parties sought the assistance of the Court. All discovery matters were referred to 18 Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley. ECF No. 183. 19 44. For example, on November 9, 2015, the Class Representatives submitted a 20 discovery letter requesting that the Court compel Defendants to expand the temporal scope of 21 discovery and to produce documents from April 1, 2010, through April 1, 2013, on the ground 22 that, among other reasons, the Class Representatives’ allegations were tied to the Llano 23 production issues from 2010. ECF No. 157. On November 16, 2015, Judge Corley granted the 24 motion to compel the expansion of the temporal scope of the discovery period, resulting in 25 eleven months of additional pre-class period discovery and approximately two and a half months 26 of post-class period discovery. ECF No. 162. The November 9, 2015 discovery letter also asked 27 the Court to compel AMD to identify its customers and other third parties in response to Lead 28 Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. Judge Corley ordered AMD to respond to the

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 15 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 48

1 interrogatories by providing the identity and requested contact information for its customers and 2 motherboard manufacturers involved with the Llano microprocessing chip at issue in the 3 litigation. Id. 4 45. On April 7, 2016, the Class Representatives requested that the Court compel 5 Defendants to add AMD’s former CEO Dirk Meyer (“Meyer”) as a custodian for collection of 6 ESI for the pre-Class Period timeframe described in the Court’s November 16, 2015 Order on the 7 ground that his documents would provide context for the Class Representatives’ Class Period 8 allegations given that Meyer would have information relevant to Llano’s production status in 9 2010. ECF No. 185. The Court granted the Class Representatives’ motion, finding that 10 Defendants had failed to meet their burden of establishing that Meyer should not be a custodian 11 for the pre-Class Period. ECF No. 189. 12 46. On September 9, 2016 and September 23, 2016, the Parties submitted letters to 13 the Court regarding responses to interrogatories. ECF Nos. 214, 215, & 218. The Class 14 Representatives asked the Court to compel the Individual Defendants to supplement responses to 15 their first set of interrogatories and Defendants asked the Court to compel plaintiffs to provide 16 further responses to certain interrogatories. The Court held a hearing on September 27, 2016, 17 during which it discussed with the Parties that fact discovery, with some limited exceptions, was 18 now closed, and that the Parties should be in a position to provide full disclosure of the factual 19 bases for their claims and affirmative defenses. Given this guidance, the Court required the 20 Class Representatives to supplement their responses to Defendants’ interrogatories by November 21 28, 2016, and Defendants to supplement their responses to the Class Representatives’ 22 interrogatories by January 27, 2017. ECF No. 223. 23 47. The number of deponents was also a subject of contention between the Parties. 24 On May 16, 2016, Judge Corley issued an order allowing the Parties to take fifteen depositions 25 and directed the Parties to request additional depositions after the first fifteen had been 26 exhausted. ECF No. 199. On August 19, 2016, the Parties submitted a joint status letter to 27 Judge Corley in which the Class Representatives requested permission to take an additional 28 fifteen depositions: eleven AMD employees or former employees and four third parties. ECF

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 16 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 48

1 No. 208. Judge Corley granted the Class Representatives’ request, in part, allowing the Class 2 Representatives to take an additional five depositions. ECF No. 210.

3 F. Expert Discovery 4 48. In addition to the expert reports prepared in connection with class certification, on 5 November 18, 2016, the Class Representatives served Defendants with expert reports from the 6 following individuals in connection with formal expert discovery: 7 (a) Chad Coffman, CFA (materiality, damages, and loss causation expert); 8 (b) Jason S. Flemmons, CPA, CFE, CFF (forensic and technical accounting 9 expert who provided an expert report on whether Defendants’ statements about Llano gross 10 margins were false and misleading); and 11 (c) Professor Scott E. Thompson, Ph.D. (semiconductor industry expert who 12 provided a report on microprocessor chip manufacturing, supply, and demand as those topics 13 pertain to public statements made by Defendants). 14 49. Mr. Coffman prepared and served a 68-page report, along with exhibits totaling 15 another 24 pages, in which he opined, inter alia that: (i) the alleged misstatements and 16 omissions in this case were material; (ii) declines in the price of AMD common stock were 17 attributable to and substantially caused by identifiable news events relating to the disclosure of 18 the alleged fraud; (iii) there was an economic link between the alleged misrepresentations and 19 omissions and the foreseeable investor losses that occurred on the corrective disclosure events; 20 (iv) the corrective disclosure events were associated with a statistically significant abnormal 21 price decline in AMD common stock; and (v) the amount of abnormal stock drop was associated 22 with disclosure of the truth. 23 50. Mr. Flemmons prepared and served a 57-page report, along with exhibits totaling 24 another 16 pages, in which he opined, inter alia, that certain statements relating to the nature of 25 Llano margins were false and misleading because they were inconsistent with information 26 available to management. 27 51. Dr. Thompson prepared and served a 134-page report, along with exhibits totaling 28 another 28 pages, in which he opined, inter alia, that certain statements made by Defendants

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 17 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 48

1 were contrary to internal Company data and internal statements, particularly in such key areas as: 2 (i) the health of the 32 nm manufacturing flow; (ii) 32 nm Llano yield; (iii) GF’s manufacturing 3 support for Llano; and (iv) Llano chip demand. 4 52. On December 20, 2016, Defendants served expert reports on Class 5 Representatives from the following individuals: 6 (a) Bradford Cornell (submitted a report responding to Mr. Coffman’s report); 7 (b) Michele Axelson (provided her opinion on certain accounting and 8 financial reporting issues at AMD and responded to reports of Dr. Thompson, Mr. Coffman, and 9 Mr. Flemmons); 10 (c) Rahul Kapoor (provided his opinion on the semiconductor industry, sales 11 forecasting at AMD during the Class Period and responded to the expert reports of Dr. 12 Thompson, Mr. Coffman, and Mr. Flemmons); and 13 (d) Kenneth P. Lisiak, Ph.D. (industry expert; submitted a report responding 14 to the analyses and opinions of Dr. Thompson). 15 53. On January 17, 2017, the Class Representatives served the rebuttal expert reports 16 of Mr. Coffman, Mr. Flemmons, and Dr. Thompson. Additionally, the Class Representatives 17 submitted a supplemental expert report from Mr. Coffman on March 6, 2017. 18 54. Following the exchange of expert reports, the Parties commenced expert 19 depositions in February 2017. The Parties took and defended a total of seven expert depositions. 20 55. Class Representatives deposed Defendants’ experts as follows: 21 (a) Mr. Kapoor on February 16, 2017, in San Francisco, California; 22 (b) Mr. Cornell on February 22, 2017, in Palo Alto, California; 23 (c) Dr. Lisiak on March 1, 2017, in Menlo Park, California; and 24 (d) Ms. Axelson on March 10, 2017, in San Francisco, California. 25 56. Defendants deposed Class Representatives’ experts as follows: 26 (a) Mr. Coffman on March 7, 2017, in Palo Alto, California; 27 (b) Mr. Flemmons on February 28, 2017, in San Francisco, California; and 28 (c) Professor Thompson on March 17, 2017, in New York, New York.

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 18 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 48

1 V. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS 2 57. The Parties attended a pre-filing conference before the Court on March 8, 2017, to 3 discuss the Parties’ proposed summary judgment motions. At the conference, the Court set 4 certain deadlines in connection with summary judgment and related documents. ECF No. 249. 5 58. On March 22, 2017, after careful analysis, the Class Representatives submitted a 6 numbered chart of the 45 remaining statements that they alleged to be false and misleading. ECF 7 No. 251-1. 8 59. On April 25, 2017, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. ECF 9 No. 254. Defendants included a 105 page (corrected) statement of facts in support of their 10 motion. ECF No. 270. In their motion, Defendants argued, principally, that plaintiffs could not 11 prove material falsity because many of the challenged statements were inactionable puffery or 12 indisputably accurate. Defendants also argued that plaintiffs’ failure to challenge any of AMD’s 13 guidance made it impossible for plaintiffs to prove that disclosure of certain undisclosed 14 operational details would have revealed a materially different state of affairs than what was 15 already available to the market. 16 60. Regarding scienter, Defendants argued that the undisputed facts showed that 17 Defendants were surprised when they realized that AMD was going to miss the quarterly 18 guidance they had announced several weeks before. 19 61. Defendants also argued that plaintiffs could not prove loss causation because: (i) 20 the purported corrective disclosures neither corrected the allegedly false statements nor did they 21 state that the Company concealed the specific facts that allegedly rendered them misleading; (ii) 22 the information plaintiffs claimed was revealed by the corrective disclosures was already 23 publicly known; and (iii) plaintiffs did not met their burden to separate the impact of the alleged 24 fraud, if any, from the impact of other unrelated facts that affected AMD’s share price. 25 Specifically, Defendants argued that because plaintiffs did not claim that the Company’s 26 guidance statements were misleading, the disclosure of missed guidance could not be corrective. 27 62. On May 30, 2017, the Class Representatives filed an omnibus memorandum in 28 support of their motion for summary judgment as to falsity for certain of Defendants’ supply

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 19 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 48

1 statements and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 281-3. In 2 their affirmative motion for summary judgment, the Class Representatives contended, among 3 other things, that there was overwhelming evidence that Defendants made false statements about 4 the Llano yield and manufacturing issues that plagued AMD as of April 2011 and through 5 2Q211 and 3Q11 and, therefore, there are no issues of fact concerning whether the April 4, 2011, 6 April 21, 2011, and May 17, 2011 supply statements were false. 7 63. In opposing Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the Class Representatives 8 argued that the motion should be denied because genuine issues of material fact existed as to 9 material falsity, scienter, and loss causation. In particular, the Class Representatives argued, as 10 to falsity: (i) genuine issues of fact preluded summary judgment on Defendants’ Llano supply 11 statements and Defendants’ statements regarding the demand for Llano;3 (ii) Defendants’ 12 purported forward-looking statements were not protected by the PSLRA’s safe harbor; and (iii) 13 Defendants’ challenged statements were not puffery. Regarding scienter, the Class 14 Representatives argued that they supplied voluminous evidence that Defendants had access to 15 weekly yield reports, CFO staff reports, weekly CEO supply reports, and reports sent to 16 Defendants, all sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the statements 17 were made with scienter. As to loss causation, the Class Representatives argued, among other 18 things, that the corrective disclosures were sufficiently related to the false and misleading 19 statements, and that the Class Representatives had sufficiently disentangled non-fraud factors. 20 The Class Representatives also filed a 294-page response to Defendants’ corrected statement of 21 undisputed material facts. ECF No. 281-5. 22 64. On April 25, 2017, Defendants moved to exclude testimony of the Class 23 Representatives’ experts, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 702, and 703, and Daubert 24 v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). ECF No. 255. The Class 25 Representatives filed their opposition to this motion on May 30, 2017. ECF No. 278-3. 26

27 3 The Class Representatives also argued that Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the falsity of the “margin” statements because Defendants did not challenge those 28 statements nor did they make a showing on their affirmative motion for summary judgment that those statements can proceed to trial. C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 20 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 22 of 48

1 Defendants submitted a reply brief in further support of their Daubert motion on July 5, 2017. 2 ECF No. 309. 3 65. On April 25, 2017, the Class Representatives moved to exclude testimony of 4 Defendants’ experts. ECF No. 261-3. Defendants filed an opposition to the Class 5 Representatives’ motion on May 30, 2017. ECF No. 284. The Class Representatives submitted 6 a reply brief in further support of their motion on July 5, 2017. ECF No. 306. 7 66. On July 5, 2017, Defendants submitted an omnibus reply in support of their 8 motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 9 ECF No. 307-1. The Class Representatives likewise submitted a reply in further support of their 10 motion for summary judgment as to certain false statements. ECF No. 316-2. 11 67. The Parties’ respective motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions were 12 pending when the Parties agreed to settle the Action.

13 VI. RISKS FACED BY THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ACTION 14 68. Based on publicly available information and documents obtained through 15 counsel’s investigation, discussions with consultants, and the extensive fact and expert discovery 16 conducted in the Action, Class Counsel believe that they have adduced substantial evidence to 17 support the Class Representatives’ and the Class’s claims and were prepared to proceed to trial. 18 However, this was not a case with a restatement, parallel governmental investigation, or criminal 19 indictment of AMD or any of the Individual Defendants, which would have aided the Class 20 Representatives in proving certain elements of the case, like materiality, falsity, and scienter. 21 Class Counsel also realize that they faced considerable risks and defenses in continuing the 22 Action against Defendants. The Class Representatives and their counsel carefully considered 23 these risks during the months leading up to the Settlement and throughout the settlement 24 discussions with Defendants and the mediators. 25 69. In agreeing to settle, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel weighed, 26 among other things, the substantial cash benefit to Class Members against: (i) the uncertainty of 27 prevailing on some or all of the claims at trial and the difficulties and challenges involved in 28 proving materiality, falsity, and damages; (ii) the uncertainties inherent in the Parties’

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 21 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 48

1 outstanding summary judgment motions and Daubert motions, which could result in the 2 termination of the Action or limit the presentation of documents and witnesses at trial; (iii) the 3 fact that, even if the Class Representatives prevailed at summary judgment and trial, any 4 monetary recovery could have been less than the Settlement Amount; and (iv) the delays that 5 would follow even a favorable jury finding, including appeals.

6 A. Risks Concerning Liability 7 70. The claims against Defendants presented significant liability risks given, among 8 other things, the highly fact-intensive and intricate nature of the alleged fraud at issue and the 9 vigorous opposition Defendants were advancing. All elements of liability were vigorously 10 contested by Defendants.

11 1. Risks Concerning Falsity of Alleged Misstatements 12 71. At trial, Defendants would have undoubtedly argued, as they did at summary 13 judgment, that the majority of the alleged false statements were inactionable puffery or forward- 14 looking statements protected by the PSLRA safe harbor. Among other things, Defendants would 15 have contended that at least 27 of the at-issue statements were non-actionable puffery, which 16 should be rejected on that ground. For example, Defendants would argue that there is no 17 objective standard by which to measure whether Llano yield was “good” and whether demand 18 for Llano was “strong” and that courts have consistently rejected claims based on similar 19 statements. Defendants would also point the jury to “cautionary language” in AMD’s public 20 statements that warned of the risks of investing in AMD stock and of the risks associated with 21 AMD’s financial projections. For example, as they argued on summary judgment, the Company 22 specifically highlighted that difficulty in achieving “anticipated manufacturing yields” could 23 cause “supply shortages” that could “have a material adverse impact” on “revenue or gross 24 margins.” 25 72. Defendants would also contend that plaintiffs failed to show that any of the 26 supply, demand, and margin statements at issue were materially false in the face of AMD’s 27 unchallenged earnings guidance and other facts known to AMD when the statements were made. 28 For example, Defendants would likely argue, with respect to supply statements made on April 4,

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 22 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 24 of 48

1 2011 (the first day of the Class Period), that the evidence shows that Llano yields were precisely 2 “at target” and that GF’s yield projections were increasing. The Class Representatives would 3 contend that Defendants, among other things, ignore evidence that relevant industry standards 4 exist and that other equally key manufacturing metrics had been deteriorating in the period 5 leading up to April 4, 2011. Piecing this information together for a jury would have been a 6 substantial undertaking and there were no guarantees that the jury would credit the Class 7 Representatives’ interpretation of the evidence over that of Defendants. 8 73. As to the demand statements, Defendants would argue that the Class 9 Representatives’ failure to challenge AMD’s revenue guidance is a concession that Defendants’ 10 statements regarding demand for Llano were accurate when made.

11 2. Risks in Proving Scienter 12 74. The Class Representatives also faced the risk that a jury would conclude that 13 Defendants did not act with the requisite scienter – that Defendants knew or recklessly 14 disregarded facts indicating that their public statements about Llano yield, manufacture, supply, 15 demand, and margins were false when made. In particular, Defendants would argue that the 16 evidence shows that on April 4, 2011, Defendants did not know what would ultimately occur 17 later that year regarding Llano supply, and, in particular, about the supply shortage that would 18 emerge in 3Q11. Defendants would offer evidence that AMD did not begin to learn until 19 September 2011 that GF would not be able to supply sufficient units of Llano for AMD to meet 20 its financial guidance. Defendants would also argue that they reasonably believed that AMD 21 would have sufficient Llano supply in 2011 and demand would carry into 2012. 22 75. Defendants would also likely focus on the Individual Defendants’ accumulation 23 of AMD stock during the Class Period, and that none of the Individual Defendants stood to 24 personally profit from the alleged wrongdoing – undermining motive. 25 76. In response, Class Representatives would, for example, seek to present evidence

26 that Defendants had information concerning the Llano issues and that Defendants received 27 reports, attended meetings, and generally knew about the issues with Llano, and that given the 28 amount of information Defendants actually reviewed and had access to that was contrary to C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 23 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 48

1 public statements, they acted with scienter. Nonetheless, even if the Court found that there was a

2 genuine issue of material fact as to Defendants’ scienter, there remained significant uncertainty 3 as to how a jury would ultimately resolve such factual issues if the Action proceeded to trial. 4 B. Risks in Proving Loss Causation and Damages 5 77. The Class Representatives faced a significant risk in establishing loss causation 6 and resulting damages with respect to all claims asserted against Defendants. If a jury were to 7 find that any of the alleged corrective disclosures identified in the CAC were not true corrective 8 disclosures, the potential recovery for the Class would be significantly diminished. 9 78. Defendants would argue that the “corrective” disclosures do not actually correct 10 any of the allegedly false statements. For example, Defendants would argue that the only thing 11 “corrected” by the first alleged disclosure on September 28, 2011 – announcing that AMD would 12 fall short of its previously issued guidance and listing a limited supply of Llano as one of the 13 reasons for the miss – is AMD’s 3Q11 earnings guidance, which plaintiffs do not challenge. In 14 fact, Defendants have argued that since each alleged corrective disclosure, particularly those in 15 the later part of the Class Period, occurred when the Company announced quarterly financial 16 results – including that AMD missed its earnings guidance, which the Class Representatives 17 never challenged as false – there can be no loss causation. Defendants would also argue that 18 even if guidance miss announcements could be broadly corrective of misstatements unrelated to 19 guidance, the Class Representatives cannot show that the facts that caused the stock price to drop 20 after the alleged disclosures were the very facts that were concealed at the time of the challenged 21 statements. 22 79. Defendants have also argued that Class Representatives failed to account for July 23 22, 2011 and October 28, 2011 as inflation causing dates, which they argue should offset the 24 price effect of the alleged corrective disclosures and reduce Class wide damages from the 25 beginning of the Class Period. 26 80. Defendants would contend that the Class Representatives had not met their 27 burden of separating the effect of the revelation of the alleged fraud from non-fraud factors. On 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 24 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 48

1 each of the alleged corrective disclosure dates, multiple pieces of information – that admittedly 2 were not related to the alleged fraud – were announced to the market. In response, the Class 3 Representatives would argue that they have adequately disentangled the unrelated news and that 4 their expert’s methodology is proper given that Mr. Coffman’s event study controls for market 5 and industry wide effects and identifies the relevant percentage of each revenue miss attributable 6 to Llano for each corrective disclosure. 7 81. Defendants would also dispute Mr. Coffman’s methodologies, arguing, among 8 other things, that he failed to conduct an adequate analysis to determine which of the challenged 9 statements were material to the market and he did not determine which corrective disclosures 10 corrected any particular prior statements. 11 82. Mr. Coffman estimated maximum aggregate damages to be approximately $430 12 million, if the Class Representatives were to prevail on all of their claims, including all five 13 alleged corrective disclosures. Accordingly, the proposed Settlement represents a recovery of 14 approximately 7% of that maximum amount. Of course Defendants would argue that damages in 15 the Action are smaller, or none at all. If Defendants prevailed at summary judgment on their 16 argument that there is no loss causation because each alleged corrective disclosure involved 17 missed earnings guidance, which was never challenged as false, then the Class would have 18 recovered nothing at all. Additionally, if Defendants prevailed at summary judgment on their 19 argument that the disclosures in the later part of the Class Period (i.e., in connection with claims 20 related to the weak demand for Llano in 2012) must be eliminated, the Class Representatives 21 would have been left with only one corrective disclosure (September 28, 2011), with maximum 22 aggregate damages of approximately $210 million. Under this scenario, the proposed Settlement 23 would represent a recovery of approximately 14%. Treating July 22, 2011 and October 28, 2011 24 as inflation causing dates would further reduce the Class’ maximum damages, which would 25 equate to a higher percentage of recovery. 26 83. To recover any damages at trial, the Class Representatives would have to prevail 27 at many stages in the litigation – namely, Defendants’ Daubert motions and motions for 28 summary judgment and then at trial. Even if the Class Representatives prevailed at those stages,

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 25 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 48

1 appeals would likely follow. At each of turn, there would be significant risks attendant to the 2 continued prosecution of the Action, and no guarantee that further litigation would have resulted 3 in a higher recovery, or any recovery at all.

4 C. Risks Attendant at Trial 5 84. In addition to the specific liability risks discussed above and the usual 6 uncertainties attendant to placing complex issues before a jury, a trial of this case presented its 7 own hurdles. Given the complex nature of the claims, the Class Representatives intended to rely 8 heavily on their expert in the semiconductor industry and accounting expert. Like the damages 9 experts, a jury would need to evaluate a “battle of the experts” with no guarantee that the jury 10 would accept the Class Representatives’ experts’ opinions. 11 85. Further, at the time the Settlement was reached, the Parties had exchanged 12 Daubert motions in which Defendants were seeking to exclude all or most of the testimony that 13 the Class Representatives intended to offer through these experts. Had Defendants prevailed in 14 excluding any of this testimony, the presentation of many aspects of the Class Representatives’ 15 case would have been extremely difficult. 16 86. Even if the Class Representatives were successful in obtaining a jury verdict on 17 all or part of their claims, it was a foregone certainty that a jury verdict would have been just the 18 beginning of a long and arduous appellate process. Given the novelty of the issues concerning 19 materiality, falsity, loss causation, damages, and the duties attendant under Section 10(b), an 20 appellate process, with the possibility of reversal, presented a real risk to the Class of obtaining a 21 recovery.

22 VII. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS 23 87. In October 2015, before the hearing on Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for class 24 certification, the Parties engaged the Honorable Layn R. Phillips (Ret.), a well-respected 25 mediator with extensive experience in mediating complex securities class actions, to assist them 26 with exploring a potential negotiated resolution of the Action. The Parties attended a private 27 mediation before Judge Phillips in California on January 14, 2016. The mediation session was 28 preceded by the exchange of mediation statements (with supporting exhibits) detailing the

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 26 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 48

1 Parties’ respective positions and supporting evidence. Class Counsel worked diligently and 2 extensively to prepare plaintiffs’ mediation statement. However, the January 14, 2016 mediation 3 did not result in an agreement to settle. Thereafter, Judge Phillips continued his efforts to 4 facilitate discussion between the Parties. 5 88. In April 2017, the Parties agreed to try mediating again before Judge Phillips and 6 the Honorable Gary A. Feess (Ret.). The mediation took place on August 8, 2017, in California, 7 and was preceded by the exchange of mediation statements that “supplemented” or “updated” the 8 Parties’ previously exchanged mediation statements. At the mediation, the Parties reached an 9 agreement-in-principle the settle the Action, subject to approval by AMD’s Board of Directors. 10 89. The Parties thereafter memorialized the final terms of Settlement in the 11 Stipulation, which was executed by the Parties on October 9, 2017, and filed with the Court that 12 same day (ECF No. 333-1), along with the Class Representatives’ motion and supporting 13 memorandum of points and authorities seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement (ECF No. 14 332).

15 VIII. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER AND REACTION OF THE CLASS 16 90. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court appointed Epiq Class 17 Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”) as the Claims Administrator and instructed Epiq to 18 disseminate copies of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ 19 Fees and Expenses and Proof of Claim (collectively the “Claim Packet”) by mail and to publish 20 the Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 21 Expenses. 22 91. The Settlement Notice, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Alexander 23 Villanova (“Mailing Declaration”) (attached as Exhibit 3 hereto), provides potential Class 24 Members with information about the terms of the Settlement and, among other things: their right 25 to opt-out of the Class; their right to opt-back into the Class (for those who previously requested 26 exclusion in connection with the Class Notice); their right to object to any aspect of the 27 Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense Application; and the manner for 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 27 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 48

1 submitting a Claim Form to be eligible for a payment from the net proceeds of the Settlement. 2 The Settlement Notice also informs Class Members of Class Counsel’s intention to apply for an 3 award of attorneys’ fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement Fund and for payment of 4 litigation expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000. 5 92. As detailed in the Mailing Declaration, on November 8, 2017, Epiq began mailing 6 Claim Packets to potential Class Members as well as banks, brokerage firms, and other third 7 party nominees whose clients may be Class Members. Ex. 3 ¶¶6-9. To disseminate the 8 Settlement Notice, Epiq used the names and addresses of potential Class Members from the 9 mailing file that Epiq compiled in connection with the Class Notice, and from banks, brokers, 10 and other nominees. Id. ¶¶3-5. In total, to date, Epiq has mailed 222,130 Claim Packets to 11 potential nominees and Class Members by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Id. ¶9. 12 93. On November 20, 2017, Epiq caused the Summary Notice to be published in 13 Investor’s Business Daily and to be transmitted over the PR Newswire. Id. ¶11 and Exhibit C 14 attached thereto. 15 94. Epiq also maintains and posts information regarding the Settlement on a dedicated 16 website established for the Action, www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com, to provide Class 17 Members with information, as well as downloadable copies of the Claim Packet and the 18 Stipulation. Id. ¶17. 19 95. Pursuant to the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order, the deadline for Class 20 Members to submit objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense 21 Application, or to request exclusion from the Class is February 6, 2018. To date, two objections 22 to the Settlement have been received and the Claims Administrator has received six additional 23 requests for exclusion in connection with the Settlement Notice (some of which are duplicates of 24 requests submitted in connection with the Class Notice). Id. ¶¶19-21. 25 96. Class Counsel’s response to these objections is set forth in the Settlement Brief in 26 Section I.B.8. Class Counsel will respond to any future objections and provide a full report on 27 the exclusion requests in their reply papers, which are due February 13, 2018. 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 28 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 30 of 48

1 IX. PLAN OF ALLOCATION 2 97. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, and as set forth in the Settlement 3 Notice, all Class Members who wish to participate in the distribution of the Settlement proceeds 4 must submit a valid Claim Form, including all required information, postmarked no later than 5 February 13, 2018. As provided in the Settlement Notice, after the deduction of Court-awarded 6 attorneys’ fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, and applicable taxes, the 7 balance of the Settlement Fund (the “Net Settlement Fund”) will be distributed according to the 8 plan of allocation approved by the Court (the “Plan of Allocation”). 9 98. The proposed Plan of Allocation, which was set forth in full in the Settlement 10 Notice (Ex. 3-A at 11-13), is designed to achieve an equitable and rational distribution of the Net 11 Settlement Fund, but it is not a formal damages analysis that would be submitted at trial. Class 12 Counsel’s damages expert developed the Plan of Allocation after careful consideration of 13 plaintiffs’ theories of liability and damages, and Class Counsel believe that the plan provides a 14 fair and reasonable method to equitably distribute the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized 15 Claimants. 16 99. The Plan of Allocation provides for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund 17 among Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis based on their “Recognized Losses,” calculated 18 according to the Plan’s formulas, which are consistent with the Class Representatives’ theories of 19 liability and damages. These formulas consider the amount of alleged artificial inflation in the 20 prices of AMD’s publicly traded common stock, as quantified by Mr. Coffman. Mr. Coffman 21 analyzed the movement in the prices of AMD’s stock and took into account the portion of the 22 price drops attributable to the alleged fraud. 23 100. Claimants will be eligible for a payment based on when they purchased, held, or 24 sold their AMD stock. The Court-approved Claims Administrator, under Class Counsel’s 25 direction, will calculate claimants’ Recognized Losses using the transactional information 26 provided in their Claim Forms. The Class Representatives’ losses have been calculated in the 27 same manner. Epiq has calculated KBC’s Recognized Losses as totaling $89,888.67. ATRS’s 28 Recognized Losses total $101,056. See Ex.3 ¶18.

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 29 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 31 of 48

1 101. Once the Claims Administrator has processed all submitted claims, distributions 2 will be made to eligible Authorized Claimants. After an initial distribution, if there is any 3 balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund (whether by reason of tax refunds, uncashed 4 checks or otherwise) after at least six (6) months from the date of initial distribution, Class 5 Counsel will, if feasible and economical, re-distribute the balance among Authorized Claimants 6 who have cashed their checks. Re-distributions will be repeated until the balance in the Net 7 Settlement Fund is no longer economically feasible to distribute. Class Representatives propose 8 that any balance that still remains in the Net Settlement Fund after re-distribution(s), which is not 9 economical to reallocate, after payment of any outstanding Notice and Administration Expenses 10 or Taxes, be donated in equal amounts to the Bay Area Legal Aid and the Consumer Federation 11 of America – both of which have programs that assist consumers facing financial fraud and other 12 unfair treatment. See Stipulation ¶25. 13 102. Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) is a non-profit organization that provides free 14 legal assistance to low income residents of the San Francisco bay area through offices in Santa 15 Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties. See 16 https://baylegal.org/who-we-are/our-mission/. BayLegal has a Consumer Protection project that 17 advocates on behalf of allegedly wronged consumers by providing them with direct legal 18 representation in cases concerning, among other things, fair credit reporting, fair debt collection 19 practices, and unfair and deceptive advertising of financial products and services. See 20 https://baylegal.org/what-we-do/stability/consumer-protections/. Cy pres funds from the 21 Settlement can be earmarked for the Consumer Protection project so that they directly assist 22 victims of financial fraud. BayLegal has been approved as a cy pres beneficiary in several 23 securities cases in California, including In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 10-cv- 24 02604-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Westley, et al. v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-02448-EMC (N.D. Cal.), 25 and In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 12-cv-04677-YGR (N.D. Cal.). 26 103. Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”) is a non-profit, consumer advocacy 27 organization established in 1968 to advance consumer interests through policy research, 28 advocacy, and education before the judiciary, Congress, the White House, federal and state

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 30 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 32 of 48

1 regulatory agencies, and state legislatures. See generally www.consumerfed.org. With respect 2 to victims of financial fraud, CFA has an Investor Protection program that works nationwide to 3 promote consumer-oriented policies that safeguard investors against fraud through: (i) the 4 development of educational material for investors; (ii) drafting policies and legislation; (iii) and 5 providing testimony and comments on legislation and regulations. See 6 www.consumerfed.org/issues/investor-protection. CFA has been approved as a cy pres 7 beneficiary in several securities cases in California, including In re Vocera Communications, Inc. 8 Securities Litigation, No. 13-CV-03567-EMC (N.D. Cal.), In re Broadcom Corp. Securities 9 Litigation, No. 01-CV-00275-MLR (C.D. Cal.), and In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 10 12-cv-04677-YGR (N.D. Cal.). 11 104. In sum, the proposed Plan of Allocation, developed by the Class Representatives’ 12 damages expert, was designed to fairly and rationally allocate the Net Settlement Fund among 13 Authorized Claimants. Accordingly, Class Counsel respectfully submit that the proposed Plan of 14 Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved.

15 X. CLASS COUNSEL’S APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES 16 105. For their significant efforts on behalf of the Class, Class Counsel are applying for 17 compensation from the Settlement Fund on a percentage basis. As explained in Class Counsel’s 18 Fee Brief, courts within the Ninth Circuit recognize that the percentage method is the appropriate 19 method of fee recovery and the prevailing method of determining attorneys’ fees in the Ninth 20 Circuit. 21 106. Consistent with the Settlement Notice, Class Counsel seek a fee award of 25% of 22 the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel also request payment of expenses incurred in connection 23 with the prosecution of the Action from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $2,812,817.52. 24 Class Counsel submit that, for the reasons discussed below and in the accompanying Fee Brief, 25 such awards would be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances before the Court.

26 A. The Class Representatives Support the Fee and Expense Application 27 107. Class Representative ATRS is an institutional investor that provides retirement, 28 disability, and survivor benefits to the thousands of current and former employees of the

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 31 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 33 of 48

1 Arkansas education community, and manages approximately $16 billion in assets held in trust. 2 Ex. 1 ¶1. 3 108. Class Representative KBC is an asset management company based in Brussels. 4 As part of KBC’s asset management services, it is responsible for managing mutual funds, 5 private funds, and institutional funds. As of year-end 2016, KBC had approximately €213 billion 6 of assets under management. Ex. 2 ¶1. 7 109. The Class Representatives played a central role in monitoring and participating in 8 the Action, including, among other things, reviewing pleadings, motions and other court filings; 9 participating in the discovery process, including producing documents and being deposed; 10 attending mediation sessions in person or by telephone; and participating in frequent conference 11 calls and/or in person meetings with Class Counsel. 12 110. The Class Representatives have evaluated and fully support the Fee and Expense 13 Application. See Ex. 1 ¶6, 13 and Ex. 2 ¶¶6, 10. In coming to this conclusion, the Class 14 Representatives – which were substantially involved in the prosecution of the Action and 15 negotiation of the Settlement – considered the recovery obtained as well as Class Counsel’s 16 substantial effort in obtaining the recovery. Particularly in light of the considerable risks of 17 litigation, the Class Representatives agreed to allow Class Counsel to apply for 25% of the 18 Settlement Fund. See id.

19 B. The Favorable Settlement Achieved 20 111. Courts have consistently recognized that the result achieved is a major factor to be 21 considered in making a fee award. See Fee Brief, §I.C.1. Here, the $29,500,000 settlement is a 22 very good result, particularly when considered in view of the substantial risks and obstacles to 23 recovery if the Action was to continue through a decision on summary judgment, to trial, and 24 through likely post-trial motions and appeals. 25 112. As set forth in detail above, the recovery obtained for the Class was the result of 26 thorough and diligent prosecutorial and investigative efforts, complicated motion practice, and 27 vigorous settlement negotiations. As a result of this Settlement, thousands of Class Members 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 32 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 34 of 48

1 will benefit and receive compensation for their losses and avoid the very substantial risk of no 2 recovery in the absence of a settlement.

3 C. The Risks and Unique Complexities of Contingent Class Action Litigation 4 113. This Action presented substantial challenges from the outset of the case. The 5 specific complexities and risks the Class Representatives faced in proving Defendants’ liability 6 and damages are detailed in paragraphs 70 to 83, above. These case-specific risks are in addition 7 to the more typical risks accompanying securities class action litigation, such as the fact that this 8 Action is governed by stringent PSLRA requirements and case law interpreting the federal 9 securities laws and was undertaken on a contingent basis. 10 114. From the outset, Class Counsel understood that they were embarking on a 11 complex, expensive, and lengthy litigation with no guarantee of ever being compensated for the 12 substantial investment of time and money the case would require. In undertaking that 13 responsibility, Class Counsel were obligated to ensure that sufficient resources were dedicated to 14 the prosecution of the Action, and that funds were available to compensate staff and to cover the 15 considerable costs that a case such as this requires. With an average lag time of several years for 16 these cases to conclude, the financial burden on contingent-fee counsel is far greater than on a 17 firm that is paid on an ongoing basis. Indeed, Class Counsel received no compensation during 18 the four year course of the Action but have incurred 62,765.80 hours of time for a total lodestar 19 of $31,122,958.75 and have incurred $2,812,817.52 in expenses in prosecuting the Action for the 20 benefit of the Class. 21 115. Class Counsel also bore the risk that no recovery would be achieved (or that a 22 judgment could not be collected, in whole or in part). Even with the most vigorous and 23 competent of efforts, success in contingent-fee litigation, such as this, is never assured. Class 24 Counsel know from experience that the commencement of a class action does not guarantee a 25 settlement. To the contrary, it takes hard work and diligence by skilled counsel to develop the 26 facts and theories that are needed to sustain a complaint or win at trial, or to convince 27 sophisticated defendants to engage in serious settlement negotiations at meaningful levels. 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 33 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 35 of 48

1 116. Class Counsel are aware of many hard-fought lawsuits in which, because of the 2 discovery of facts unknown when the case was commenced, or changes in the law during the 3 pendency of the case, or a decision of a judge or jury following a trial on the merits, excellent 4 professional efforts of members of the plaintiffs’ bar produced no fee for counsel. 5 117. Federal appellate reports are filled with opinions affirming dismissals with 6 prejudice in securities cases. The many appellate decisions affirming summary judgment and 7 directed verdicts for defendants show that surviving a motion to dismiss is not a guarantee of 8 recovery. See, e.g., Oracle Corp., Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Silicon 9 Graphics Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999); Phillips v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 489 F. 10 App’x 339 (11th Cir. 2012); In re Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. Sec. Litig., 669 F.3d 68 (1st 11 Cir. 2012); McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 494 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2007); In re Digi Int’l Inc. 12 Sec. Litig., 14 F. App’x 714 (8th Cir. 2001); Geffon v. Micrion Corp., 249 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 13 2001). 14 118. Successfully opposing a motion for summary judgment is also not a guarantee 15 that plaintiffs will prevail at trial. Indeed, while only a few securities class actions have been 16 tried before a jury, several have been lost in their entirety, such as In re JDS Uniphase Securities 17 Litigation, Case No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL), slip op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007), litigated by 18 Labaton Sucharow, or partially lost, such as In re Clarent Corp. Securities Litigation, Case 19 No. C-01-3361 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2005). 20 119. Even plaintiffs who succeed at trial may find their verdict overturned on appeal. 21 See, e.g., Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household Int’l, Inc., 787 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2015) (reversing 22 and remanding jury verdict of $2.46 billion after 13 years of litigation on loss causation grounds 23 and error in jury instruction under Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S. 24 Ct. 2296 (2011)); Ward v. Succession of Freeman, 854 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1998) (reversing 25 plaintiffs’ jury verdict for securities fraud); Robbins v. Koger Props., Inc., 116 F.3d 1441 (11th 26 Cir. 1997) (reversing $81 million jury verdict and dismissing case with prejudice); Anixter v. 27 Home-Stake Prod. Co., 77 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 1996) (overturning plaintiffs’ verdict obtained 28 after two decades of litigation). And, the path to maintaining a favorable jury verdict can be

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 34 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 36 of 48

1 arduous and time consuming. See, e.g., In re Apollo Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. CV-04- 2 2147-PHX-JAT, 2008 WL 3072731 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2008), rev’d, No. 08-16971, 2010 WL 3 5927988 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010) (trial court tossing unanimous verdict for plaintiffs, which was 4 later reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) and judgment re-entered (id.) after denial 5 by the Supreme Court of the United States of defendants’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Apollo 6 Grp. Inc. v. Police Annuity & Benefit Fund, 131 S. Ct. 1602 (2011)). 7 120. Losses such as those described above are exceedingly expensive for plaintiff’s 8 counsel to bear. The fees that are awarded in successful cases are used to cover enormous 9 overhead expenses incurred during the course of litigations and are taxed by federal, state, and 10 local authorities. 11 121. Courts have repeatedly held that it is in the public interest to have experienced 12 and able counsel enforce the securities laws and regulations pertaining to the duties of officers 13 and directors of public companies. Vigorous private enforcement of the federal securities laws 14 and state corporation laws can only occur if private plaintiffs can obtain some parity in 15 representation with that available to large corporate defendants. If this important public policy is 16 to be carried out, courts should award fees that will adequately compensate private plaintiffs’ 17 counsel, taking into account the enormous risks undertaken with a clear view of the economics of 18 a securities class action. 19 122. As discussed in detail above, this case was fraught with significant risk factors 20 concerning liability and damages. Were this Settlement not achieved, and even if the Class 21 Representatives prevailed at trial, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel faced potentially 22 years of costly and risky appellate litigation against Defendants, with ultimate success far from 23 certain and the prospect of no recovery significant. Class Counsel therefore respectfully submit 24 that based upon the considerable risk factors present, this case involved a very substantial 25 contingency risk to counsel.

26 D. The Work of Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the Lodestar Cross-Check 27 123. The work undertaken by plaintiffs’ counsel in investigating and prosecuting this 28 case and arriving at the present Settlement in the face of serious hurdles has been time-

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 35 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 37 of 48

1 consuming and challenging. As explained above, plaintiffs’ counsel conducted a comprehensive 2 investigation into the Class’s claims; researched and prepared an amended complaint; briefed a 3 thorough opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the CAC; briefed a thorough opposition to 4 Defendants’ motion to strike certain allegations in the CAC; moved for certification of the Class; 5 engaged in thorough discovery efforts that led to obtaining more than approximately 2.5 million 6 pages of documents from Defendants and third-parties; took or defended 34 depositions; 7 exchanged 11 expert reports; moved for and opposed summary judgment; filed and opposed 8 Daubert motions; and engaged in a hard-fought settlement process with experienced defense 9 counsel and experienced mediators. 10 124. At all times throughout the pendency of the Action, plaintiffs’ counsel’s efforts 11 were driven and focused on advancing the litigation to bring about the most successful outcome 12 for the Class, whether through settlement or trial, by the most efficient means necessary. 13 125. Attached hereto are declarations from plaintiffs’ counsel, which are submitted in 14 support of the request for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses. See 15 Declaration of Jonathan Gardner Filed on Behalf of Labaton Sucharow LLP in Support of 16 Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (attached as Exhibit 4 hereto); the 17 Declaration of James M. Hughes filed on Behalf of Motley Rice in Support of Application for 18 Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (attached as Exhibit 5 hereto); Declaration of Katherine 19 Lubin filed on Behalf of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (attached as Exhibit 6 20 hereto); and Declaration of Stanley D. Bernstein filed on Behalf of Bernstein Liebhard LLP in 21 Support of Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (attached as Exhibit 7 22 hereto). 23 126. Included with these declarations are schedules that summarize the time of each 24 firm (including by category of work conducted), as well as the expenses incurred by category

25 (the “Fee and Expense Schedules”).4 The attached declarations and the Fee and Expense 26 Schedules report the amount of time spent by each attorney and professional support staff 27

28 4 Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a summary table of the lodestars and expenses of plaintiffs’ counsel. C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 36 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 38 of 48

1 employed by plaintiffs’ counsel and the “lodestar” calculations, i.e., their hours multiplied by 2 their 2017 rates. See Exs. 4 through 7. As explained in each declaration, they were prepared 3 from contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by the respective 4 firms. 5 127. The hourly rates of plaintiffs’ counsel here range from $510 to $10505 for 6 partners, $675 to $995 per hour for of counsels or senior counsels, and $275 to $800 per hour for 7 other attorneys. See Exs. 4-A; 5-A; 6-A; and 7-A. It is respectfully submitted that the hourly 8 rates for attorneys and professional staff included in these schedules are reasonable and 9 customary for this type of complex commercial litigation. Exhibit 9, attached hereto, is a table 10 of hourly rates for defense firms compiled by Labaton Sucharow from fee applications submitted 11 by such firms nationwide in bankruptcy proceedings in 2017. The analysis shows that across all 12 types of attorneys, plaintiffs’ counsel’s rates are consistent with, or lower than, the firms 13 surveyed, including Latham & Watkins LLP. 14 128. Plaintiffs’ counsel have collectively expended 62,765.80 hours in the prosecution 15 and investigation of the Action. See Ex. 8. The resulting collective lodestar is $31,122,958.75, 16 which does not include any time that will necessarily be spent from this date forward 17 administering the Settlement, preparing for and attending the Settlement Hearing, and assisting 18 class members. Id. Pursuant to a lodestar “cross-check,” applied within the Ninth Circuit, the

19 requested fee of 25% of the Settlement Fund (or $7,375,000) results in a fractional “multiplier” 20 of 0.24 on the lodestar. Accordingly, Class Counsel are seeking approximately 24% of their 21 lodestar.

22 E. The Skill Required and Quality of the Work 23 129. Class Counsel Labaton Sucharow and Motley Rice are among the most 24 experienced and skilled securities litigation law firms in the field. The expertise and experience 25 of their attorneys are described in Exhibits 4-H and 5-H, annexed hereto. 26

27 5 The rates at the end of this range are for one of the founding partners of Bernstein Liebhard who has over 35 years of experience, and a senior partner at Motley Rice who has almost 40 28 years of experience. Their combined lodestar is $262,668.75, which is only 0.00844% of the total time. C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 37 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 48

1 130. Since the passage of the PSLRA, Labaton Sucharow has been approved by courts 2 to serve as lead counsel in numerous notable securities class actions throughout the United 3 States. Here, Labaton Sucharow attorneys have devoted considerable time and effort to this 4 case, thereby bringing to bear many years of collective experience. For example, Labaton 5 Sucharow has served as lead counsel in a number of high profile matters: In re Am. Int’l Grp., 6 Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-8141 (S.D.N.Y.) (representing the Ohio Public Employees Retirement 7 System, State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, and Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund and 8 reaching settlements of $1 billion); In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 03-1501 (N.D. Ala.) 9 (representing the State of Michigan Retirement System, New Mexico State Investment Council, 10 and the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board and securing settlements of more than $600 11 million); In re Countrywide Sec. Litig., No. 07-5295 (C.D. Cal.) (representing the New York 12 State and New York City Pension Funds and reaching settlements of more than $600 million); In 13 re Schering-Plough Corp. / ENHANCE Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-397 (DMC) 14 (JAD) (D.N.J.) (representing Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board 15 and reaching a settlement of $473 million). See Ex. 4-H. 16 131. Similarly, Motley Rice, as demonstrated by the firm resume attached to its 17 declaration (Ex. 5-H), is among the most experienced and skilled firms in the securities litigation 18 field, and has a long and successful track record in such cases. For example, Motley Rice has 19 served as lead or co-lead counsel in a number of high profile matters, including In re Barrick 20 Gold Securities Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-03851-RMB (S.D.N.Y.) (representing institutional 21 investors Union Asset Management Holding AG and LRI Invest S.A., and reaching settlement of 22 $140 million); Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 2:09-cv-02122-EFM-KMH (D. Kan.) 23 (representing PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund, Skandia Life Insurance 24 Company, and West Virginia Investment Management Board, and reaching settlement of $131 25 million), and Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Ass’n v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 08-6324 (PAM/AJB) 26 (D. Minn.) (representing Oklahoma Teachers’ Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters 27 Pension Fund, Union Asset Management Holding AG, Danske Invest Management A/S, and 28 Westmoreland County Employees Retirement System, and reaching a settlement of $85 million);

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 38 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 40 of 48

1 City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 4665 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.) 2 (representing LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and Société Générale 3 Securities Services GmbH, and reaching settlement of $62 million). See Ex. 5-H.

4 XI. PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES 5 132. Plaintiffs’ counsel seek payment from the Settlement Fund of $2,812,817.52 in 6 litigation expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in connection with prosecuting the claims 7 against Defendants. The Settlement Notice informs the Class that Class Counsel will apply for 8 payment of litigation expenses of no more than $3,000,000. See Ex. 3-A at 1, 8. The amounts 9 requested herein are below this cap. To date, no objection to Class Counsel’s request for 10 expenses has been raised. 11 133. As set forth in the Fee and Expense Schedules, plaintiffs’ counsel have incurred a 12 total of $2,812,817.52 in litigation expenses in connection with the prosecution of the Action. 13 See Exs. 4-C through G; 5-C through G, 6-C through D, and 7-C. As attested to, these expenses 14 are reflected on the books and records maintained by each firm. These books and records are 15 prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an accurate 16 record of the expenses incurred. These expenses are set forth in detail in plaintiffs’ counsel’s 17 declarations, which identify the specific category of expense – e.g., online/computer research, 18 experts’ fees, travel costs, costs related to mediation, duplicating, telephone, fax, and postage 19 expenses. 20 134. A significant component of plaintiffs’ counsel’s expenses is the cost of experts, 21 which totals $1,680,536.26 or 60% of total expenses. As noted above, Class Counsel retained 22 Mr. Coffman to opine on market efficiency, in connection with the Class Representatives’ class 23 certification motion. Mr. Coffman submitted two reports in connection with class certification. 24 Mr. Coffman was also retained, later on in the litigation, to submit an expert report on 25 materiality, causation, and the amount of damages suffered by the Class, and to help develop a 26 fair and reasonable Plan of Allocation. Class Counsel also retained Professor Scott E. 27 Thompson, Ph.D., a microprocessor industry expert who was retained to opine on chip 28 manufacturing, supply, and demand, as well as Jason S. Flemmons, CPA, CFE, CFF, a forensic

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 39 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 41 of 48

1 and technical accounting expert who provided opinions on whether Defendants’ statements about 2 product gross margins were false and misleading. These professionals were essential to the 3 prosecution of the Action. 4 135. Class Counsel also seek $323,093.85 (11% of total expenses) relating to litigation 5 support services, such as the costs associated with electronic discovery and adding hyperlinks to 6 court filings. Expenses totaling $133,871 (5% of total expenses) were also incurred in 7 connection with the 34 depositions taken in the case, and in retaining independent counsel for the 8 confidential witnesses in the case ($56,990.09). 9 136. Class Counsel were required to work late hours and travel in connection with this 10 Action and incurred costs related to working meals, lodging, and transportation, which total 11 $248,431 or 9% of aggregate expenses. The travel involved numerous appearances before the 12 Court, attending approximately 34 depositions, two mediations, and other trips related to meeting 13 with witnesses or the Class Representatives. 14 137. Computerized research totals $73,218 or 3% of total expenses. These are the 15 charges for computerized factual and legal research services, including LexisNexis, Westlaw, 16 Courtlink, Thompson, and PACER. These services allowed counsel to perform media searches 17 on AMD, obtain analysts’ reports and financial data for AMD, and conduct legal research. 18 138. Class Counsel also paid $35,147.23 in mediation fees assessed by the mediators in 19 this matter. 20 139. The other expenses for which Class Counsel seek payment are the types of 21 expenses that are necessarily incurred in litigation and routinely charged to clients billed by the 22 hour. These expenses include, among others, duplicating costs, long distance telephone and 23 conference call charges, filing fees, and postage and delivery expenses. 24 140. All of the litigation expenses incurred, which total $2,812,817.52, were necessary 25 to the successful prosecution and resolution of the claims against Defendants. 26 141. In view of the complex nature of the Action, the expenses incurred were 27 reasonable and necessary to pursue the interests of the Class. Accordingly, we respectfully 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 40 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 42 of 48

1 submit that the expenses incurred by Class Counsel should be paid in full from the Settlement 2 Fund.

3 XII. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ REIMBURSEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PSLRA 4 142. Additionally, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), the Class 5 Representatives ATRS and KBC seek reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses 6 (including lost wages) incurred in connection with their work representing the Class in the 7 aggregate amount of $23,223.25. The amount of time and effort devoted to this Action by each 8 of the Class Representatives is detailed in the accompanying Declarations of George Hopkins 9 and Bart Elst, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2. Class Counsel respectfully submit that the 10 amounts requested by Class Representatives are consistent with Congress’s intent, as expressed 11 in the PSLRA, of encouraging institutional investors to take an active role in commencing and 12 supervising private securities litigation. 13 143. As discussed in the Fee Brief and in the Class Representatives’ supporting 14 declarations, the Class Representatives have been committed to pursuing the Class’s claims since 15 they became involved in the litigation. As large institutional investors, the Class Representatives 16 have actively and effectively fulfilled their obligations as representatives of the Class, complying 17 with all of the many demands placed upon them during the litigation and settlement of the 18 Action, and providing valuable assistance to Class Counsel. For instance, the Class 19 Representatives engaged in time-consuming discovery efforts and searches to locate and produce 20 documents responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests. Ex. 1 ¶4; Ex. 2 ¶4. In addition, the 21 Class Representatives prepared for, and testified at, depositions in connection with the class 22 certification motion. Id. These efforts required employees of the Class Representatives to 23 dedicate time and resources to the Action that they would have otherwise devoted to their regular 24 duties. 25 144. The efforts expended by the Class Representatives during the course of the Action 26 are precisely the types of activities courts have found to support reimbursement to class 27 representatives, and support the Class Representatives’ request for reimbursement. 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 41 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 43 of 48

1 XIII. THE REACTION OF THE CLASS TO THE FEE AND EXPENSE APPLICATION 2 145. As mentioned above, consistent with the Preliminary Approval Order, a total of 3 222,130 Settlement Notices have been mailed to potential Class Members advising them that 4 Class Counsel would seek an award of attorneys’ fees not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund, 5 and payment of expenses in an amount not greater than $3,000,000. See Ex. 3 ¶9. Additionally, 6 the Summary Notice was published in Investor’s Business Daily and disseminated over PR 7 Newswire. Id. ¶11. The Settlement Notice has also been available on the settlement website 8 maintained by the Claims Administrator. Id. ¶17.6 9 146. While the deadline set by the Court for Class Members to object to the requested 10 fees and expenses has not yet passed, to date no one has objected to the fee or expense request. 11 Class Counsel will respond to any additional objections that may be received in their reply 12 papers, which are due February 13, 2018. 13 XIV. MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBITS 14 147. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Securities Class Action 15 Settlements: 2016 Review and Analysis (Cornerstone Research 2017) by Laarni T. Bulan, Ellen 16 M. Ryan & Laura E. Simmons. 17 148. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a compendium of unreported cases, in 18 alphabetical order, cited in the accompanying Fee Brief. 19 XV. CONCLUSION 20 149. In view of the significant recovery for the Class and the substantial risks of this 21 litigation, as described above and in the accompanying memorandum of law, the Class 22 Representatives and Class Counsel respectfully submit that the Settlement should be approved as 23 fair, reasonable, and adequate and that the proposed Plan of Allocation should likewise be 24 approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. In view of the significant recovery in the face of 25 substantial risks, the quality and amount of work performed, the contingent nature of the fee, and 26

27 6 The Class Representatives’ motion for approval of the Settlement and Class Counsel’s 28 motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses will also be posted on the Settlement website. C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 42 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 44 of 48

1 the standing and experience of Class Counsel, as described above and in the accompanying 2 memorandum of law, Class Counsel respectfully submit that a fee in the amount of 25% of the 3 Settlement Fund be awarded, that litigation expenses in the amount of $2,812,817.52 be paid, 4 and that the Class Representatives be reimbursed $23,223.25 (in the aggregate), pursuant to the 5 PSLRA. 6 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 7 January 23, 2018. 8 9 JONATHAN GARDNER 10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 11 January 23, 2018. 12 13

14 JAMES M. HUGHES 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 43 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND JAMES M. HUGHES

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 45 of 48 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 46 of 48

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on January 23, 2018, I authorized the electronic filing of the 3 foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 4 such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I 5 hereby certify that I will mail the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal 6 Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Service List, if any. 7 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 8 foregoing is true and correct. 9 Executed on January 23, 2018 10 /s/ Jonathan Gardner JONATHAN GARDNER 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 47 of 48

1 Mailing Information for a Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR

2 Hatamian et al v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al 3 Electronic Mail Notice List 4 The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. 5  Melanie Marilyn Blunschi 6 [email protected],[email protected],#[email protected], 7 [email protected],[email protected]  Alec T. Coquin 8 [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]  Jonathan Gardner 9 [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],cboria@labaton. 10 com,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected], 11 [email protected]  Patrick Edward Gibbs 12 [email protected],[email protected]  Michael M. Goldberg 13 [email protected]  Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher 14 [email protected],[email protected] 15  Jason C. Hegt [email protected],[email protected] 16  James Michael Hughes [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], 17 [email protected]  Willem F. Jonckheer 18 [email protected],[email protected], 19 [email protected],[email protected]  Joy Ann Kruse 20 [email protected],[email protected]  Nicole Catherine Lavallee 21 [email protected],[email protected]  Sharon Maine Lee 22 [email protected] 23  Katherine Collinge Lubin [email protected],[email protected] 24  Meredith B. Miller [email protected] 25  William H. Narwold [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], 26 [email protected] 27  William S. Norton [email protected] 28  Michael J. Pendell [email protected] CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351 Filed 01/23/18 Page 48 of 48

1  Matthew Rawlinson [email protected],[email protected], 2 [email protected],[email protected], #[email protected] 3  Paul J. Scarlato 4 [email protected]  Carol C. Villegas 5 [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], 6 [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]  Avraham Noam Wagner 7 [email protected] 8  Kara M. Wolke [email protected] 9  Roger W. Yamada [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], 10 [email protected],[email protected] 11 Manual Notice List 12 The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case 13 (who therefore require manual noticing).

14 (No manual recipients) 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit 1 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-2 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit 2 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-2 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 6

1 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2 Joy A. Kruse (State Bar No. 142799) Katherine C. Lubin (State Bar No. 259826) 3 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 4 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 5 Liaison Counsel 6 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP MOTLEY RICE LLC 7 Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice) James M. Hughes (pro hac vice) Paul J. Scarlato (pro hac vice) William S. Norton (pro hac vice) 8 Carol C. Villegas (pro hac vice) Max N. Gruetzmacher (pro hac vice) Alec T. Coquin (pro hac vice) Michael J. Pendell (pro hac vice) 9 Roger W. Yamada (pro hac vice) 28 Bridgeside Blvd. 140 Broadway Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 10 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 11 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477

12 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class [Additional counsel listed on signature page] 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of 17 all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

18 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF BART ELST IN SUPPORT OF (A) CLASS 19 v. REPRESENTATIVES’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 20 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, ALLOCATION AND (B) CLASS 21 RICHARD A. BERGMAN AND LISA T. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN SU, AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 22 PAYMENT OF LITIGATION Defendants EXPENSES 23

24 25 26 27 28 DECL. OF KBC ASSET MGMT. NV IN SUPP. OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-2 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 6

1 I, Bart Elst, declare as follows:

2 1. I am a Senior Company Lawyer at KBC Asset Management NV (“KBC”), one 3 of the Court-appointed Class Representatives in the above-captioned securities class action 4 (the “Action”).1 KBC is an asset management company based in Brussels. As part of KBC’s 5 asset management services, it is responsible for managing mutual funds, private funds, and 6 institutional funds. As of year-end 2016, KBC had approximately €213 billion of assets under 7 management.

8 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of (a) approval of the proposed 9 class action settlement and plan of allocation and (b) Class Counsel’s motion for an award of 10 attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, which includes KBC’s application for reimbursement 11 of costs and expenses pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). I have knowledge of the matters related to KBC’s application and of the other 12 matters set forth in this declaration as I, or others working at KBC, have been directly 13 involved in monitoring and overseeing the prosecution of the Action, and I could and would 14 testify competently thereto. 15 Work Performed by KBC on Behalf of the Class 16 3. KBC understands that the PSLRA was intended to encourage institutional 17 investors with large losses to seek to manage and direct securities fraud class actions. 18 KBC is a large, sophisticated institutional investor that committed itself to vigorously 19 prosecuting this Litigation through trial, if necessary. In seeking appointment as Co-Lead 20 Plaintiff and as a Class Representative in the case, KBC understood its fiduciary duties to 21 serve in the best interests of the Class by participating in the management and prosecution 22 of the case. 23 4. In its capacity as Co-Lead Plaintiff, KBC, among other things: (a) conferred 24 with Motley Rice on the overall strategy for prosecuting the Action, including moving for 25 Co-Lead Plaintiff; (b) reviewed court filings; (c) evaluated regular status reports from Motley 26 1 All capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined, have the same meanings as set 27 forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), dated as of October 9, 28 2017. DECL. OF KBC ASSET MGMT. NV IN SUPP. OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-2 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 6

1 Rice; (d) searched for and compiled relevant documents for potential production to the 2 Defendants; (e) prepared for and attended a deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure; (f) reviewed and verified interrogatory responses; (g) analyzed and 4 responded to Defendants’ settlement proposals; and (h) communicated with Motley Rice 5 regarding settlement negotiations, including the two mediation sessions, and settlement documents. After the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Action, as part 6 of KBC’s fiduciary duties to the Class, and independent of Class Counsel, KBC considered 7 the reasonableness of the $29.5 million Settlement and Class Counsel’s proposed fee request. 8 KBC Endorses Approval of the Settlement 9 5. Based on its involvement throughout the prosecution and resolution of the 10 Litigation, KBC believes that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the 11 Class. Because KBC believes that the proposed Settlement represents a substantial recovery 12 for the Class, particularly in light of the substantial risks of continuing the Litigation, it 13 endorses approval of the Settlement by the Court. 14 KBC Supports Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Payment 15 of Litigation Expenses 16 6. Furthermore, KBC also believes that Class Counsel’s request for an award of 17 attorneys’ fees in an amount of up to 30% of the Settlement is fair and reasonable. KBC has evaluated the fee request in light of the work performed by Class Counsel, the risks and 18 challenges in the litigation, and the substantial recovery obtained for the Class. KBC 19 understands that Class Counsel will also devote additional time in the future to administrating 20 the Settlement and distributing the Net Settlement Fund. KBC further believes that Class 21 Counsel’s request for reimbursement of litigation expenses is reasonable given that the costs 22 and expenses in question were necessary for the successful prosecution and resolution of this 23 case. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with its obligation to obtain the best result at 24 the most efficient cost on behalf of the Class, KBC fully supports Class Counsel’s motion for 25 attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses. 26 7. In addition, KBC understands that reimbursement of a plaintiff’s reasonable 27 costs and expenses, including lost wages, is authorized under § 21D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 28 DECL. OF KBC ASSET MGMT. NV IN SUPP. OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-2 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 6

1 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4). Consequently, in connection with Class Counsel’s request for 2 reimbursement of litigation expenses, KBC seeks reimbursement in the amount of $14,875, 3 as explained below. 4 8. Tine Procureur, formerly Head Operations Legal and the primary point of 5 contact between KBC and Motley Rice during the first half of the Litigation, departed KBC 6 in 2016. Prior to her departure, Ms. Procureur consulted with attorneys from Motley Rice 7 numerous times throughout the course of the Litigation before I took over those duties. Ms. Procureur also reviewed substantive Court filings, gathered and analyzed documents in 8 response to Defendants’ discovery requests, reviewed materials in preparation for her 9 deposition on September 10, 2015, and traveled to New York City for that deposition. 10 Ms. Procureur also regularly corresponded with attorneys from Motley Rice through email 11 and telephone conferences before I took over as primary point of contact and worked with 12 counsel regarding analyzing settlement proposals and settlement documents. 13 9. In total, KBC dedicated approximately 106.25 hours to the prosecution of this 14 action. This was time that was not spent attending to KBC’s usual business. Our effective 15 hourly rate claimed here is $140 per hour.2 The total cost of this time is $14,875. 16 Conclusion 17 10. In conclusion, KBC endorses the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, 18 and believes it represents a very favorable recovery for the Class. KBC further supports Class 19 Counsel’s attorneys’ fee and litigation expense request and believes that it represents fair and 20 reasonable compensation for counsel in light of the extensive work performed, the recovery 21 obtained for the Class, and the attendant litigation risks. Finally, KBC requests 22 reimbursement for its costs in the amount of $14,875. Accordingly, KBC respectfully 23 requests that the Court approve the motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement and 24 the motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses.

25 26

27 2 In arriving at an appropriate hourly rate, we considered several factors, including the rates 28 approved by district courts in other PSLRA-governed cases. DECL. OF KBC ASSET MGMT. NV IN SUPP. OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-2 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 89

Exhibit 3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 89

5 Liaison Counsel

6 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP MOTLEY RICE LLC Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice) James M. Hughes (pro hac vice) 7 Carol C. Villegas (pro hac vice) William S. Norton (pro hac vice) Alec T. Coquin (pro hac vice) Max N. Gruetzmacher (pro hac vice) 8 140 Broadway Michael J. Pendell (pro hac vice) New York, NY 10005 28 Bridgeside Blvd. 9 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 10 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450

11 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class 12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 OAKLAND DIVISION

15 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) 16 SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 17 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER 18 VILLANOVA REGARDING: (A) v. MAILING OF THE SETTLEMENT 19 NOTICE AND CLAIM FORM; (B) ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY 20 RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, NOTICE; AND (C) REPORT ON RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND 21 SU, OBJECTIONS

22 Defendants. Date: February 27, 2018 Time: 2:00 p.m. 23 Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor Judge: The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 24

25 26 27 28

D ECLARATION OF ALEXANDER VILLANOVA C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 89

1 I, Alexander Villanova, declare and state as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 2 1. I am a Project Manager employed by Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. 3 (“Epiq”). The following statements are based on my personal knowledge and information 4 provided by other Epiq employees working under my supervision and, if called on to do so, I 5 could and would testify competently thereto. 6 2. Epiq was retained by Class Counsel to provide notice and administration services 7 in the above-captioned class action litigation (the “Action”), and appointed by the Court as the 8 Claims Administrator.1 I submit this Declaration in order to provide the Court and the Parties to 9 the Settlement with information regarding, among other things, the mailing of the Court- 10 approved Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 11 Expenses (the “Settlement Notice”) and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (“Proof of Claim”) 12 (together, the Settlement Notice and Proof of Claim are referred to herein as the “Claim 13 Packet”), as well as the publication of the Summary Notice and establishment of the website and 14 toll-free number dedicated to this Settlement, in accordance with the Court’s Preliminary 15 Approval Order. 16 DISSEMINATION OF THE CLAIM PACKET 17 3. As more fully described in the Declaration of Stephanie A. Thurin re Notice of 18 Pendency Dissemination and Publication, executed on February 8, 2017 and previously filed 19 with the Court (ECF No. 239), Epiq previously conducted a mailing campaign (the “Class Notice 20 Mailing”) in which it mailed the Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the “Class Notice”) to 21 persons and entities identified as potential Class Members. To identify these potential Class 22 Members, Epiq received from Labaton Sucharow LLP, forwarded from the transfer agent for 23 AMD, a file containing a list of shareholders of record of AMD securities. Epiq mailed Class 24 Notices to the investors listed. Epiq also mailed the Class Notice to brokerage firms, banks, 25 institutions, and other potential nominees (the “Nominees”) listed in Epiq’s proprietary nominee 26 database. In response, Epiq received from the Nominees either (i) the names and addresses of 27

28 1 Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 9, 2017 (the “Stipulation”). D ECLARATION OF ALEXANDER VILLANOVA C ASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 89

1 their clients who were potential Class Members or (ii) requests for additional copies of the Class 2 Notice so that the Nominees could forward the Class Notice directly to their clients. Epiq also 3 received names and addresses directly from potential Class Members in this Action. 4 4. Through this process, Epiq created a mailing list of all known potential Class 5 Members, and their nominees, for use in connection with the Class Notice and any future notices. 6 5. After the Preliminary Approval Order was entered, Epiq created a mailing file for 7 the Claim Packet consisting of 115,773 names and addresses compiled as a result of the Class 8 Notice Mailing. 9 6. Beginning on November 8, 2017 (the “Notice Date”), Claim Packets were mailed 10 to these 115,773 potential Class Members and to 1,408 Nominees listed in Epiq’s proprietary 11 nominee database, by first-class mail. The 1,408 Claim Packets mailed to Nominees included a 12 letter explaining that if the Nominee had previously submitted names and addresses in 13 connection with the Class Notice Mailing, or had previously requested copies of the Class Notice 14 in bulk, it did not need to submit that information again unless it had additional names and 15 addresses to provide or needed a different number of Claim Packets. A true and accurate copy of 16 the letter sent to Nominees is attached as Exhibit A. 17 7. On November 8, 2017, 117,181 copies of the Claim Packet were mailed. A copy 18 of the Claim Packet is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 19 8. Since the initial mailing, through January 22, 2018, Epiq has mailed additional 20 copies of the Claim Packet to potential members of the Class whose names and addresses were 21 provided by individuals or Nominees, and mailed additional Claim Packets to Nominees who 22 requested Claim Packets in bulk for forwarding to their customers. Epiq will continue timely to 23 respond to any additional requests for Claim Packets. 24 9. As of January 22, 2018, a total of 222,130 Claim Packets have been disseminated 25 to potential Class Members and Nominees by first-class mail. 26 10. As of January 22, 2018, 6,760 Claim Packets have been returned by the United 27 States Postal Service to Epiq as undeliverable as addressed (“UAA”). Of those returned UAA, 28 535 had forwarding addresses and were promptly re-mailed to the updated address.

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER VILLANOVA 2 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 89

1 PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE 2 11. The Court’s Preliminary Approval Order also directed that the Summary Notice 3 be published once in Investor’s Business Daily and be transmitted over a national newswire 4 service within 14 calendar days of the Notice Date. Accordingly, the Summary Notice was 5 published in Investor’s Business Daily and transmitted over the PR Newswire on November 20, 6 2017. Attached as Exhibit C is a confirmation of publication, attesting to the publication in 7 Investor’s Business Daily and a screen shot attesting to the transmittal over the PR Newswire. 8 CALL CENTER SERVICES 9 12. Epiq reserved a toll-free phone number for the Action, (844) 855-8569, in 10 connection with the Class Notice, which it continues to maintain. This toll-free number is set 11 forth in the Class Notice, the Claim Packet, and on the Settlement website. 12 13. The toll-free number connects callers with an Interactive Voice Recording 13 (“IVR”). The IVR provides callers with access to additional information that has been pre- 14 recorded. The toll-free telephone line with pre-recorded information is available 24 hours a day, 15 7 days a week. Specifically, the pre-recorded message provides callers with a brief summary of 16 the Settlement and the option to select one of several more detailed recorded messages 17 addressing frequently asked questions, the option to request a copy of the Claim Packet, or the 18 option to speak live with a trained operator. 19 14. Callers are able to speak to a live operator regarding the status of the Settlement, 20 to obtain help filling out and filing their Proofs of Claim, and/or obtain answers to questions they 21 may have, Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time (excluding official 22 holidays), . During other hours, callers may leave a message for an agent to call them back. 23 15. Epiq initially made the IVR available on November 11, 2016, the same date Epiq 24 mailed the Class Notices during the Class Notice Mailing. The IVR was updated with 25 information regarding the Settlement and the updated information was made available on 26 November 8, 2017, the same date Epiq mailed the Claim Packets. 27 28

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER VILLANOVA 3 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 89

1 16. Epiq will continue operating, maintaining and, as appropriate, updating the IVR 2 until the conclusion of this Settlement administration. Epiq will continue providing live operator 3 support until the conclusion of the Settlement administration. 4 WEBSITE 5 17. Epiq established and is maintaining a website dedicated to this Action 6 (www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com) to provide information to Class Members and to answer frequently asked questions. Users of the website can download a copy of the Settlement Notice, 7 Proof of Claim, Stipulation, the Preliminary Approval Order, and the CAC, among other relevant 8 documents. The web address was set forth in the Claim Packet and the Summary Notice. The 9 website became operational beginning on November 11, 2016 (in connection with the Class 10 Notice), has been updated with information regarding the Settlement and claims filing. The 11 website is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 12 THE CLAIMS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES 13 18. Epiq has been asked by Class Counsel to provide information about the Class 14 Representatives’ Recognized Losses under the proposed Plan of Allocation. As of the date of 15 this Declaration, Epiq has received three Proofs of Claim from Class Representative KBC Asset 16 Management NV (“KBC”), and has received three Proofs of Claim from Arkansas Teacher 17 Retirement System (“ATRS”). KBC’s claims have a combined Recognized Loss of $89,888.67. 18 ATRS’s claims have a combined Recognized Loss of $101,056. Recognized Losses are not the 19 same as payment amounts. Like all other eligible claimants, if the Settlement is approved, the 20 Class Representatives will receive their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund in proportion 21 to their Recognized Losses. Payment amounts will not be known until the conclusion of the 22 claims administration process. 23 EXCLUSION REQUESTS AND OBJECTIONS 24 19. In connection with the previously issued Class Notice, before the Settlement was 25 reached, Class Members were given the opportunity to request exclusion. At that time, Epiq 26 received 15 valid and timely requests for exclusion. ECF No. 239-3. 27 20. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Members were given a second 28 opportunity to request exclusion from the Class. Any such Class Members seeking to request

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER VILLANOVA 4 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 89

1 exclusion are required to mail their exclusion request to Epiq so that the request is received by 2 February 6, 2018. This deadline has not yet passed. As of the date of this Declaration, Epiq has 3 received six new requests for exclusion, two of which are duplicates of opt-outs received in 4 connection with the Class Notice. Copies of these requests, redacting private information, are 5 attached as Exhibit D. Epiq will submit a supplemental declaration after the exclusion deadline 6 has passed to provide further details on all new requests for exclusion. 7 21. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Members who wish to object 8 to the proposed Settlement, the Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of 9 Allocation are required to mail their objections to the Court and counsel for the Parties so that 10 the objection is postmarked by February 6, 2018. To date, Epiq has received two objections. 11 True and accurate copies of the objections are attached as Exhibit E.

12 EPIQ’S FEES AND EXPENSES 13 22. Epiq agreed to be the Claims Administrator with the understanding that it would 14 be paid its fees and out-of-pocket expenses, which are payable pursuant to the Stipulation. 15 23. With respect to the Class Notice and related work, Epiq has incurred $138,676.40 16 in fees and expenses through August 31, 2017. Epiq currently estimates that its fees and 17 expenses in connection with the Settlement notices and claims process may be in the range of 18 $425,000 to $600,000. This estimate assumes that 300,000 Claim Packets will be mailed and 19 that 50,000 claims will be received. In the event that actual experience differs from these 20 assumptions, the administrative fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Settlement 21 will differ from this estimate. 22 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are Epiq’s invoices for all notice and settlement 23 administration work through December 31, 2017, which total $356,547.25. 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER VILLANOVA 5 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 89

Exhibit A Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 89

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. Website: www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com P.O. Box 4349 Email: [email protected] Portland, OR 97208-4349 Phone: 844-855-8569

Important and Time Sensitive

NOTICE TO BROKERS, BANKS, AND OTHER NOMINEES Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Civil Action No. 14-cv-00226-YGR

A proposed Settlement of the above-noted securities class action (the “Action”) has been reached. Enclosed is the Settlement Notice and Claim Form (the “Claim Packet”) that the Court has ordered to be timely sent to potential Class Members. The Claim Packet includes important deadlines for Class Members. The deadline for them to object, seek exclusion, or opt-back into the Class is February 6, 2018, and the deadline for Claims is February 13, 2018. Subject to certain exclusions, the “Class” consists of all persons and entities that, during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of AMD. The CUSIP for AMD common stock is 007903107. You were previously sent a Notice of Pendency in November 2016 requesting names and addresses of persons and entities for the beneficial interest of whom you traded AMD common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive (“Potential Class Members”). If, in connection with the mailing of the Notice of Pendency, you provided the Claims Administrator with a list of names and addresses of Potential Class Members, DO NOT re-submit those names and addresses. Copies of the Claim Packet will be forwarded to those Potential Class Members by the Claims Administrator. (Also, see below.) If, in connection with the mailing of the Notice of Pendency, you requested that the notices be sent to you for forwarding by you to Potential Class Members WITHOUT providing the names and addresses to the Claims Administrator, you will be mailed the same number of Claim Packets to forward to those Potential Class Members. If you require a different number of copies than you requested in connection with the mailing of the Notice of Pendency, please send an email to [email protected] and let the Claims Administrator know how many Claim Packets you require. You must mail the Claim Packet to the beneficial owners withinseven (7) calendar days of your receipt of packets. Please note, in the Notice of Pendency, you were advised that if you elected to forward the notice, you must retain your mailing records for use in connection with any further notices that may be provided in the Action. If you NEITHER previously submitted names and addresses of Potential Class Members NOR requested notices to send to Potential Class Members, as outlined above, OR if you have names and addresses of Potential Class Members that were not included in your previous submission to the Claims Administrator, you MUST submit a request for Claim Packets or submit the names and addresses of Potential Class Members to the Claims Administrator, no later than seven (7) calendar days from receipt of this notice. If you request copies of the Claim Packet for forwarding by you, they must be mailed to the beneficial owners withinseven (7) calendar days of your receipt of the packets from the Claims Administrator.

For Questions, Please Call 844-855-8569. T1711 v.05 11.01.2017 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 89

If you are providing a list of names and addresses to the Administrator: (a) Compile a list of names and addresses of beneficial owners who purchased or acquired AMD common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through and including October 18, 2012. (b) Prepare the list in Microsoft Excel format following the “Electronic Name and Address File Layout” below. A preformatted spreadsheet can also be found on the “Nominees” page on the website, www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com. (c) Then you must do one of the following: a. Email the spreadsheet to [email protected], b. Upload the spreadsheet at www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com, or c. Burn the Microsoft Excel file(s) to a CD or DVD, and mail the CD or DVD to Epiq, the Claims Administrator, at: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 4349 Portland, OR 97208-4349

If you are going to forward the Claim Packet to the beneficial owners: Request the needed number of copies of the Claim Packet via email to [email protected]. You must mail the Claim Packets to the beneficial owners within seven (7) calendar days of your receipt of the Claim Packets.

Expense Reimbursement Reasonable expenses are eligible for reimbursement (including postage and costs to compile names and addresses) upon full and timely compliance, provided an invoice documenting the expenses is timely submitted to the Claims Administrator.

Electronic Name and Address File Layout

Column Description Length Notes A Account # 15 Unique identifier for each record B Beneficial owner’s first name 25 C Beneficial owner’s middle name 15 D Beneficial owner’s last name 30 E Joint beneficial owner’s first name 25 F Joint beneficial owner’s middle name 15 G Joint beneficial owner’s last name 30 H Business or record owner’s name 60 Businesses, trusts, IRAs, and other I Representative or contact name 45 types of accounts J Address 1 35 K Address 2 25 L City 25 M U.S. state or Canadian province 2 U.S. and Canada addresses only1 N ZIP code 10 O Country (other than U.S.) 15 If you have any questions, you may contact the Claims Administrator at 844-855-8569, or by email at [email protected]. Thank you for your cooperation. 1 For countries other than the U.S. and Canada, place any territorial subdivision in “Address 2” field. For Questions, Please Call 844-855-8569. T1712 v.05 11.01.2017 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 89

Exhibit B Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 89

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case No. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

AND

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Please read this Notice carefully. Your rights may be affected by the proposed settlement. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case No. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive, you may be entitled to receive money from a class action settlement.

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. This Settlement Notice describes important rights you may have and what steps you must take if you wish to participate in the Settlement or wish to be excluded from the Class. This notice is different from the Notice of Pendency of Class Action (“Class Notice”), which you might have received at the end of 2016 alerting you to the fact that the Class had been certified. • The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will provide a total recovery of $29,500,000 (on average approximately $0.039 per share before the deduction of Court-approved fees and expenses) in cash for the benefit of the Class (described below).1 1 • The Settlement resolves claims by Class Representatives Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (“ATRS”) and KBC Asset Management NV (“KBC”) in a class action against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD” or the “Company”), and Rory P. Read (“Read”), Thomas J. Seifert (“Seifert”), Richard A. Bergman (“Bergman”), and Lisa T. Su (“Su”) (collectively, the “Individual Defendants” and with AMD, the “Defendants”). • Class Representatives claim that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about the manufacturing and subsequent launch of, as well as the demand for, AMD’s Llano microprocessor from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Class Representatives also allege that the false and misleading statements inflated the price of AMD’s common stock and that, when Defendants disclosed the truth of the ongoing problems with Llano, AMD’s stock price dropped. Defendants deny any wrongdoing in this lawsuit. The Court did not decide in favor of either the investors or Defendants. • Court-appointed lawyers for the investors will ask the Court for no more than $8,850,000 in attorneys’ fees (30% of the Settlement Fund) and up to $3,000,000 in expenses for their and the Class Representatives’ work litigating the case and negotiating the Settlement. If approved by the Court, these amounts (totaling on average approximately $0.016 per share) will be deducted from the $29,500,000 Settlement. • The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Payments will be made only if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient. • If you are a Class Member, your legal rights will be affected by this Settlement whether you act or do not act. Please read this Settlement Notice carefully.

1 All capitalized terms not defined in this Settlement Notice have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of October 9, 2017 (the “Stipulation”), which can be viewed at www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com.

T1691 v.09 11.01.2017 1 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 89

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM BY FEBRUARY 13, The only way to get a payment. 2018.

OPT-BACK INTO THE CLASS If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the previously mailed Class Notice and now want to be part of the Class in BY SUBMITTING A REQUEST order to receive a payment, you must follow the steps for “Opting-Back Into BY FEBRUARY 6, 2018. the Class.”

You will get no payment. This is the only option that, assuming your claim is timely EXCLUDE YOURSELF BY brought, might allow you ever to bring or be part of any other lawsuit against the FEBRUARY 6, 2018. Defendants and/or the other Released Defendant Parties concerning the Released Claims.

OBJECT BY FEBRUARY 6, Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement, the Fee and Expense 2018. Application, or the proposed Plan of Allocation.

GO TO A HEARING ON Ask to speak in Court about the Settlement. FEBRUARY 27, 2018.

DO NOTHING. Get no payment AND give up your rights to bring your own individual action.

Identification of Attorneys’ Representatives Class Representatives and the Class are being represented by Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC, Court-appointed Class Counsel. Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005, (888) 219-6877, www.labaton.com, [email protected], and James Hughes, Motley Rice LLC, 28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464, (800) 768-4026, www.motleyrice.com. Please do not contact the Court regarding this notice.

T1692 v.09 11.01.2017 2 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 89

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why did I get this Settlement Notice?

The Court authorized that this Settlement Notice be sent to you because you or someone in your family may have purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of AMD from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive. If this description applies to you or someone in your family, you have a right to know about the proposed Settlement of this class action lawsuit, and about all of your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, and after any objections and appeals are resolved, an administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that the Settlement allows. This Settlement Notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, Class Members’ legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them. The Court in charge of this Action is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”), and the case is known as Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (the “Action”). The Action is assigned to the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge. The Court did not decide in favor of the Class Representatives or the Defendants. Instead, they have agreed to a settlement. For Class Representatives, the principal reason for the Settlement is the certain benefit of a substantial cash recovery for the Class, in contrast to the risk that the Court may grant, in whole or in part, some or all of Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, the uncertainty of being able to prove the allegations at a jury trial, and the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation (including any appeals). For Defendants, who deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever and deny that any Class Members were damaged, the principal reasons for entering into the Settlement are to bring to an end the substantial burden, expense, uncertainty, and risk of further litigation.

2. What is this lawsuit about? What has happened so far?

AMD is a multinational semiconductor company. During the Class Period, a majority of AMD’s revenue was derived from the sale of computer microprocessors, chipsets, and embedded processors, while the remainder of its revenue came primarily from the sale of graphics, video, and multimedia products. Class Representatives’ claims center on the launch of AMD’s “Llano” microprocessor, an Accelerated Processing Unit (“APU”) product that combined a Computer Processing Unit (“CPU”) with a Graphics Processing Unit (“GPU”) onto one piece of silicon. As detailed in the operative complaint, Class Representatives allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Llano’s production, launch, demand, and sales, among other things. Class Representatives further allege that when certain disclosures pertaining to Llano’s production and supply, and the related impact on AMD’s financial results and inventories, were made, AMD’s stock price fell, allegedly damaging class members. On January 15, 2014, the initial complaint Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 14-cv-226, was filed in the Court. On April 4, 2014, the Court issued an order appointing ATRS and KBC as lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC as co-lead counsel (collectively, “Co-Lead Counsel” or “Class Counsel”). Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws on May 23, 2014, alleging violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Lead Plaintiffs filed the operative Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“CAC”) on June 11, 2014. On July 7, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC, which was denied by the Court on April 22, 2015. Defendants answered the CAC on May 14, 2015, denying Lead Plaintiffs’ allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

T1693 v.09 11.01.2017 3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 89

On September 4, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs moved for class certification, appointment of ATRS and KBC as class representatives, and appointment of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC as class counsel. Defendants opposed the motion. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and certifying the Class. Beginning on November 11, 2016, the Class Notice was mailed to potential Class Members and information was posted on the case website, www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com. The Class Notice informed investors of the class action, their right to be excluded from the Class, the requirements for requesting exclusion, and of a January 19, 2017 deadline for seeking exclusion. On April 25, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude Class Representatives’ expert witnesses; that same day, Class Representatives filed a motion to exclude Defendants’ expert witnesses. On May 30, 2017, Class Representatives filed an omnibus memorandum, opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and affirmatively moving for summary judgment as to the alleged falsity of certain statements. As of July 25, 2017, before the date that the agreement in principle to settle was reached, the cross-motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude, including related evidentiary motions, were fully briefed. The motions were scheduled to be heard by the Court on September 12, 2017. Class Representatives, through Class Counsel, have conducted a thorough investigation of the claims, defenses, and underlying events and transactions that are the subjects of the Action. This process included reviewing and analyzing: (i) documents filed publicly by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (ii) publicly available information, including press releases, news articles, and other public statements issued by or concerning the Company and the Defendants; (iii) research reports issued by financial analysts concerning the Company; (iv) other publicly available information and data concerning the Company; (v) approximately 2,325,000 pages of documents produced by Defendants during discovery and approximately 97,000 pages of documents produced by third-parties; and (vi) the applicable law governing the claims and potential defenses. Counsel for Class Representatives and Defendants have also completed voluminous class, fact and expert discovery that included: taking or defending approximately 34 depositions, including the depositions of Class Representatives, the Individual Defendants, and seven experts; and exchanging 10 expert reports directed at semiconductor manufacturing, supply and demand, product gross margins, macroeconomic industry trends, loss causation, and damages. Defendants and Class Representatives engaged the Honorable Layn R. Phillips (Ret.), a well-respected and highly experienced mediator and former federal judge, to assist them in exploring a potential negotiated resolution of the claims in the Action. On January 14, 2016, counsel for the Parties met with Judge Phillips in an attempt to reach a settlement. The mediation involved an extended effort to settle the claims and, prior to the mediation, the Parties exchanged detailed mediation statements. However, the Parties were unable to reach an agreement at that time. Following the mediation, Judge Phillips continued his efforts to facilitate discussions among the Parties. Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel participated in a second mediation on August 8, 2017, conducted by both Judge Phillips and the Honorable Gary A. Feess (Ret.), a former United States District Judge in the Central District of California. A settlement was ultimately reached at the August 8, 2017 mediation.

3. Why is this a class action?

In a class action, one or more persons or entities (in this case, the Class Representatives), sue on behalf of people and entities that have similar claims. Together, these people and entities are a class, and each is a class member. Bringing a case, such as this one, as a class action allows the Court to resolve many similar claims of persons and entities that might be economically too small to bring as individual actions. One court resolves the issues for all class members at the same time, except for those who exclude themselves, or “opt-out,” from the class.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT

4. How do I know if I am part of the Class?

The Court has certified the following Class, subject to certain exceptions identified below: All persons and entities that, during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of AMD. Check your investment records or contact your broker to see if you purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of AMD during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive.

T1694 v.09 11.01.2017 4 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 89

5. Are there exceptions to being included?

Yes. Some people are excluded from the Class by definition. Excluded from the Class are AMD and the Individual Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; AMD’s subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who was an officer or director of AMD or any of AMD’s subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; AMD’s employee retirement and benefit plan(s); any person or entity that validly and timely sought exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice previously disseminated who does not opt back into the Class; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Class is anyone who submits a valid and timely request for exclusion from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Question 10 below.

6. What if I am still not sure if I am included?

If you are still not sure whether you are included in the Class, you can ask for free help. You can call the Claims Administrator toll-free at (844) 855-8569, send an e-mail to the Claims Administrator at [email protected], or write to the Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 4349, Portland, OR 97208-4349. Or you can fill out and return the Claim Form described in Question 8 to see if you qualify.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS — WHAT YOU GET

7. How much will my payment be?

In exchange for the Settlement and the release of the Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, Defendants have agreed to create a $29,500,000 cash fund, which will earn interest, to be distributed after the deduction of Court-approved fees and expenses among all Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form and are found to be entitled to a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund (“Authorized Claimants”). If you are an Authorized Claimant entitled to a payment, your share of the Net Settlement Fund will depend on several things, including: how many Class Members timely send in valid Claim Forms; the total amount of recognized losses of other Class Members; how many shares of AMD common stock you purchased; the prices and dates of those purchases; and the prices and dates of any sales. You can calculate your recognized loss in accordance with the formulas shown below in the Plan of Allocation. It is unlikely that you will receive a payment for all of your recognized loss. See the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund on pages 11–13 for more information on your recognized loss.

HOW YOU RECEIVE A PAYMENT: SUBMITTING A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM

8. How can I receive a payment?

To qualify for a payment, you must submit a timely and valid Claim Form. A Claim Form is included with this Settlement Notice. If you did not receive a Claim Form, you can obtain one on the internet at the website for the case: www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com. You can also ask for a Claim Form by calling the Claims Administrator toll-free at (844) 855-8569. Please read the instructions carefully, fill out the Claim Form, include all the documents the form requests, sign it, and mail or submit it to the Claims Administrator so that it is postmarked or electronically submitted no later than February 13, 2018.

T1695 v.09 11.01.2017 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 89

9. What am I giving up to receive a payment or stay in the Class?

Unless you exclude yourself, or previously excluded yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means that upon the “Effective Date,” you will release all “Released Claims,” including “Unknown Claims,” as defined below, against the “Released Defendant Parties.” “Released Claims” means any and all actions, suits, claims, demands, rights, liabilities, damages, costs, restitution, rescission, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert or consulting fees, expenses, matters and issues known or Unknown (as defined below), contingent or absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, liquidated or unliquidated, matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or unapparent, whether concealed or hidden, and causes of action of every nature and description, including both known claims and Unknown Claims (as defined below), whether based on federal, state, local, foreign, statutory or common law or any other law, rule or regulation, including claims under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the securities laws of any state or territory, that have been or that might have been asserted by any Releasing Plaintiff Party against any of the Released Defendant Parties, arising out of, relating to, based upon, or in connection with both: (a) any purchase, acquisition, disposition, sale, or holding of AMD publicly traded common stock during the Class Period and (b) any facts, claims, matters, allegations, transactions, events, disclosures, representations, statements, acts, or omissions or failures to act that were alleged, set forth, referred to, or that could have been alleged in the Action against the Released Defendant Parties. For the avoidance of doubt, the following claims are not included as Released Claims: (i) Wessels v. Read, et al., Case No. 1:14 cv-262486 (Santa Clara Super. Ct.); (ii) Christopher Hamilton and David Hamilton v. Barnes, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01890 (N.D. Cal.); (iii) Jake Ha v. Caldwell, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04485 (N.D. Cal.); (iv) those of any person or entity that validly and timely sought exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice previously disseminated who does not opt back into the Class, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity; (v) all claims of any person or entity that submits a request for exclusion in connection with the Settlement, to the extent the Court grants any such request; or (vi) claims relating to the enforcement of the Settlement. “Released Defendant Party” or “Released Defendant Parties” means Defendants, Defendants’ Counsel, and each of their respective past or present subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, principals, successors and predecessors, joint venturers, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, underwriters, trustees, partners, members, agents, fiduciaries, contractors, employees, insurers, co-insurers, reinsurers, controlling shareholders, attorneys, accountants or auditors, financial or investment advisors or consultants, banks or investment bankers, personal or legal representatives, estates, heirs, related or affiliated entities, any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, any member of an Individual Defendant’s immediate family, or any trust of which any Individual Defendant is a settlor or which is for the benefit of any Defendant and/or member(s) of his or her family, and each of the heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns of the foregoing. “Unknown Claims” means any and all Released Claims that Class Representatives or any other Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of the Released Defendant Parties, and any and all Released Defendants’ Claims that any Defendant does not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of the Releasing Plaintiff Parties, which if known by him, her, or it might have affected his, her, or its decision(s) with respect to the Settlement, including the decision to object to the terms of the Settlement or to exclude himself, herself, or itself from the Class. With respect to any and all Released Claims and Released Defendants’ Claims, the Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, Class Representatives and Defendants shall expressly, and each other Class Member and Released Defendant Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment shall have, to the fullest extent permitted by law, expressly waived and relinquished any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, which provides: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. Class Representatives, other Class Members, Defendants, or any Released Defendant Party may hereafter discover facts, legal theories, or authorities in addition to or different from those which any of them now knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims and the Released Defendants’ Claims, but Class Representatives and Defendants shall expressly, fully, finally, and forever waive, compromise, settle, discharge, extinguish, and release, and each Class Member and Released Defendant Party shall be deemed to have waived,

T1696 v.09 11.01.2017 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 89

compromised, settled, discharged, extinguished, and released, and upon the Effective Date and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment shall have waived, compromised, settled, discharged, extinguished, and released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Claims and Released Defendants’ Claims as applicable, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or absolute, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or unapparent, which now exist, or heretofore existed, or may hereafter exist, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts, legal theories, or authorities. Class Representatives and Defendants acknowledge, and other Class Members and Released Defendant Party by operation of law shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that the inclusion of “Unknown Claims” in the definition of Released Claims and Released Defendants’ Claims was separately bargained for and was a material element of the Settlement. Please consult the Stipulation, filed with the Court and posted at www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com, for additional defined terms. The “Effective Date” will occur when an Order entered by the Court approving the Settlement becomes final and not subject to appeal. If you remain a member of the Class, all of the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind you.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS If you already submitted a valid and timely request for exclusion in connection with the Class Notice, you do not need to do so again.2 If you did not previously submit a request for exclusion and do not want a payment from this Settlement, but you want to keep any right you may have to sue or continue to sue Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties on your own concerning the Released Claims, then you must take steps to remove yourself from the Class. This is called excluding yourself or “opting out.” Please note: if you decide to exclude yourself because you want to bring your own lawsuit to pursue claims alleged in the Action, you may want to consult with an attorney and discuss whether your individual claim would be time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations or repose. Also, Defendants may terminate the Settlement if Class Members who purchased in excess of a certain amount of shares of AMD common stock seek exclusion from the Class.

10. How do I exclude myself from the Class?

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a signed letter stating that you “request to be excluded from the Class in Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00226 (N.D. Cal.).” You cannot exclude yourself by telephone or e-mail. Your letter must state the date(s), price(s), and number(s) of shares of all purchases, acquisitions, and/or sales of AMD common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012. Your letter must include your name, mailing address, telephone number, e-mail address, and signature. You must submit your exclusion request so that it is postmarked no later than February 6, 2018 to: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 4349 Portland, OR 97208-4349 Your exclusion request must comply with these requirements in order to be valid. If you ask to be excluded, you will not receive any payment from the Net Settlement Fund, and you cannot object to the Settlement.

11. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties for the same thing later?

No. Unless you properly exclude yourself, you remain in the Class and you give up any rights to sue Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties for any and all Released Claims. If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately. You must exclude yourself from this Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is February 6, 2018.

2 If you are not sure whether you did, please call the Claims Administrator at (844) 855-8569.

T1697 v.09 11.01.2017 7 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 89

OPTING-BACK INTO THE CLASS

12. What if I previously requested exclusion in connection with the Class Notice and now want to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement? How do I opt-back into the Class? If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice, you may opt-back into the Class and be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. If you are not certain whether you previously submitted a request for exclusion, please contact the Claims Administrator at (844) 855-8569 for assistance. In order to opt-back into the Class, you, individually or through counsel, must submit a written “Request to Opt-Back into the Class” to the Claims Administrator, addressed as follows: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 4349, Portland, OR 97208-4349. This request must be postmarked no later than February 6, 2018. Your Request to Opt-Back into the Class must (i) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity requesting to opt-back into the Class; (ii) state that such person or entity “requests to opt-back into the Class in Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00226 (N.D. Cal.)”; and (iii) be signed by the person or entity requesting to opt-back into the Class or an authorized representative. Please note: Opting-back into the Class does not mean that you will automatically be entitled to receive proceeds from the Settlement. If you wish to be eligible to participate in the distribution of proceeds from the Settlement, you are also required to submit the Claim Form that is being distributed with this Settlement Notice. See Question 8, above.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

13. Do I have a lawyer in this case?

The Court ordered the law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC to represent all Class Members. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. You will not be separately charged for these lawyers. The Court will determine the amount of Class Counsel’s fees and expenses, which will be paid from the Settlement Fund. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

14. How will the lawyers be paid?

Class Counsel, and other attorneys who assisted Class Counsel, have not been paid for any of their work. They will ask the Court to award them, from the Settlement Fund, attorneys’ fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement Fund, which includes interest on such fees at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel will also seek payment of litigation expenses in connection with the prosecution of this Action of no more than $3,000,000, plus interest on such expenses at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund, which may include reimbursements to the Class Representatives for their expenses (including lost wages), pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the Settlement or any part of it.

15. How do I tell the Court that I do not like something about the proposed Settlement?

If you are a Class Member, you can object to the Settlement or any of its terms, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the Fee and Expense Application. You may write to the Court about your objection. You can ask the Court not to approve the Settlement, however you cannot ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny this Settlement. If the Court denies approval, the Settlement payments will not be sent out and the lawsuit will continue. If you would like the Court to consider your views, you must file a proper objection within the deadline, and according to the following procedures.

T1698 v.09 11.01.2017 8 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 22 of 89

To object, you must send a signed letter stating that you “object to the proposed Settlement in Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., No. 14-cv-00226 (N.D. Cal.).” You must (i) include your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and signature; (ii) identify the date(s), price(s), and number(s) of shares of AMD common stock purchased, acquired, and/or sold; (iii) state the reasons why you object to the Settlement and which part(s) of the Settlement you object to; and (iv) include any legal support and/or evidence, to support your objection. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any Class Member who does not object in the manner described in this Settlement Notice will be deemed to have waived any objection and shall be forever foreclosed from making any future objection. Your objection must be submitted to the Court either by mailing the objection to the Clerk of the Court at the address below or by filing the objection in person at the location below, and mailed to Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, so that it is postmarked on or before February 6, 2018: The Court Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California Oakland Courthouse 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612

Class Counsel Defendants’ Counsel LABATON SUCHAROW LLP LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Matthew Rawlinson, Esq. 140 Broadway 140 Scott Drive New York, NY 10005 Menlo Park, CA 94025 MOTLEY RICE LLC COOLEY LLP James M. Hughes, Esq. Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. 28 Bridgeside Blvd. 3175 Hanover Street Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Palo Alto, CA 94304 You do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing to have your written objection considered by the Court. However, any Class Member who has complied with the procedures set out in this Question 15 and below in Question 18 may appear at the Settlement Hearing and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court, either in person or through an attorney, arranged at his, her, or its own expense.

16. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?

Objecting is telling the Court that you do not like something about the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Fee and Expense Application. You can still recover from the Settlement, and you will still be bound by the Settlement and any Court order in this Action. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the Settlement no longer affects you.

THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

17. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement?

The Court will hold the Settlement Hearing on February 27, 2018 at 2:00 pm., in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor of the Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. At this hearing, the Court will consider (i) whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be finally approved; (ii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (iii) the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses. The Court will take into consideration any written objections filed in accordance with the instructions in Question 15. We do not know how long it will take the Court to make these decisions.

T1699 v.09 11.01.2017 9 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 89

You should be aware that the Court may change the date and time of the Settlement Hearing without another notice being sent to Class Members. If you want to attend the hearing, you should check with Class Counsel beforehand to be sure that the date and/or time has not changed, periodically check the Court’s website at www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygr, or periodically check the case-specific website at www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com to see if the Settlement Hearing stays as calendared or is changed.

18. May I speak at the Settlement Hearing?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Settlement Hearing. To do so, you must submit a statement that it is your intention to appear in “Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00226 (N.D. Cal.).” Persons who intend to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel’s Fee and Expense Application and desire to present evidence at the Settlement Hearing must also include in their objections (prepared and submitted in accordance with the answer to Question 15 above) the identity of any witness they may wish to call to testify and any exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. You may not speak at the Settlement Hearing if you excluded yourself from the Class or if you have not provided written notice of your objection and/or intention to speak at the Settlement Hearing in accordance with the procedures described in Questions 10, 15, and 18.

IF YOU DO NOTHING

19. What happens if I do nothing at all?

If you do nothing and you are a member of the Class, you will receive no money from the Settlement and you will be precluded from starting a lawsuit, continuing with a lawsuit, or being part of any other lawsuit against Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties concerning the Released Claims. To share in the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form (see Question 8). To start, continue, or be a part of any other lawsuit against Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties concerning the Released Claims in this case, you must exclude yourself from the Class (see Question 10).

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

20. Are there more details about the proposed Settlement?

This Settlement Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in the Stipulation. Class Counsel’s motions in support of final approval of the Settlement, the request for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, and approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation will be filed with the Court no later than January 23, 2018 and will be available from Class Counsel, the Claims Administrator, or the Court, pursuant to the instructions below. You may review the Stipulation or documents filed in the case at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, on weekdays (other than court holidays) between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Subscribers to PACER, a fee-based service, can also view the papers filed publicly in the Action through the Court’s on-line Case Management/Electronic Case Files System at https://www.pacer.gov. You can also get a copy of the Stipulation and other case documents by calling the Claims Administrator toll free at (844) 855-8569; writing to the Claims Administrator at Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 4349, Portland, OR 97208-4349; or visiting the websites of the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel at: www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com, www.labaton.com, or www.motleyrice.com where you will find answers to common questions about the Settlement, download copies of the Stipulation or Claim Form, and locate other information.

Please Do Not Call the Court with Questions about the Settlement.

T16910 v.09 11.01.2017 10 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 24 of 89

PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND

A. Preliminary Matters The Settlement Amount and the interest it earns is the “Settlement Fund.” The Settlement Fund, after deduction of Court-approved attorneys’ fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other fees or expenses approved by the Court is the “Net Settlement Fund.” The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to members of the Class who timely submit valid Claim Forms that show a Recognized Claim according to the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court. The Court may approve this Plan of Allocation or modify it without additional notice to the Class. Any order modifying the Plan of Allocation will be posted on the case website at: www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com, and at www.labaton.com, or www.motleyrice.com. The purpose of this Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund (“Plan of Allocation” or “Plan”) is to establish a reasonable and equitable method of distributing the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized Claimants who allegedly suffered economic losses as a result of the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. For purposes of determining the amount an Authorized Claimant may recover under this Plan, Class Counsel have conferred with their damages expert. This Plan is intended to be consistent generally with an assessment of, among other things, the damages that Class Counsel and Class Representatives believe were recoverable in the Action. The Plan, however, is not a formal damages analysis and the calculations made pursuant to the Plan are not intended to be estimates of, nor indicative of, the amounts that Class Members might have been able to recover after a trial. An individual Class Member’s recovery will depend on, for example (i) the total number of claims submitted; (ii) when the Class Member purchased or acquired AMD publicly traded common stock; and (iii) whether and when the Class Member sold his, her, or its shares of AMD common stock. This Plan of Allocation generally measures the amount of loss that a Class Member can claim for purposes of making pro rata allocations of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants. For losses to be compensable damages under the federal securities laws, the disclosure of the allegedly misrepresented information must be the cause of the decline in the price of AMD common stock. In this case, Class Representatives allege that Defendants issued false statements and omitted material facts from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive, (the Class Period) which artificially inflated the price of AMD common stock. It is alleged that the corrective information released to the market after market hours on September 28, 2011, July 9, 2012, July 19, 2012, October 11, 2012, and October 18, 2012, impacted the market price of AMD common stock in a statistically significant manner and removed the alleged artificial inflation from AMD common stock prices on September 29, 2011, July 10, 2012, July 20, 2012, October 12, 2012, and October 19, 2012. Accordingly, in order to have a compensable loss, AMD common stock must have been purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period and held through at least one of the alleged corrective disclosures listed above. Because the Net Settlement Fund is less than the total losses alleged to be suffered by Class Members, the formulas described below for calculating Recognized Losses are not intended to estimate the amount that will actually be paid to Authorized Claimants. Rather, these formulas provide the basis on which the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed among Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis. An Authorized Claimant’s Recognized Claim shall be the amount used to calculate the Authorized Claimant’s pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund. The pro rata share shall be the Authorized Claimant’s Recognized Claim divided by the total of the Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants, multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement Fund. Defendants, their respective counsel, and all other Released Defendant Parties will have no responsibility or liability for the investment of the Settlement Fund, the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Plan of Allocation or the payment of any claim. Class Representatives, Class Counsel, and anyone acting on their behalf, likewise will have no liability for their reasonable efforts to execute, administer, and distribute the Settlement. B. Calculation of Recognized Loss Amounts For purposes of determining whether a claimant has a “Recognized Claim,” purchases, acquisitions, and sales of AMD common stock will first be matched on a First In/First Out (“FIFO”) basis as set forth below. A “Recognized Loss Amount” will be calculated as set forth for each purchase or acquisition of AMD publicly traded common stock during the Class Period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive, that is listed in the Claim Form and for which adequate documentation is provided. To the extent that the calculation of a claimant’s Recognized Loss Amount results in a negative number, that number shall be set to zero.

T16911 v.09 11.01.2017 11 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 89

For each share of AMD publicly traded common stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period and sold before the close of trading on January 16, 2013, an “Out of Pocket Loss” will be calculated. Out of Pocket Loss is defined as the purchase or acquisition price (excluding all fees, taxes, and commissions) minus the sale price (excluding all fees, taxes, and commissions). To the extent that the calculation of the Out of Pocket Loss results in a negative number, that number shall be set to zero. For each share of AMD publicly traded common stock purchased or otherwise acquired from April 4, 2011 through and including October 18, 2012 and: 1. Sold before the close of trading on September 28, 2011, the Recognized Loss Amount for each such share shall be zero. 2. Sold after the close of trading on September 28, 2011, and before the close of trading on October 18, 2012, the Recognized Loss Amount for each such share shall be the lesser of: i. the dollar artificial inflation applicable to each such share on the date of purchase/acquisition as set forth in Table 1, on page 15, below, minus the dollar artificial inflation applicable to each such share on the date of sale as set forth in Table 1, on page 15, below; or ii. the Out of Pocket Loss. 3. Sold after the close of trading on October 18, 2012, and before the close of trading on January 16, 2013,3 the Recognized Loss Amount for each such share shall be the lesser of: i. the dollar artificial inflation applicable to each such share on the date of purchase/acquisition as set forth in Table 1, on page 15, below; or ii. the actual purchase/acquisition price of each such share minus the average closing price from October 19, 2012, up to the date of sale as set forth in Table 2, on page 15, below; or iii. the Out of Pocket Loss. 4. Held as of the close of trading on January 16, 2013, the Recognized Loss Amount for each such share shall be the lesser of: i. the dollar artificial inflation applicable to each such share on the date of purchase/acquisition as set forth in Table 1, on page 15, below; or ii. the actual purchase/acquisition price of each such share minus $2.26. C. Additional Provisions Publicly traded AMD common stock is the only security eligible for recovery under the Plan of Allocation. With respect to AMD common stock purchased or sold through the exercise of an option, the purchase/sale date of the AMD common stock is the exercise date of the option and the purchase/sale price is the exercise price of the option. If a Class Member has more than one purchase/acquisition or sale of AMD common stock during the Class Period, all purchases/acquisitions and sales shall be matched on a FIFO basis. Class Period sales will be matched first against any holdings at the beginning of the Class Period and then against purchases/acquisitions in chronological order, beginning with the earliest purchase/acquisition made during the Class Period.

3 October 19, 2012 through January 16, 2013 is the “90-day look-back period” after the end of the Class Period. Pursuant to Section 21(D)(e)(1) of the PSLRA, “in any private action arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to establish damages by reference to the market price of a security, the award of damages to the plaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received, as appropriate, by the plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of that security during the 90-day look-back period beginning on the date on which the information correcting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.” Consistent with this requirement, Recognized Loss Amounts are reduced to an appropriate extent by taking into account the closing prices of AMD common stock during the 90-day look-back period (October 19, 2012 through January 16, 2013). The mean (average) closing price for AMD common stock during this 90-day look-back period was $2.26.

T16912 v.09 11.01.2017 12 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 89

Purchases or acquisitions and sales of AMD shares shall be deemed to have occurred on the “contract” or “trade” date as opposed to the “settlement” or “payment” date. The receipt or grant by gift, inheritance or operation of law of shares during the Class Period shall not be deemed a purchase, acquisition or sale of shares for the calculation of Recognized Loss, unless (i) the donor or decedent purchased or otherwise acquired such shares during the Class Period; (ii) no Claim Form was submitted by or on behalf of the donor, on behalf of the decedent, or by anyone else with respect to such shares; and (iii) it is specifically so provided in the instrument of gift or assignment. Any claimant that sold AMD common stock “short” will have no Recognized Loss with respect to such purchase during the Class Period to cover said short sale. The sum of a claimant’s Recognized Loss Amounts will be the claimant’s “Recognized Claim.” The Net Settlement Fund will be allocated among all Authorized Claimants whose prorated payment is $10.00 or greater. If the prorated payment to any Authorized Claimant calculates to less than $10.00, no distribution will be made to that Authorized Claimant. Payment according to this Plan of Allocation will be deemed conclusive against all Authorized Claimants. Recognized Claims will be calculated as defined herein by the Claims Administrator and cannot be less than zero. Distributions to eligible Authorized Claimants will be made after claims have been processed. After an initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, if there is any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund (whether by reason of tax refunds, uncashed checks or otherwise) after at least six (6) months from the date of initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, Class Counsel shall, if feasible and economical, redistribute such balance among Authorized Claimants who have cashed their checks in an equitable and economic fashion. These redistributions shall be repeated until the balance in the Net Settlement Fund is no longer feasible to distribute to Authorized Claimants. Any balance that still remains in the Net Settlement Fund after re-distribution(s), which is not feasible or economical to reallocate, after payment of Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and attorneys’ fees and expenses, shall be donated in equal amounts to Bay Area Legal Aid and Consumer Federation of America. Each claimant is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with respect to his, her, or its claim.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND NOMINEES In the previously mailed Class Notice, you were advised that if, for the beneficial interest of any person or entity other than yourself, you purchased AMD common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive, you must either: (1) request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Class Notice to forward to all such beneficial owners, and forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (2) provide a list of the names and addresses of all such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator. If you chose the first option, i.e., you elected to mail the Class Notice directly to beneficial owners, you were advised that you must retain the mailing records for use in connection with any further notices that may be provided in the Action. If you elected this option, the Claims Administrator will forward the same number of Settlement Notices and Proof of Claim and Release Forms (together, the “Claim Packet”) to you to send to the beneficial owners WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt of the Claim Packets. If you require more copies than you previously requested, please contact the Claims Administrator at (844) 855-8569 and let them know how many additional Claim Packets you require. You must mail the Claim Packets to the beneficial ownersWITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of your receipt of the packets. If you chose the second option, the Claims Administrator will send a copy of the Claim Packet to the beneficial owners whose names and addresses you previously supplied. Unless you have identified additional beneficial owners whose names you did not previously provide, you do not need to do anything further at this time. If you believe that you have identified additional beneficial owners whose names you did not previously provide to the Claims Administrator, you must either (a) WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt of the Claim Packet, provide a list of the names and addresses of all such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator at Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 4349, Portland, OR 97208-4349; or (b) WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt of the Claim Packet, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Claim Packet to forward to all such beneficial owners which you shall,WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS of receipt of the Claim Packet from the Claims Administrator, mail to the beneficial owners. If you elect to send the Claim Packet to beneficial owners you shall also send a statement to the Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing was made and shall retain your mailing records for use in connection with any further notices that may be provided in the Action.

T16913 v.09 11.01.2017 13 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 89

Upon full and timely compliance with these directions, you may seek reimbursement of your reasonable expenses actually incurred, by providing the Claims Administrator with proper documentation supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought. Copies of this Settlement Notice and the Claim Form may also be obtained from the website for this Action, www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by calling the Claims Administrator at (844) 855-8569.

All communications concerning the foregoing should be addressed to the Claims Administrator: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 4349 Portland, OR 97208-4349 Phone: (844) 855-8569 [email protected] www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com

Dated: November 8, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

T16914 v.09 11.01.2017 14 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 89

TABLE 1 AMD Common Stock Artificial Inflation for Purposes of Calculating Purchase and Sale Inflation

Artificial Purchase or Sale Date Inflation April 4, 2011 - September 28, 2011 $1.40 September 29, 2011 - July 9, 2012 $0.56 July 10, 2012 - July 19, 2012 $0.41 July 20, 2012 - October 11, 2012 $0.09 October 12, 2012 - October 18, 2012 $0.01

TABLE 2 AMD Average Closing Price During 90-Day Look Back October 19, 2012 – January 16, 2013

Average Average Closing Price Closing Price between between October 19, October 19, 2012, and Date 2012, and Date Date Shown Date Shown 10/19/2012 $2.18 12/5/2012 $2.05 10/22/2012 $2.14 12/6/2012 $2.05 10/23/2012 $2.14 12/7/2012 $2.06 10/24/2012 $2.13 12/10/2012 $2.07 10/25/2012 $2.12 12/11/2012 $2.08 10/26/2012 $2.12 12/12/2012 $2.09 10/31/2012 $2.11 12/13/2012 $2.10 11/1/2012 $2.11 12/14/2012 $2.10 11/2/2012 $2.11 12/17/2012 $2.11 11/5/2012 $2.11 12/18/2012 $2.12 11/6/2012 $2.11 12/19/2012 $2.13 11/7/2012 $2.10 12/20/2012 $2.14 11/8/2012 $2.09 12/21/2012 $2.15 11/9/2012 $2.08 12/24/2012 $2.16 11/12/2012 $2.08 12/26/2012 $2.16 11/13/2012 $2.08 12/27/2012 $2.17 11/14/2012 $2.07 12/28/2012 $2.17 11/15/2012 $2.06 12/31/2012 $2.17 11/16/2012 $2.05 1/2/2013 $2.18 11/19/2012 $2.04 1/3/2013 $2.19 11/20/2012 $2.03 1/4/2013 $2.20 11/21/2012 $2.03 1/7/2013 $2.21 11/23/2012 $2.02 1/8/2013 $2.21

T16915 v.09 11.01.2017 15 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 89

11/26/2012 $2.02 1/9/2013 $2.22 11/27/2012 $2.01 1/10/2013 $2.23 11/28/2012 $2.01 1/11/2013 $2.24 11/29/2012 $2.01 1/14/2013 $2.24 11/30/2012 $2.02 1/15/2013 $2.25 12/3/2012 $2.03 1/16/2013 $2.26 12/4/2012 $2.04

T16916 v.09 11.01.2017 16 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 30 of 89

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 4349 Portland, OR 97208-4349 Toll-Free Number: (844) 855-8569 Email: [email protected] Settlement Website: www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM

To recover as a Class Member based on your claims in the action entitled Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (the “Action”), YOU MUST MAIL OR SUBMIT ONLINE YOUR COMPLETED PROOF OF CLAIM FORM (“CLAIM FORM”), ACCOMPANIED BY COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED HEREIN, TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS, ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 13, 2018. Submission of this Claim Form, however, does not assure that you will share in the proceeds of the Settlement of the Action.

If you are a Class Member, and you did not timely and validly request exclusion in connection with the previously mailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action or the Settlement Notice, you are bound by the terms of any judgment entered in the Action, including the releases provided therein, WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUBMIT THIS CLAIM FORM.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # PART I – CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION 2 PART II – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 3 PART III – SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN AMD PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK 4 PART IV – SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5

01-CA8952 T1701 v.08 11.01.2017 1 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 31 of 89

PART I – CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION When filling out this form, type or print in the boxes below in CAPITAL LETTERS; do not use red ink, pencils, or staples. Instructions are on page 3. Beneficial Owner’s First Name MI Beneficial Owner’s Last Name

Co-Beneficial Owner’s First Name MI Co-Beneficial Owner’s Last Name

Entity Name (if claimant is not an individual)

Representative or Custodian Name (if different from Beneficial Owner(s) listed above)

Address1 (street name and number)

Address2 (apartment, unit, or box number)

City State ZIP Code

Foreign Country (only if not USA)

Social Security Number Taxpayer Identification Number – – OR – Telephone Number (home) Telephone Number (work) – – – – Email Address

Account Number (if filing for multiple accounts, file a separate Claim Form for each account)

Claimant Account Type (check appropriate box): Individual (includes joint owner accounts) Pension Plan Trust Corporation Estate IRA/401K Other (please specify)

02-CA8952 T1702 v.08 11.01.2017 2 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 32 of 89

PART II – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD” or the “Company”) during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), use Part I of this form entitled “Claimant Identification” to list the claimant name, mailing address, and account information if relevant (such as for a claim submitted on behalf of an IRA, Trust, or estate account). Please list the most current claimant or account name, as this is the information that will appear on a check, if the claim is eligible for payment. Please also provide a telephone number and/or e-mail address, in the event the Claims Administrator needs to contact you with questions about the claim. If your Claimant Identification information changes, please notify the Claims Administrator in writing at the address below. All joint purchasers must sign this Claim Form. If you are acting in a representative capacity on behalf of a Class Member (for example, as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other representative), you must submit evidence of your current authority to act on behalf of that Class Member. Such evidence would include, for example, letters testamentary, letters of administration, or a copy of the trust documents or other documents which provide you with the authority to submit the claim. Please also indicate your representative capacity under your signature on page 5 of this Claim Form. Use Part III of this form entitled “Schedule of Transactions in AMD Publicly Traded Common Stock” to supply all required details of your transaction(s). Neither the Claims Administrator, the Defendants, nor the Class Representatives have access to your transactional information. If you need more space or additional schedules, attach separate sheets giving all of the required information in substantially the same form. Sign and print or type your name on each additional sheet. On the schedules, provide all of the requested information with respect to all of your purchases or acquisitions of AMD publicly traded common stock which took place from April 4, 2011 through January 16, 2013, inclusive, and all of your sales of AMD common stock which took place from April 4, 2011 through January 16, 2013, whether such transactions resulted in a profit or a loss. You must also provide the amount of AMD publicly traded common stock you held at the beginning of trading on April 4, 2011 and at the close of trading on January 16, 2013. This information is needed in order to calculate your claim under the Plan of Allocation. Failure to report all such transactions may result in the rejection of your claim. List each transaction separately and in chronological order, by trade date, beginning with the earliest. You must accurately provide the month, day, and year of each transaction you list. The date of covering a “short sale” is deemed to be the date of purchase of AMD common stock. The date of a “short sale” is deemed to be the date of sale of AMD common stock. COPIES OF BROKER CONFIRMATIONS OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION OF YOUR TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO YOUR CLAIM. FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS DOCUMENTATION COULD DELAY VERIFICATION OF YOUR CLAIM OR RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM.

03-CA8952 T1703 v.08 11.01.2017 3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 33 of 89

PART III – SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN AMD PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK

A. State the number of shares of AMD common stock held at the beginning of trading (i.e., before market open) on April 4, 2011: • B. Separately list each and every open market purchase of AMD common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through January 16, 2013, inclusive, and provide the following information (must be documented):

Date of Purchase/ Acquisition Purchase/ Total Purchase/Acquisition (List Chronologically) Number of Shares Acquisition Price (excluding taxes, (MM/DD/YY) Purchased/Acquired Price Per Share commissions, and fees)

● ●

● ● C. Separately list each and every open market sale of AMD common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through January 16, 2013, inclusive, and provide the following information (must be documented):

Date of Sale Total Sale Price (List Chronologically) Number of Sale Price (excluding taxes, commissions, and (MM/DD/YY) Shares Sold Per Share fees)

● ●

● ● D. State the total number of shares of AMD common stock held at the close of trading on January 16, 2013: • IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL SPACE TO LIST YOUR TRANSACTIONS, YOU MUST PHOTOCOPY THIS PAGE AND CHECK THIS BOX.

04-CA8952 T1704 v.08 11.01.2017 4 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 34 of 89

PART IV – SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. I (We) submit this Claim Form under the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement described in the Settlement Notice, available at www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com. I (We) also submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, with respect to my (our) claim as a Class Member. I (We) further acknowledge that I am (we are) bound by and subject to the terms of any judgment that may be entered in the Action. I (We) agree to furnish additional information to the Claims Administrator to support this claim if requested to do so. I (We) have not submitted any other claim covering the same purchases or sales of AMD common stock during the relevant periods and know of no other person having done so on my (our) behalf. 2. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have included information about all of my (our) purchases of AMD common stock that took place from April 4, 2011 through January 16, 2013, and all of my (our) sales of AMD common stock from April 4, 2011 through January 16, 2013, as well as the number of shares held by me (us) at the opening of trading on April 4, 2011 and the close of trading on January 16, 2013. I (We) declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this day of (Month / Year)

Signature of Claimant Signature of Joint Claimant, if any

Print Name of Claimant Print Name of Joint Claimant, if any

05-CA8952 T1705 v.08 11.01.2017 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 35 of 89

ACCURATE CLAIMS PROCESSING TAKES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. Reminder Checklist: 1. Please sign above. 2. Remember to attach copies of supporting documentation.

3. Do not send originals of certificates or other documentation as they will not be returned. 4. Keep a copy of your Claim Form and all supporting documentation for your records. 5. If you desire an acknowledgment of receipt of your Claim Form, please send it Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. 6. If you move, please send your new address to the address below.

7. Do not use red pen or highlighter on the Claim Form or supporting documentation.

THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED ONLINE OR, IF MAILED, POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 13, 2018, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS:

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 4349 Portland, OR 97208-4349 Phone: (844) 855-8569 [email protected] www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com

06-CA8952 T1706 v.08 11.01.2017 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 36 of 89

Exhibit C Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 37 of 89 INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGRMUTUAL Document FUND PERFORMANCE351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 38 of 89 WEEK OF NOVEMBER 20, 2017 A13

36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net 36 Mos 2017 12Wk 5 Yr Net Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Performance % % After Asset NAV Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg Rating Fund Chg Chg TaxRtn Value Chg E TempGlb + 4 +1 .. 12.03n+.00 A LrgCapGrE +26 +8+102 22.26 –.13 $ 367 mil 800–354–8185 A Global +33 +8 +78 99.10 –.08 A CapOpport +20 +6 +95 27.00n–.08 RoyceFunds $ 73.5 bil 800–531–8722 A SmlCap600 +10+10+108 274.25n+1.1 A LrgCapGrI +27 +8+105 23.38n–.14 A+Ruselint +11 +9+115 14.09n+.06 A Gold&SpMin +13 –2 –52 16.20 +.17 A DiverMidGr +21 +7+102 29.58n+.08 $ 14.6 bil 800–221–4268 A AggressGrth +27 +7 +90 46.78n–.07 A SPMd400Gr +17 +9 +96 260.24n+.65 —G— H— I— A LrgCapGrY +27 +8+103 22.83n–.13 Mass Mutl Instl C+ IntlGrowth +24 +4 +51 43.16 –.06 A DividendGr +16 +5 +88 42.72n–.09 A OpportI +18+12 +89 15.20n+.13 A CapitalGr +19 +6 +92 12.33n+.00 E STCorp + 2 +0 +5 10.66n+.00 Gabelli A–Sci&TechA +36+12+119 69.59 –.09 $ 2.4 bil 800–272–2216 A+IntlSmCo +31 +4+126 48.63 +.12 B–EquityInc +12 +6 +66 34.75n+.00 Russell Funds S A+Growth +26 +8+118 30.62n–.05 D+TargRet2020 +12 +3 +44 31.59n+.00 $ 12.2 bil 800–422–3554 A–Sci&TechE +36+12+118 69.12 –.09 A PrmDiscGroA +25 +9 +85 13.57 –.03 Oppenheimer B C+ EquityIncR +11 +6 +63 34.59n–.01 $ 23.2 bil 800–787–7354 A+Nasdaq100 +31 +9+142 18.01n–.07 C– TargRet2025 +13 +3 +50 18.52n+.00 A–USDynEqt +16 +7 +78 11.79n+.00 A–S&P500 +17 +6 +92 36.73n–.10 C TargRet2030 +15 +4 +55 33.45n+.00 A–SmCpGrwI +15 +8 +90 60.10n+.18 A Sci&TechI +36+12+122 76.13n–.10 Mass Mutl Prem $ 143 bil 800–525–7048 A FinanclSvc +14 +5+105 28.15n+.00 Gabelli AAA Rydex Dyn A–S&P500Rwd +17 +6 +93 36.75n–.10 C+ TargRet2035 +16 +4 +61 20.54n–.01 A–Sci&TechR +36+12+115 67.88n–.09 $ 17.1 bil 800–272–2216 E DevMkt +32 +4 +24 41.11n+.21 A+GlobalStk +30 +9+116 37.42n+.20 $ 2.3 bil 800–820–0888 A+Sci&Tech +38 +9+156 29.03n–.03 E TotMrktIdx + 2 –1 +5 10.72n+.01 $ 13.0 bil 800–422–3554 A–Sci&TechY +36+12+119 73.14n–.10 A DiscplnGrwL +25 +9 +87 13.92n–.03 A–Discovery +27+13 +74 62.08n+.19 A Growth&Inc +18 +6 +86 29.43n–.10 A Growth +27 +7 +99 59.01n–.33 A+Nasd1002X +65+17+379 137.54n–1.1 C TxMgIntIntr +23 +4 +46 14.12n–.02 A SmCapCrA + 9 +8 +85 18.72 –.02 A DiscplnGrwS +25 +9 +88 13.77n–.03 A DisMidGrw +26+10 +83 18.07n+.03 A+GrowthStkR +31 +7+119 66.55n–.28 A+Ndq2xStrC +64+17+358 114.15n–.93 —V—W —X — A+USGrowth +29 +8+111 37.55n–.08 GE Elfun S&S A SmCapValB + 8 +8 +75 15.22n–.01 A DiscplnGrwY +25 +9 +87 13.80n–.03 A–Global +32 +8 +78 90.07n–.08 A+IntlDiscov +34 +6 +82 71.23n–.02 Rydex Investor Value Line C– Wellington +11 +4 +48 42.57n–.03 $ 12.7 bil 800–242–0134 A SmCapValC + 9 +8 +78 16.24n–.02 A–GlobalL +32 +8 +79 17.14n–.02 A+GlobOpport +47+18+127 60.31n+.24 A+Japan +29 +9+100 14.86n+.03 $ 1.9 bil 800–820–0888 $ 2.1 bil 800–243–2729 D+WellslyInc + 8 +2 +25 26.93n+.02 A–Trusts +22 +5 +89 64.73n–.17 A SmCapValY + 9 +8 +87 19.63n–.02 A–GlobalL +32 +8 +78 16.95 –.02 A Gold&SpMin +12 –3 –53 15.08n+.17 A+LgCpGrInstl +36 +9+143 39.65n–.13 A+Ndq100 +30 +8+129 35.60n–.14 A+LargerCo +32 +4+108 30.50n+.02 D+WindsorII +11 +5 +58 38.69n+.03 A– n GMO Trust III A SmlCapGrA +18 +8 +85 19.02 +.08 A GlobalS +33 +8 +81 17.17n–.02 A+IntlSmCo +30 +4+119 45.26n+.11 A+MidCapEqGrI +24 +7+123 56.76n+.13 SmallCap +13 +8 +89 51.61 +.03 Victory Funds —S—T— U— Vanguard Admiral $ 28.2 bil 617–330–7500 A–SmlCapGrB +17 +8 +75 14.40n+.06 Mass Mutl Select Oppenheimer I A+MidCapGrR +22 +6+107 87.04n+.19 $ 41.8 bil 877–660–4400 A+Quality +26 +7 +77 25.49n –.10 Schroder Funds $ 2641 bil 800–523–1036 A EstblshValA +11 +6 +95 39.93 +.05 A–SmlCapGrC +18 +8 +78 15.69n+.07 $ 68.2 bil 800–272–2216 $ 36.5 bil 800–525–7048 C– Ret2020Adv +14 +3 +47 23.02n+.00 $ 4.6 bil 800–464–3108 A–500Index +17 +6 +92 238.72n–.62 A–USEqAllo +16 +9 +70 16.08n–.02 A+BlueChipGrA +32 +8+119 19.44 –.05 E DevlpMktC +32 +4 +24 40.13n+.20 C Retire2020 +14 +3 +49 23.21n–.01 A EstblshValR +11 +6 +94 39.46n+.06 A SmlCapGrI +19 +8 +90 24.28n+.10 A USSmMdOpInv +12 +6 +88 14.51n+.02 C+ BalanceIdx +11 +4 +54 34.09n–.01 A GMO Trust IV C– Retire2020R +13 +3 +46 22.77n+.00 GrowOpps +23+11 +90 46.80 +.09 A SmlCapGrY +18 +8 +88 23.02n+.10 A+BlueChipGrL +33 +8+122 20.27n–.05 Oppenheimer N Schwab Funds A+CapOppsr +26 +9+146 155.95n+.09 A–Index500 +17 +6 +78 23.80n–.06 $ 27.7 bil 617–330–7500 A+BlueChipGrS +33 +8+112 20.74n–.05 $ 91.9 bil 800–525–7048 C+ Retire2030R +17 +4 +59 25.87n–.01 $ 68.3 bil 800–435–4000 A CoDilxAdr +16 +6+105 76.61n+.43 A+Quality +26 +7 +78 25.53n–.10 A+SmCoOppoA + 8 +9 +95 47.64 +.18 —J—K —L — A+BlueChipGrY +33 +8+111 20.55n–.05 A Discovery +28+13 +78 80.13n+.25 A–SmCapStk +12 +7 +87 50.39n+.12 A–1000IdxInv +17 +6 +89 62.83n–.12 D–EmgMkStr +28 +3 +17 37.29n +.26 A+SmCoOppR + 8 +9 +92 44.91n+.17 A–USEquity +16 +9 +70 16.09n–.03 J Hancock 1 A–IndexEqA +17 +6 +86 21.67 –.06 A DisMidGrw +27+10 +89 20.37n+.03 A SmCapValue +11 +8 +78 50.03n+.17 A LrgGr +25 +7 +94 18.69n–.08 B–EquityInc +14 +6 +68 76.13n–.18 A SYCAest +11 +6 +98 39.96n+.06 GMO Trust V $ 6.3 bil 800–225–5291 A–IndexEqS +17 +6 +87 22.20n–.06 A–Global +32 +8 +77 98.48n–.09 A–TotEqMktIdx +16 +6 +95 29.52n–.04 A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +95 40.35n–.11 B+ExtMktIdx +14 +8 +94 82.44n+.36 A+Sycasmal + 8 +9 +98 48.17n+.19 $ 13.4 bil 617–330–7500 A JhnCapValI +16 +4 +99 53.41n+.01 A–IndexEqY +17 +6 +86 21.89n–.06 A+IntlSmCo +31 +4+124 46.51n+.11 A TxEffEq +26 +8+106 29.02n–.01 A–SmCapSelect +11 +9 +85 31.26n+.12 A+FinIndxr +13 +6+115 33.12n+.00 Virtus Funds A A+QualityTr +26 +7 +78 25.53n–.10 J Hancock A A–IndexR5 +17 +6 +91 22.20n–.05 Oppenheimer Y PriceFds A–StkIdxSel +17 +6 +94 46.37n–.06 E GNMA + 2 +0 +5 10.50n+.00 $ 17.5 bil 800–243–1574 Schwartz Funds A GrowthIdx +25 +7+103 70.87n–.19 GMO Trust VI $ 45.5 bil 800–225–5291 A+MidCapEqII +22 +6 .. 19.66n+.04 $ 89.1 bil 800–525–7048 $ 493 bil 800–638–7890 A+Quasmall +14 +9+100 18.49 +.05 $ 664 mil 734–455–7777 C– HlthCarer +17 +2 +99 88.61n–.19 $ 18.0 bil 617–330–7500 A LrgCapEq +16 +4 +98 51.25 +.01 A+MidCpGrEqZ +22 +6+126 22.47n+.04 A Discovery +29+13 +86 95.19n+.30 A+BlueChipGrw +34 +8+135 97.44n–.27 A+SmlCapCore +28+10 +96 29.27 +.03 A+Quality +29 +7 +81 25.50n–.10 A+RegionlBnk + 6 +7+133 26.81 +.10 A AveMarGr +21 +7 +82 32.03n+.05 A IndustAdr +13 +6+109 68.35n–.26 A+StrtGrwA +33 +8+102 16.84 +.04 A+MidGrEqIIS +22 +6+140 22.30n+.05 A Global +33 +8 +84 99.37n–.09 B+CapApprAdv +13 +3 +66 29.31n–.05 Scout Funds E InflProSecs + 2 +0 –6 25.85n+.04 A–USEquity +16+10 +70 15.99n–.02 A USGlbLdGr +23 +6 +74 47.68 +.13 B+CapApprc +13 +3 +68 29.68n–.04 A SustI +17 +7 +97 26.14n+.11 A+MidGrEqIIA +22 +6+120 19.57 +.05 A+GlobOpport +48+19+137 68.76n+.27 $ 4.9 bil 877–726–8842 B+IntlGrowthr +41 +6 +62 95.24n+.13 A+VirtusSmC +29 +6+138 25.70 +.10 GoldmnSachs A J Hancock B A+MidGrEqIIL +22 +6+104 20.97n+.05 A+IntlSmCo +32 +4+128 48.36n+.12 A–EqIndex500 +17 +6 +94 69.41n–.18 A+MidCap +21+11 +93 20.09n+.07 D–IntmdInvGrd + 4 +0 +6 9.79n+.01 $ 41.0 bil 800–292–4726 $ 25.8 bil 800–225–5291 Virtus Funds C A+MidGrEqIIY +22 +6+124 21.82n+.04 A–MainStreetY +13 +2 +83 52.75n–.15 A+GlobTech +50+11+193 19.77n+.12 A+SmallCap +26+10+113 29.36n+.17 E IntmdTaxEx + 4 +0 +8 14.16n+.00 $ 21.2 bil 800–243–1574 A CapitalGr +28 +7 +89 30.40 –.09 A–LrgCapEq +15 +4 +92 46.01n+.01 A+Select +32 +8 .. 19.43n–.05 Oppenhmr C&M A+GrowthStk +32 +7+124 70.16n–.29 SEI Portfolios A–LargeCapIdx +17 +6 +95 59.84n–.14 A+SmlCapCoreC +27+10 +88 24.91n+.02 A StratGr +27 +7 +87 14.46 –.04 A+RegnlBnk + 5 +7+127 25.42n+.09 A+SmallCoGrZ + 7 +7 +85 13.39n+.06 $ 146 bil 800–525–7048 A–InstGlbGrEq +32 +7 +78 28.44n+.06 $ 35.8 bil 610–676–1000 E LtdTrmTxEx + 2 +0 +3 10.94n+.00 Virtus Funds I A+StrucLgGr +26 +8+121 30.49 –.08 A–USGlbLdGr +22 +5 +67 41.02n+.12 A+SmCoValL + 7 +7 +83 13.16n+.06 D+ActiveAlloc +15 +3 +49 13.97n–.01 A InstUSRsch +20 +6 +92 14.17n–.05 A–S&P500IdxA +17 +6 +89 61.55n–.17 B–MidCapIdx +15 +6 +90 186.15n+.56 $ 14.2 bil 800–243–1574 A StrucSmCapEq + 8 +9 +93 24.37 +.08 J Hancock C A+SmCoValY + 7 +7 +84 13.38n+.07 A–DiscoveryC +27+13 +74 64.47n+.20 A+LgCoreGr +34 +8+138 37.28n–.11 A–S&P500IdxE +17 +6 +90 61.98n–.16 A+MorganGr +27 +8+104 96.13n–.18 A+QUALsmall +14 +9+101 18.50n+.04 A–StrucUSEq +20 +7+102 49.92 –.11 $ 16.5 bil 800–225–5291 Matthews Asia A DisMidGrw +26+10 +83 18.20n+.02 A+Media&Telcm +32 +4+119 97.98n–.23 Sel40 A–Primecapr +25+10+107 136.47n–.15 A+SmlCapCore +28+10 +98 30.72n+.03 $ 84.0 bil 800–525–7048 D–REITIdxr + 3 +1 +37 119.99n–.42 A+TechOppsA +39+10+127 24.73 –.03 A–LrgCapEq +15 +4 +92 46.00n+.01 A– n B+MidCapGr +23 +6 +96 92.33n+.20 VOYA Fds $ 24.9 bil 800–789–2742 GlobalC +32 +8 +73 91.36 –.09 D–DevelopMkt +32 +4 +27 41.26n+.20 E ShrtInvAdmr + 2 +0 +5 10.66n+.00 GoldmnSachs C A+RegionlBnk + 5 +7+127 25.47n+.09 A+ChinaInv +59+12 +50 24.52n–.05 A+GlobOppC +47+18+127 60.39n+.24 A+NewAmerGr +32 +8+108 52.97n–.13 $ 1.2 bil 855–337–3064 D–DevelpMkts +33 +4 +29 42.49n+.22 E ShTrmBdIdx + 1 +0 +3 10.41n+.00 A– n $ 7.4 bil 800–292–4726 A–USGlbLdGr +22 +5 +67 41.04n+.12 A Gold&SpMin +12 –3 –54 14.80n+.16 A+NewHorizns +28 +8+122 55.42n+.14 AmerSmMdVal + 6 +5 +74 12.15 +.03 A–DividInv +31 +6 +53 20.04n–.03 A+GlobOpport +48+18+132 65.54n+.26 B+SmallIdx +12 +8 +93 68.82n+.28 A–ColConCoreS +16 +3 +84 23.00n–.07 A–CapitalGr +28 +7 +79 23.22n–.08 J Hancock Instl A+JapanInv +30 +9+106 24.48n+.13 C IntlGrC +23 +4 +47 40.78n–.06 E NewIncome + 4 +0 +5 9.49n+.01 A GoldSpecMin +12 –2 –53 15.45n+.17 E TotBdIdx + 3 +0 +5 10.76n+.01 A StrucLgGr +25 +8+115 27.53n–.07 VOYA Fds A $ 16.6 bil 800–225–5291 A+KoreaInv +39 +8 +64 7.31n–.01 A+IntlSmCoC +30 +4+119 44.68n+.10 B–Retire2030 +17 +4 +62 26.38n–.01 Selected Funds A–TotStMktIdx +17 +6 +94 64.59n–.09 $ 15.0 bil 855–337–3064 A+TechOpps +38+10+117 20.85n –.03 A–DisValMdCap +12 +6+107 24.01n+.00 Meridian Funds Optimum C A+SciTec +38+10+158 51.04n+.27 $ 7.6 bil 800–243–1575 A–TxMgdCapr +18 +6 +90 132.81n–.28 A LargeGrow +25 +7 +89 37.92 –.12 GoldmnSachs In Janus Aspn Inst $ 2.5 bil 800–446–6662 $ 6.4 bil 800–914–0278 A+SciTecAdv +38+10+156 50.39n+.27 A AmericanD +16 +7 +76 40.32n–.01 C TxMgIntAdr +22 +4 +46 14.10n–.02 A MuMgrIntl +29 +5 +76 61.93 +.00 $ 35.6 bil 800–292–4726 $ 1.8 bil 888–834–2536 A ContraLeg +19+12 +87 44.41n+.18 A LrgCpGrow +28 +6 +93 17.16n–.03 A SmCapGr +19 +9+110 33.90n+.06 A AmericanS +16 +7 +74 40.21n–.02 A TxMgSCAdr +10+10+107 59.96n+.23 A SmallCo + 7 +8 +80 15.70 +.05 A CapitalGr +29 +7 +93 33.25n–.10 A+Enterprise +25 +9+118 69.52n–.03 A Growth +19 +7 +70 42.12n+.02 Optimum Instl A–SmCapStk +12 +7 +95 24.58n+.06 Sentinel Group A USGrowth +29 +8+111 97.25n–.22 A–TRPDivMCA +20 +7 +88 10.18n+.03 A–EmergMktEq +44 +9 +46 23.10n+.08 Janus Henderson Metro West $ 6.4 bil 800–914–0278 A USLgCore +18 +6 +93 23.91n–.07 $ 4.8 bil 800–282–3863 B+ValueIdx +11 +5 +89 39.60n–.08 VOYA Fds C A–CmmnStkA +18 +6 +82 47.32 –.13 A–VangGlAdmirr +14 +4 .. 27.15n–.07 A SmCapEq + 8 +9 +96 25.32n+.08 $ 87.7 bil 800–668–0434 $ 267 bil 800–241–4671 A+LrgCpGrow +29 +6+104 20.76n–.03 PRIMECAPOdyssey $ 9.3 bil 855–337–3064 A–StrucIntlEq +26 +4 +62 13.45n–.05 A CapValue + 9 +7 +77 24.70n+.10 $ 23.9 bil 800–729–2307 A SmallCoA +12 +7 +69 5.42 +.03 D Wellesley + 8 +2 +23 65.23n+.03 A–LargeGrow +24 +7 +82 32.59n–.10 E TotRetBdI + 3 +0 +8 10.66n+.01 A–SmallCoC +11 +7 +57 3.36n+.01 C Wellington +11 +4 +49 73.51n–.07 A+StrucLgGr +26 +8+124 31.53n–.08 —P— Q—R— A+AggrGrowth +29+14+161 43.21n+.15 A–MuMgrIntl +28 +4 +72 57.28n+.00 A+Enterprise +24 +8+112 115.01n–.04 E TotRetBdM + 3 +0 +7 10.66n+.00 SmeadCapMan D+WindsorII +11 +5 +60 68.66n+.04 A StrucUSEq +20 +7+104 51.42n–.11 A+Forty +28 +7 +89 34.28 –.07 Parnassus A+Growth +28+13+130 36.66n+.12 VOYA Fds T,M,Q&I E TRBdPlan + 3 +0 +5 10.03n+.00 $ 2.4 bil 877–701–2883 Vanguard Index $ 9.0 bil 855–337–3064 Green Century $ 16.1 bil 800–999–3505 A+Stock +21 +9+113 31.30n+.01 A+Forty +28 +7 +88 33.13n–.07 MFS Funds A A–MFGrEqt +20 +9 +96 21.56n+.00 $ 3869 bil 877–662–7447 A LargeGrow +25 +7 +93 41.78n–.13 $ 432 mil 800–934–7336 A+FortyInstl +30 +7 +93 39.57n–.11 $ 206 bil 800–225–2606 A–Parnassus +13 +6 +88 50.64n–.09 Principal Investors SSGA Funds A–500Index +17 +5 +93 238.68n–.62 PgimInvest A SmallCo + 7 +8 +84 18.40n+.06 A–Equity +18 +6 +96 39.83n–.09 A+GlbTech +46+13+147 32.03n–.03 A CoreEquity +21 +7 +93 32.05 –.03 $ 274 bil 800–222–5852 $ 2.1 bil 617–786–3000 C Balanced +11 +4 +53 34.09n–.01 A+TRowPriceGr +32 +7+116 91.90n–.37 GuideStone G2 A–Research +24 +6 +87 35.56n–.11 A–GlobalGrow +27 +6 +69 40.93 +.03 $ 10.8 bil 973–367–7930 A+LgCapGr +32 +9+104 15.23n–.03 A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +91 37.50n–.10 BondMrkt + 2 –1 .. 10.76n+.01 Waddell&Rd Adv A+SelGwth +35 +8+109 14.75 –.04 $ 7.0 bil 888–473–8637 A ValueT + 8 +7 +75 24.01n+.10 A+Growth +29 +8+110 90.97 –.39 A–LgS&P500 +17 +6 +94 18.03n–.05 State Frm Ret D–EmgMkStr +28 +3 +17 28.35n+.19 $ 56.5 bil 800–532–2757 A+EqIndxInst +18 +7+109 28.77n+.00 Janus S Shrs A–IntlVal +24 +5 +75 43.22 +.00 A SelGwthB +34 +8+100 12.29n–.03 A–LgS&P500A +17 +6 +92 18.01 –.05 $ 27.8 bil 855–733–7333 D–EmgMkStr +28 +3 +16 28.39n+.19 A–Sci&TechA +35+12+114 18.42 –.02 A 100 n A–EqtyInst +20 +9 +98 11.19n–.02 D–EmgMkStkr +26 +2 +15 94.33n +.65 A+SmCapEqInst + 9+10 +98 19.14n+.00 $ 17.6 bil 888–834–2536 A MAInvGrSk +24 +7 +90 28.71 –.07 SelGwthC +34 +8+ 12.28 –.03 A–LgS&P500J +17 +6 +92 17.85n–.05 A–Sci&TechY +35+12+117 20.79n–.03 A+ValEqInst +10 +5+445 22.96n+.00 A GrowthInc +18 +8 +89 53.34n–.11 PIMCO A A+LrgGrowIJ +32 +9+100 12.81n–.03 A–EquityA +20 +9 +97 11.65n–.02 B+ExtndMkt +14 +8 +94 82.47n+.36 A–SmallCapC +17 +8 +75 13.93n+.06 A–MAInvTr +19 +6 +86 32.90 –.07 TCM Funds A FTSESocIndx +20 +7+109 16.95n –.04 GuideStone G4 Janus T Shrs $ 160 bil 888–877–4626 A MidCpBlndA +23 +6+102 27.10 +.10 A SmallCapY +19 +8 +89 20.74n+.09 A MidCapGr +25 +7+104 17.22 +.02 $ 293 mil 800–536–3230 D+FTSEWlIdInvr +23 +4 +36 21.11n+.01 A SmCapA +18 +8 +84 18.12 +.07 $ 11.5 bil 888–473–8637 $ 52.4 bil 888–834–2536 A–Research +20 +6 +87 44.44 –.06 A+RealEstRR + 5 +3 +55 7.73 +.00 A MidCpBlndJ +23 +6+103 26.13n+.10 A StockPlus +14 +9 +80 10.39 +.00 A+TCMSmGr +21+10+108 37.92n +.14 D FTSEWlIdIsPr +22 +4 +30 111.68n+.06 A VanguardA +27 +8 +96 11.55 –.06 A–EqIdxInv +17 +6 +94 28.76n+.00 A+Enterprise +25 +8+115 117.40n–.04 A+Technology +39 +9+155 38.11 –.21 A–MidS&P400J +12 +8 +87 21.62n+.06 A Growth +25 +7+103 70.87n–.19 A–StocksPLUS +18 +6 +82 10.29 +.00 TCW Funds A–VanguardB +25 +8 +82 8.04n–.05 A–GrEqInv +30 +8 +88 27.18n+.00 A Growth&Inc +18 +8 +91 53.40n–.11 B+ValueA +12 +4 +85 40.09 –.08 A Principal +22 +6 +98 25.74n+.10 $ 32.9 bil 800–386–3829 B+HighDivYldI +11 +5 +82 32.66n–.10 A–StocksRet +19 +7 +82 11.92 +.00 A–VanguardC +25 +8 +84 8.32n–.05 Harbor Funds A–Research +23 +6 +98 47.42n–.14 MFS Funds B A–SmCapInstL +10 +9 +97 25.69n+.13 A–SelectEqI +31 +7 +84 31.03n+.07 A+InfoTecAdmr +37+12+149 84.30n–.41 A VanguardY +27 +8 +99 12.39n–.07 $ 207 bil 800–422–1050 A Venture +21 +8 +93 78.61n+.05 $ 190 bil 800–225–2606 PIMCO Admin A–SmCpA + 9 +9 +93 24.08 +.12 A–SelectEqN +31 +7 +82 28.79n+.06 E IntBd + 4 +0 +5 11.40n+.02 Wasatch $ 245 bil 888–877–4626 A+CapApprAdm +34 +9+117 75.05n–.10 Jensen Inv Management A–CoreEquity +20 +7 +87 28.54n–.03 A–SmCpJ + 9 +9 +94 23.14n+.12 Thornburg A E IntBdAdm + 4 +0 +6 11.40n+.02 $ 7.1 bil 800–551–1700 D+IncomeFd + 8 +1 +23 12.42n+.00 A+CapApprIns +35 +9+120 76.32n–.10 $ 10.6 bil 800–992–4144 A Growth +28 +7+102 74.51n–.33 A SmGrIInst +21 +9 +86 14.15n+.04 $ 37.9 bil 800–847–0200 E IntBdInst + 4 +0 +6 11.40n+.02 A CoreGrowth +19+11 +90 69.52n+.19 D–Realpath +10 +2 +13 8.82n+.00 A 115 A– n A+CapApprInv +34 +9+116 73.83n–.10 A+QualtGrowI +20 +6 +99 46.65n–.10 B+IntlVal +23 +5 +70 41.02n–.01 A SmGrIJ +21 +9 +80 10.78n+.02 ValueA +20 +4+ 66.01 +.11 LargeCapInv +17 +6 +94 47.85 –.11 A+MicroCap +29+10 +93 8.35n+.05 PIMCO C Thornburg C B–MdCpIdxIsPl +15 +6 +90 202.81n+.62 D–IntlAdmin +19 +2 +29 69.39n+.23 A+QualtGrowJ +20 +6 +97 46.63n–.10 A–MAInvGrSk +23 +7 +85 25.07n–.06 A SmlS&P600I + 9+10 +99 27.98n+.12 A+MicroCapVal +20 +9 +97 3.51n+.03 $ 149 bil 888–877–4626 $ 36.3 bil 800–847–0200 A MegaCapGr +26 +7+106 216.04n –.81 A–SmallValue +14+10+114 8.08n+.04 D–IntlInstl +19 +2 +30 69.72n+.23 JOHN HAN A–MidCapGr +24 +7 +96 14.60n+.01 A SmlS&P600J + 9+10 +97 26.61n+.11 A+RealEstRR + 4 +3 +48 6.74n+.00 A–Value +19 +3+108 60.49n+.09 A MegaCapIdx +18 +6 +95 174.70n–.59 Wells Fargo D–IntlInv +19 +2 +28 68.95n+.22 $ 184 bil 800–338–8080 A+Technology +38 +9+145 33.39n–.19 ProFunds Inv A–StockPlus +13 +8 +74 9.62n+.00 Thornburg I B MidCap +15 +6 +93 41.03n+.12 $ 19.7 bil 800–359–3379 A+LrgValIns +18 +7+104 14.86n–.01 A INtlgrowt +36 +7 +67 27.70 +.02 B Value +12 +3 +81 39.86n–.08 $ 3.0 bil 888–776–3637 PIMCO D $ 18.8 bil 800–847–0200 D+REITr + 5 +2 +44 28.12n–.10 A–GrowthA +31 +9 +74 43.67 –.06 A+LrgValInv +18 +7+102 14.98n+.00 JOHN HAN I MFS Funds C A+InternetUlt +54+16+324 73.62n–.04 A Value +20 +4+119 67.90n+.12 B+SmCapVal + 7 +7 +93 30.81n +.11 $ 205 bil 888–877–4626 Wells Fargo A A+SmlGrInv +19+12+110 35.38n+.05 $ 10.6 bil 800–338–8080 $ 157 bil 800–225–2606 A+UltNasdq +65+17+396 178.93n–1.4 Thrivent Funds A B SmCpIdx +12 +8 +90 68.78n+.27 $ 39.2 bil 800–359–3379 D+Income + 7 +1 +23 12.42n+.00 A+SmValAdm +19+12+111 36.06n+.05 A INtlgrowt +37 +7 +69 27.80n+.01 A–CoreEquity +20 +7 +87 28.23n–.04 Prudential A $ 11.5 bil 800–847–4836 B–SmCpIdxIsPl +12 +8 +85 198.63n+.79 A–C&BLrgVal +14 +2 +90 15.39 +.04 A–StksPlusD +19 +7 +81 11.74n+.00 A+SmValInstl +19+12+110 36.23n+.04 JP Morgan A A Growth +28 +7+102 73.96n–.32 $ 67.1 bil 800–225–1852 A–LrgCapGr +25 +7+100 10.26 –.06 E STBond + 1 +0 +3 10.41n+.00 A–C&BMidVal +10 +5 +97 35.06 +.06 A StockPlus +14 +9 +80 10.32n+.00 Harding Lvnr $ 235 bil 800–480–4111 A–MAInvGrSk +24 +7 +85 24.88n–.05 A–ConservGr +22 +8 +90 13.60 –.04 A+MidCapStkA +14 +8+118 26.34 +.00 E TotBdMkt + 3 +0 +5 10.76n+.01 A DisUSCor +16 +6 +84 17.20 –.06 PIMCO Inst l $ 10.6 bil 877–435–8105 E CoreBond + 3 +0 +5 11.64 +.02 A–MidCapGr +24 +7 +96 14.21n+.01 A+Growth +35 +9+117 37.82 –.05 A+SmlCapStk +17+10 +97 22.61 +.07 E TotBdMrkt + 3 +0 +5 10.76n+.01 A DivCapBldr +14 +6 +88 10.61 –.02 $ 225 bil 800–927–4648 Thrivent Funds Instl C– TotInStkr +24 +4 +38 17.85n+.01 A–GlblEqAdv +28 +7 +75 41.23n+.00 A–EquityIdx +17 +6 +82 39.89 –.10 A+Technology +38 +9+145 33.33n–.18 A–LgCpCorEq +18 +8 +88 18.46 –.02 A EndvSelA +31 +8 +76 9.73 –.03 A–RAEfund + 9 +9 +68 12.20n+.00 $ 5.2 bil 800–847–4836 C– TotInStkr +24 +4 +38 29.86n+.02 A+GlblOpport +19 +7 +76 45.71 +.14 Hartford A A+GrAdvantgr +33 +9+128 20.11 –.01 B Value +11 +3 +81 39.60n–.08 D–TotRetBd + 5 +0 +9 14.57 +.01 A+RealEstate + 5 +3 +63 8.53n+.00 A+MidCapStk +14 +8+121 29.37n+.00 D TotInStkr +22 +4 +32 119.43n+.06 A SpcSmCpVal + 8+10 +95 35.60 +.18 $ 76.8 bil 860–547–5000 A IntrepidGr +28 +9+112 54.66 –.13 MFS Funds I Prudential B A+StkPlsLgDur +26 +6 +86 8.40n+.00 $ 71.4 bil 800–225–1852 j $ 82.8 bil 800–842–2252 A–TotStkIdx +17 +6 +94 64.60n –.09 A+SpecTechA +48+15+146 14.17 +.01 A COREq +17 +6+105 28.74 –.05 A+LgCapGr +35+10+103 36.97 –.11 $ 131 bil 800–225–2606 A+EnLgGrIdx +25 +8 +95 13.97n–.05 A–TotStMkt +17 +6 +94 64.56n–.09 A StockPlus +14 +9 +83 10.61n+.00 108 n Wells Fargo Ad A+GrwthOpps +30 +9+109 46.52 +.03 A LgCapVal +10 +6 +89 16.05 +.02 A+Growth +29 +8+113 96.31n–.42 A+Growth +34 +9+ 30.86 –.05 A– n A– n A StocksPlRet +20 +7 +85 12.10n+.00 EquityIdx +17 +6 +95 19.36 –.03 UtilIdxAdmr +18 +2 +72 61.63 –.38 $ 40.2 bil 800–359–3379 A–InterValue +20 +4 +70 17.62 –.03 A MktExpIdx +11 +9 +87 12.27 +.04 A MAInvGrSk +25 +7 +92 29.47n–.07 E TotRetBd + 5 +0 +8 14.57n+.01 A Gr&IncPrm +20 +7 +88 14.40n–.03 B+ValueIndx +11 +5 +88 39.60n–.08 A– n A–StocksPLUS +18 +6 +86 11.07n+.00 C&BLrgVal +14 +2 +91 15.41 +.04 A MidCap +20 +9 +90 30.35 +.01 A SmallCapEq +11 +8 +88 50.69 +.17 A MassInvTr +19 +6 +87 32.09n–.07 Prudential C A Growth&Inc +20 +7 +89 14.39n–.03 Vanguard Instl A C&BMidVal +10 +5 +97 35.52n+.07 PIMCO P A–SmlCapGr +15 +7 +96 56.39 +.16 A+SmallGrow +33+11 +99 16.46 +.06 A MidCapGr +25 +7+107 18.11n+.01 $ 61.3 bil 800–225–1852 A+LgCapGrIdx +26 +8+110 28.52n–.08 $ 1381 bil 877–662–7447 A–CapitalGrow +31 +8 +82 18.49n–.06 $ 258 bil 888–877–4626 Hartford C JP Morgan C A–Research +20 +6 +89 45.58n–.06 A+Growth +34 +9+109 30.93n–.05 A SmlCapEqPrm +12 +8 +95 20.36n+.04 C+ BalanceIdx +11 +4 +54 34.10n–.01 A–Discovery +26+10 +86 38.77n+.01 D+Income + 8 +1 +24 12.42n+.00 $ 76.5 bil 860–547–5000 $ 161 bil 800–480–4111 A–Value +12 +4 +87 40.31n–.08 E TotRetBd + 5 +0 +7 14.56n +.02 TIAA–CREF Instl Retirement A FTSESocIndx +20 +7+107 16.97n–.04 A DisUSCor +16 +6 +85 17.64n–.06 A+RealEstRR + 5 +3 +45 8.38n+.00 $ 97.7 bil 800–842–2252 D FTSEWlIdr +22 +4 +30 105.45n+.05 A+GrowOppor +29 +9 +98 31.35n+.02 E CoreBondr + 3 +0 +3 11.71n+.02 Morgan Stan Prudential Z&I A EndvSelect +32 +8 +78 10.30n–.03 A StockPlus +14 +9 +83 10.53n+.00 A–EquityIdx +17 +6 +93 19.61n–.03 B IndexExtMkt +14 +8 +93 82.44n+.36 A+GlbOppAdm +19 +7 +78 47.69n +.16 A–Intlvalue +19 +3 +66 17.36n–.03 A IntrepidGr +28 +9+109 53.57n–.13 $ 5.5 bil 888–454–3965 $ 57.1 bil 800–225–1852 A StocksPlus +20 +7 +84 11.97n+.00 A Growth&Inc +20 +7 +87 14.62n–.03 A IndexGr +25 +7+103 70.88n–.19 A Growth +32 +9 +77 48.04n–.07 A–MidCap +19 +8 +79 22.65n+.00 A–MktExpIdx +10 +8 +81 10.47n+.03 A+MltiCpOpps +43+10+121 31.83n–.09 A+GrowthZ +35 +9+121 40.50n–.05 Pioneer A+LgGrwth +32 +9+113 20.19n–.04 B+IndexI +17 +5 +92 235.52n–.61 A SmCapOpp +12 +7 +73 25.55n+.08 Hartford HLS IA A–SmallCapEq +11 +8 +81 38.57n+.13 Morgan Stan A A–StockIdxI +17 +6 +92 53.25n–.15 $ 15.1 bil 800–225–6292 A+LrgCpGrIdx +26 +8+108 28.67n–.09 B+IndexPlus +17 +5 +91 235.54n –.62 A SpcSmCpVal + 8+10 +97 36.43n+.18 $ 26.2 bil 860–547–5000 JP Morgan Instl $ 1.6 bil 888–454–3965 A–StockIdxZ +17 +6 +91 53.24n–.15 A–EqtyInc +10 +5 +77 36.47n–.02 A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +93 28.91n–.08 B+IndexValue +11 +5 +88 39.60n–.08 Wells Fargo C A DiscpEq +17 +6 +91 15.15n–.03 $ 105 bil 800–480–4111 A+MltiCpGrt +44+10+129 39.83 –.12 D–TotRetBdZ + 6 +0 +10 14.52n+.01 A–SmBlendIdx +12 +9 +88 21.94n+.09 E InflaProtec + 2 +0 –6 10.53n+.02 Pioneer A $ 18.8 bil 800–359–3379 A+GlobalGrow +31 +8+110 27.59n–.03 A BehaveVal + 8 +8+105 69.88n+.41 Morgan Stan B Putnam A SmCapEq +12 +8 +94 19.99n+.04 B MdCpIdx +15 +6 +94 41.12n+.12 A–DivCapBldr +13 +6 +82 10.58n–.02 $ 33.6 bil 800–225–6292 $ 14.4 bil 800–225–1581 A+GrwthOpps +30 +9+106 38.30n +.02 A+SmallGrow +34+11+104 18.47n+.06 $ 1.6 bil 888–454–3965 TIAA–CREF Instl Funds A–MktIdx +17 +6 +95 57.94n–.08 A GlblOppC +18 +7 +69 33.56n+.10 A–DiscGr +21 +6+115 19.80 –.05 A GrwthOpp +29 +8+110 32.90n–.14 A MidCap +20 +9+103 39.25n+.02 A TaxAwrDscEq +19 +7+102 34.68n–.09 A+MltiCpGrt +43+10+118 31.55n–.09 $ 69.4 bil 800–842–2252 D+REITIdxr + 5 +2 +45 18.57n–.07 A–SpcSmCpVal + 7+10 +89 32.26n+.16 A EqtyInc +11 +5 +78 35.91 –.01 Putnam A A SmlCapGr +15 +7 +90 30.87n+.09 A–USEquityL +17 +7 +92 16.94n–.04 Morgan Stan I A+LrgCpGrowth +32 +9+115 20.33n–.05 A+Rus1000GrId +26 +8+111 258.19n–.75 Wells Fargo Inst A–Growth +20 +5 +96 23.04 –.05 $ 67.7 bil 800–225–1581 A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +95 29.13n–.07 E ShInvGrd + 2 +0 +5 10.66n+.00 Hartford HLS IB JP Morgan R5 $ 1.4 bil 888–454–3965 $ 28.5 bil 800–359–3379 Pioneer C A GrowthOpp +29 +8+110 31.36 –.13 A SmBlendIdx +13 +9 +90 21.89n+.09 B SmCapValIdx + 8 +7 +92 30.87n+.11 A–C&BLrgVal +15 +3 +92 15.46n+.04 $ 25.6 bil 860–547–5000 $ 86.2 bil 800–480–4111 A+MltiCapGrt +44+10+134 42.91n–.13 $ 28.8 bil 800–225–6292 A MltCpGrw +27 +8+108 92.23 –.38 A SmlCapEqty +12 +8 +96 20.48n+.04 B SmCpIdx +12 +8 +90 68.81n+.27 A C&BMidVal +10 +5 +99 35.42n+.06 A DiscpEq +17 +6 +90 14.96n–.03 E CoreBond + 4 +0 +6 11.62n+.02 Morgan Stan Ins A–EqtyInc +10 +5 +74 35.27n–.02 Putnam B TIAA–CREF Instl Funds Reta E TotBdInstPl + 3 +0 +5 10.76n+.01 A CapitalGrow +31 +8 +84 19.12n–.06 A+GlobalGrow +31 +8+108 27.34n–.03 A+IntrpdGrth +29 +9+115 54.94n–.13 $ 24.9 bil 888–454–3965 Pioneer Y $ 64.3 bil 800–225–1581 $ 58.3 bil 800–842–2252 A–TotStkIdx +17 +6 +95 57.93n–.08 A–EmGrw +25 +9 +84 17.24n+.01 A+GrowOppor +30 +9+104 36.81n+.02 A LgVal +10 +6 +92 15.94n+.01 A+CapGrI +42 +8+145 48.81n–.04 $ 31.0 bil 800–225–6292 A GrowOpp +28 +8+102 26.77n–.12 A–EquityIndex +17 +6 +93 19.67n–.03 A–TxMdCpApr +18 +6 +97 66.00n–.14 A EndvSelect +32 +8 +80 10.67n–.03 A MidCap +20 +9+101 38.37n+.01 A SmallCapEq +11 +8 +92 58.31n+.20 A+CapGrP +42 +8+142 46.97 –.04 A Growth&Inc +20 +7 +90 19.00n–.04 A TxMgSCIr +10+10+107 60.10n+.24 A GrInstl +32 +9 +80 50.96n–.08 A–DiscGr +22 +6+111 20.21n–.05 A–MltCpGrw +26 +8+100 73.23n–.30 A SmlCapGr +15 +7 +88 30.07n+.09 A–SmallCore +12 +9 +95 55.97n+.21 A GlbFranchI +21 +4 +62 24.91n+.04 A SmlCapEqty +12 +8 +93 19.80n+.04 Vanguard Funds Westwood A GrowthY +20 +5 +98 23.28n –.05 Putnam C Hartford I A– n Nationwide Tocqueville $ 1500 bil 800–523–1036 $ 6.7 bil 800–422–3554 USEqty +17 +6 +92 16.94 –.04 A–MidCapGrwY +25 +9+117 46.99n+.21 $ 56.8 bil 800–225–1581 $ 64.1 bil 860–547–5000 JP Morgan R6 $ 1.6 bil 800–321–6064 $ 3.1 bil 917–318–7706 A CapOpportr +25 +9+127 67.53n+.05 A SmallCa +11+12+111 18.26n+.10 Price Advisor A GrowthOpp +28 +8+102 27.24n–.12 A+GrowOppor +30 +9+112 48.35n+.03 $ 63.2 bil 800–480–4111 A–NationwideIS +17 +6 +91 26.12n–.03 A–IntlValue +21 +3 +66 17.33n+.01 B+DivApprIdx +16 +6 +76 38.99n–.04 WestWoodFnd $ 302 bil 800–638–7890 A–MltCpGrw +26 +8+100 79.15n–.33 Touchstone B DividendGr +14 +4 +77 26.33n–.06 A–InterSm +28 +5 +65 17.06n–.01 E CoreBond + 4 +0 +6 11.65n+.02 Nationwide A $ 4.8 bil 914–457–1070 A+BluChpGr +34 +8+133 95.97n–.27 Putnam M $ 23.8 bil 800–543–0407 C+ EquityInc +13 +6 +66 36.32n–.08 A–WestMighty +13 +8 +91 29.21n+.11 A InterValue +20 +4 +72 17.82n–.03 $ 12.8 bil 800–321–6064 JP Morgan Selct A–DividendGr +16 +5 +86 42.66n–.09 $ 51.3 bil 800–225–1581 A–MidCapGrA +21 +6 +86 29.22 +.08 E GNMA + 2 +0 +4 10.50n+.00 A–WESTwood +13 +8 +93 29.82n+.11 A MidCap +20 +9 +93 31.11n +.01 A–Growth +23 +8 +85 12.49 –.03 $ 252 bil 800–480–4111 B–EquityInc +12 +6 +65 34.66n–.01 A GrowthOpp +28 +8+105 28.37 –.12 A–MidCapGrIns +22 +7 +90 30.39n+.08 C+ HealthCarer +17 +2+105 210.04n–.44 William Blair I A SmlCapGr +15 +7 +99 58.10n+.16 A–MidMktIdx +12 +8 +83 19.38 +.05 E CoreBond + 4 +0 +5 11.63n+.02 A+GrowthStk +31 +7+121 68.63n–.28 A MltCpGrw +26 +8+103 80.54 –.33 Transamerica A D HiYldCorpr + 6 +0 +18 5.90n +.00 $ 13.5 bil 800–742–7272 Hartford R3 A–EquityIndx +17 +6 +83 39.94n–.10 A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +84 16.33 –.05 $ 7.9 bil 800–797–2643 E InflProtSec + 2 +0 –6 13.17n+.02 A+SmCpGr +23 +8+107 33.28n+.09 $ 50.3 bil 860–547–5000 A+MidCapGr +22 +6+110 89.68n+.20 Putnam Y A+GrAdvSelr +33+10+130 20.64n–.01 Nationwide Funds Instl A+NewAmerGr +32 +7+106 51.83n–.13 $ 49.4 bil 800–225–1581 A+CapGrwA +42 +8+140 28.45 –.02 D–IntInvGdInv + 4 +0 +6 9.79n+.01 A+SmlMidGr +27 +9+116 25.25n+.04 A+GroOppty +30 +9+106 46.74n +.02 $ 7.4 bil 800–321–6064 Transamerica B A IntlExplorr +32 +4 +78 21.48n+.01 Wilmington A+IntrepidGr +29 +9+115 55.55n–.13 E NewIncome + 3 +0 +4 9.47n+.01 A+GrowthOpp +29 +8+112 32.72n–.14 A MidCap +19 +8 +89 33.62n+.01 A Growth +23 +8 +87 13.10n–.03 $ 2.4 bil 800–797–2643 A IntlGrowthr +41 +6 +70 29.94n+.04 $ 3.7 bil 800–836–2211 A+LgCapGr +36+10+104 37.28n–.10 C+ Retire2030 +17 +4 +60 26.12n–.01 A MltCpGrw +27 +8+110 98.38n–.41 Hartford R4 A–MidMktIdx +12 +8 +85 19.68n +.05 A+CapGrwB +41 +7+128 23.58n–.02 E IntmdTaxEx + 4 +0 +8 14.16n+.00 A–LgCapStInst +17 +6 +93 21.36n–.04 A LgCapVal +10 +6 +90 15.80n+.01 A SmlCapVal +11 +8 +76 49.63n+.17 A–Research +20 +6+100 32.97n–.09 $ 51.9 bil 860–547–5000 A MktExpIdx +11 +9 +81 12.42n+.03 A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +87 16.47n–.04 Undiscovered Mgrs E LtdTrmTxEx + 2 +0 +3 10.94n+.00 Wilshire Funds Price Funds RealFds $ 11.3 bil 800–480–4111 A+MorganGr +27 +8+103 31.01n–.06 $ 1.0 bil 855–626–8281 A+GrowOppor +30 +9+110 48.85n+.02 A+SmallGr +34+11+102 18.00n+.07 A–SmallIdx +11 +9 +82 15.97n+.06 A MidCap +20 +9 +92 34.76n+.01 $ 525 bil 800–638–7890 $ 2.8 bil 888–473–8637 A–BehaveValA + 8 +8+102 68.10 +.40 A–Primecapr +25+10+118 131.68n–.14 A LgCoGrInst +26 +8 +82 45.74n–.08 A SmlCapEq +11 +8 +91 58.11n+.21 Nationwide Funds Service A+BlueChipGr +34 +8+129 92.46n–.27 A GrEqInst +30 +8 +94 27.24n+.00 USAA Group A+PrmcpCorInvr +22 +9+120 26.99n–.02 A LgCoGrInv +26 +8 +79 42.76n–.07 A–SmlCapGr +15 +7 +97 58.11n+.17 A–USEquity +17 +7 +91 16.92n–.03 $ 10.8 bil 800–321–6064 Hartford R5 Lazard Instl A–S&P500Ins +17 +6 +85 16.43n–.04 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV $ 36.3 bil 860–547–5000 $ 45.0 bil 800–823–6300 A–S&P500Svc +17 +6 +84 16.35n–.04 Performance % % After Asset Chg Performance % % After Asset Chg Performance % % After Asset Chg Performance % % After Asset Chg Performance % % After Asset Chg A+GrowOpp +30 +9+113 50.67n+.03 A+GlbLstInfr +20 +0+100 16.52n–.13 Natixis Funds Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value A MidCap +20 +9 +95 35.58n+.01 A–Useqvalport +12 +4 +89 15.89n–.04 $ 64.9 bil 617–449–2100 Hartford Y Lazard Open A+GrowthY +31 +8+135 15.69n–.03 LEGAL NOTICE $ 65.8 bil 860–547–5000 $ 34.8 bil 800–823–6300 A–HarrLgValA +16 +6 +98 24.44 –.07 TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT, DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 4, 2011 A CorepEq +18 +6+106 29.14n–.05 A+GlbLstInfr +19 +0 +98 16.54n–.13 A+USMltCapEqA +23 +7+111 37.10 –.07 A–EquityInc +13 +5 +73 20.83n–.03 A–USEqConcen +12 +4 +86 15.96n–.03 A+USMltCapEqC +22 +6 +99 26.19n–.05 THROUGH OCTOBER 18, 2012, INCLUSIVE, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED A+GrowOppor +30 +9+114 51.28n+.03 Legg Mason A A+USMltCapEqY +23 +7+115 42.72n–.09 THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. A–IntlSmlCo +28 +5 +66 17.48n–.01 $ 46.8 bil 800–822–5544 Neubg Brm A IntlVal +20 +4 +76 18.18n–.03 A+CBLgGrA +21 +8+115 41.06 +.03 $ 48.2 bil 800–223–6448 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the (888) 219-6877 A MidCap +20 +9 +96 35.87n+.01 A–S&P500IdxA +17 +6 +91 25.45n–.06 A–MultiCap +18 +6+102 19.33 +.00 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that www.labaton.com A SmlCapGr +15 +7+101 61.03n+.18 Legg Mason C A–NuberMidFd +23 +9 .. 15.75n+.05 Class Representatives Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and KBC [email protected] Hennessy Funds $ 43.4 bil 800–822–5544 Neubg Brm Instl Asset Management NV, on behalf of themselves and the certiﬁed Class, MOTLEY RICE LLC $ 8.5 bil 800–966–4354 A CBLgCapGr +20 +7+106 33.51n+.02 $ 23.2 bil 800–223–6448 and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and the other named defendants A–FocusInst +15 +6 +94 86.99n–.07 James M. Hughes, Esq. A ClrBrdg + 8 +6 +91 40.10n+.10 A–MidGrwth +23 +9 +76 15.69n+.06 (collectively, the “Defendants”), have reached a settlement in the A+SmallCap – 2 +6 +88 25.50n+.14 A MltcapOpp +18 +6+105 19.48n+.00 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Legg Mason FI above-captioned action (the “Action”) in the amount of $29,500,000 A+SmallCap – 2 +6 +89 15.38n+.09 $ 2.4 bil 800–822–5544 Neubg Brm Inv Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Hirtle Callaghan $ 35.4 bil 800–223–6448 in cash (the “Settlement Amount”) that, if approved by the Court, will A ClrBrdg + 9 +6 +99 58.93n+.16 resolve all claims in the Action.1 (800) 768-4026 $ 3.6 bil 877–435–8105 Legg Mason I A–Genesis +12+10 +69 36.50n+.14 www.motleyrice.com A+HCGrowEqStr +24 +7 +96 22.67n–.02 $ 68.2 bil 800–822–5544 A–GenesisI +12+10 +75 63.36n+.23 A hearing will be held before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Homestead A+CBLgCapGr +21 +8+119 45.36n+.04 Neubg Brm Tr Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution $ 3.0 bil 800–258–3030 A SmlCapI + 9 +6+103 61.55n+.17 $ 18.4 bil 800–223–6448 California in Courtroom 1, Oakland Courthouse, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked A–Value +16 +9 +97 54.86n–.14 Loomis Syls A–Genesis +11+10 +74 66.76n+.24 Street, Oakland, CA 94612 at 2:00 p.m. on February 27, 2018 to, or electronically submitted no later than February 13, 2018. If you are IcmSeries $ 32.8 bil 800–633–3330 Nicholas Group among other things, determine whether (1) the Settlement should be a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will $ 707 mil 410–539–3838 A SmCapGrInst +24+10 +96 27.88n+.05 $ 4.6 bil 800–844–6541 approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, A+ICMSmCo +11+12 +92 35.05n+.16 A–LtdEditI +16 +7 +75 27.45n+.03 A–SmCpValInst + 7 +8 +85 37.47n+.19 Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any interest but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered A–† IntlGrwInst +30 +5 +71 15.61n+.08 Lord Abbett A NorthCoastAsstMgmt Invesco Funds $ 80 mil 800–274–5448 thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys’ fees, Notice and Administration by the Court in the Action. $ 113 bil 888–522–2388 Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by $ 36.4 bil 800–959–4246 A GrowthLdrs +30+10+114 29.32 –.07 C CANSLIMSel +16 +5 +59 16.41n+.02 If you previously submitted a valid and timely request for exclusion A–SmlCapGr +22+11 +92 41.59n+.07 A+IntlOpps +33 +5 +74 20.79 –.06 Northern the Court (the “Net Settlement Fund”) should be approved as fair, from the Class in connection with the Notice of Pendency of Class A+TechFndIns +37 +7 +97 46.49n–.20 E ShrtDurInc + 2 +0 +1 4.26 +.00 $ 40.1 bil 800–595–9111 reasonable, and adequate; and (3) the application of Class Counsel Action (“Class Notice”) and you wish to remain excluded, no further Invesco Funds A Lord Abbett B A MidCapIdx +13 +8 +91 20.07n+.05 for an award of attorneys’ fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement action is required. However if you did not, to exclude yourself from $ 143 bil 800–959–4246 A–SmCapIdx +12 +9 +87 14.07n+.06 Fund (or up to $8,850,000) and payment of expenses of no more than $ 82.3 bil 888–522–2388 the Class now, you must submit a written request for exclusion in A+EuroSmCom +23 +0 +78 16.45 +.02 A–SmCapVal + 6 +8 +89 25.25n+.08 $3,000,000 from the Settlement Fund, which may include the expenses A IntlOpps +32 +5 +70 19.62n–.05 accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice such A–S&P500IdxA +17 +6 +92 28.18 –.07 E ShrtDurInc + 1 +0 –1 4.27n+.00 A–StockIndex +17 +6 +94 31.12n–.09 of Class Representatives pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation A–SmlCapGr +22+11 +92 39.74 +.07 Nuveen Cl A that it is postmarked no later than February 6, 2018. If you are a Class Lord Abbett C Reform Act of 1995, should be approved. The Court may change the you will be bound A+TechFndAb +37 +7 +96 46.75 –.20 $ 107 bil 888–522–2388 $ 52.2 bil 800–257–8787 date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, Invesco Funds B A IntlOpps +32 +5 +69 19.37n–.05 A LgCapGrOpp +26 +4 +67 23.13n+.00 do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. $ 133 bil 800–959–4246 A+SmlCapVal + 3 +9+107 25.25 +.18 E ShrtDurInc + 1 +0 –1 4.29n+.00 distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class A EuroSmCo +22 +0 +73 15.31n+.02 Lord Abbett F Nuveen Cl I opt-back A+TechFndBm +36 +7 +88 40.10n–.17 $ 31.9 bil 800–257–8787 IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS in connection with the Class Notice but you want to into the $ 96.4 bil 888–522–2388 WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT Class now for the purpose of being eligible to receive a payment from Invesco Funds C E ShrtDurInc + 2 +0 +1 4.26n+.00 A LgCapGrOpp +26 +4 +70 26.47n+.00 AND YOU $ 129 bil 800–959–4246 Lord Abbett I A+SmlCapVal + 4 +9+109 26.15n+.18 MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT the Net Settlement Fund, you may do so. In order to opt-back into the A EuroSmCom +22 +0 +73 15.33n+.02 $ 90.7 bil 888–522–2388 Oak Associates FUND. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Proposed Class Class, you must submit a request in writing such that it is postmarked A+TechFndC +36 +7 +88 38.44n–.16 A+IntlOpps +33 +5 +76 21.35n–.06 $ 3.1 bil 888–462–5386 Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the no later than February 6, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set Invesco Funds P E ShrtDurInc + 2 +0 +1 4.26n+.00 A PinOakEqty + 9 +5+106 63.42n+.04 “Settlement Notice”) and a Proof of Claim and Release form (“Claim forth in the Settlement Notice. $ 2.0 bil 800–959–4246 A+RedOakTech +29+11+179 25.93n–.13 Form”), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the A+SumFndP +29 +6+106 20.47n–.06 Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or —M —N— O— A+WhtOakSelGr +14 +8 +99 82.32n–.41 Claims Administrator or visiting its website: Invesco Funds R MainStay A Fds Oakmark I application for attorneys’ fees and payment of expenses must be ﬁled $ 3.9 bil 800–959–4246 $ 36.0 bil 800–624–6782 $ 96.1 bil 800–625–6275 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation with the Court and mailed to counsel in accordance with the instructions A–SmlCapGr +21+11 +89 37.09n+.06 A–LrgCpGrow +31 +7 +94 10.52 +.00 A–GlobSel +17 +4 +91 19.72n–.03 Claims Administrator set forth in the Settlement Notice such that they are postmarked no later Invesco Funds Y A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +88 53.42 –.14 A–Intl +25 +3 +73 28.46n+.00 c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. than February 6, 2018. $ 14.7 bil 800–959–4246 Mainstay I Fds A InvFd +16 +6+102 84.24n–.25 P.O. Box 4349 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +94 28.55n–.07 $ 12.6 bil 800–624–6782 Oberweis Funds Portland, OR 97208-4349 OR DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Invesco Instl A–S&P500Idx +17 +6 +90 54.09n–.14 $ 1.4 bil 800–323–6166 (844) 855-8569 $ 24.3 bil 800–959–4246 Manning & Napier Funds A+IntlOppInst +37 +8 .. 13.28n+.05 [email protected] ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE SETTLEMENT, A–SmlCapGrR5b +22+11 +96 44.31n+.07 $ 6.8 bil 800–466–3863 A+IntlOpps +36 +8+124 27.55n+.11 www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT Ivy Funds A+IntlDiscA +35 +5 .. 20.52n+.15 Oppenheimer A SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AT Inquiries may also be made to Class Counsel: $ 181 bil 866–941–4482 A+IntrlDis +36 +5+103 20.72n+.15 $ 971 bil 800–525–7048 THE ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE. A–EmergMktEq +44 +8 +56 21.23 +.16 Marshall Funds D–DevelopMkt +33 +4 +28 43.00 +.22 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP A EmgEqI +44 +8 +58 21.95n+.16 $ 5.1 bil 800–236–3863 A Discovery +28+13 +83 85.64 +.27 Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Dated: November 20, 2017 A LrgCapGrA +27 +8+102 22.29 –.13 A+BMOLgGrwY +25 +8 +99 18.56n–.07 A DisMidGrwA +27+10 +91 21.62 +.03 140 Broadway BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR A–LrgCapGrC +26 +8 +94 18.78n–.11 MAS Funds Instl Cl A+GlobOpport +48+18+135 68.01 +.27 New York, NY 10005 THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 36 Mos Fund 2017 12 Wk 5 Yr Net NAV 1 The complete terms of the Settlement are in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 9, 2017, which can be viewed at Performance % % After Asset Chg Performance % % After Asset Chg Performance % % After Asset Chg www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com. Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Rating Chg Chg Tax%Value Copyright 2017 Investor's Business Daily Inc. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 89

Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC Announce a Proposed Class Action Settlement in Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. (N.D.Cal.)

NEWS PROVIDED BY United States District Court, Northern District of California  07:59 ET

OAKLAND, Calif., Nov. 20, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT, DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 4, 2011 THROUGH OCTOBER 18, 2012, INCLUSIVE, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that Class Representatives Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and KBC Asset Management NV, on behalf of themselves and the certied Class, and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and the other named defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"), have reached a settlement in the above- captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $29,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action.1

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Courtroom 1, Oakland Courthouse, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 at 2:00 p.m. on February 27, 2018 to, among other things, determine whether (1) the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (3) the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement Fund (or up to $8,850,000) and payment of expenses of no more than $3,000,000 from the Settlement Fund, which may include the expenses of Class Representatives pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, should be approved. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its website:

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 4349 Portland, OR 97208-4349 (844) 855-8569 [email protected] www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com  Inquiries may also beCase made t4:14-cv-00226-YGRo Class Counsel: Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 40 of 89

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Jonathan Gardner, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 (888) 219-6877 www.labaton.com [email protected]

-or-

MOTLEY RICE LLC James M. Hughes, Esq. 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (800) 768-4026 www.motleyrice.com

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or electronically submitted no later than February 13, 2018. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you previously submitted a valid and timely request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Class Notice") and you wish to remain excluded, no further action is required. However if you did not, to exclude yourself from the Class now, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice such that it is postmarked no later than February 6, 2018. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice but you want to opt-back into the Class now for the purpose of being eligible to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund, you may do so. In order to opt-back into the Class, you must submit a request in writing such that it is postmarked no later than February 6, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice.

Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be led with the Court and mailed to counsel in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice such that they are postmarked no later than February 6, 2018.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AT THE ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE.

1 The complete terms of the Settlement are in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 9, 2017, which can be viewed at www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Dated: November 20, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOURCE United StateCases Distr ic4:14-cv-00226-YGRt Court, Northern District o f C Documentalifornia 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 41 of 89

Related Links http://www.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 42 of 89

Exhibit D Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 43 of 89

Requests for Exclusion in Connection with Settlement Through 1/22/18

1. REZA ASADI & DOROTHY ESTERLE-ASSADI JT TEN ATHENS, OH

2. JUDY BRUNO SUNNYVALE, CA

3. GIUSEPPE MANZELLA CHICAGO, IL

4. ADAM FRISBIE CEDAR FALLS, IA

5. MARJORIE CHAMBERLAIN ORLANDO, FL

6. JAMES PAUL RODELL TRUST CORVALLIS, OR Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 44 of 89

Exclusion Request - 1 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 45 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 46 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 47 of 89

Exclusion Request 2 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 48 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 49 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 50 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 51 of 89

Exclusion Request 3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 52 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 53 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 54 of 89

Exclusion Request 4 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 55 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 56 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 57 of 89

Exclusion Request 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 58 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 59 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 60 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 61 of 89

Exclusion Request 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 62 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 63 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 64 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 65 of 89

Exhibit E Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 66 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 67 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 68 of 89 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 69 of 89

From: Colin Hutcheson To: info_amdsecuritieslitigation Subject: Opposition to Class Action Settlement Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 7:53:42 AM

To whom it may concern

Regarding the proposed Class Action Proposed Settlement of which the Notice dated December 12, 2017 was received recently.

As a minority AMD shareholder who has held shares continuously since 1998, I object to the proposed settlement.

It is only necessary to read the book by Dr. Ruiz entitled Sling Shot to fully realize that even AMD's long term survival has been continuously threatened by its giant competitor over the span of many years

I have also followed and communcated my findings to a member of the FTC's legal team concerning the retail exposure to products containing AMD processors and this has reninforced my worst fears with respect to the overall monopoly influence being exerted by its 2 more vigorous competitors.

In my opinion this settlement plays into the hands of AMD's competition and is unfair to its minority shareholders and their long term support of AMDS.

Colin Hutcheson, MBA (McGill) AMD mionrity shareholder since 1998 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 70 of 89

Exhibit F Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 71Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 3

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90178639 Invoice Date 01/20/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing Period: 4/1/16 to 12/31/16

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

30 Forms Setup 1 EA 1,000.0000 1,000.00

40 Import Broker/Nominee Mailing Files 28 EA 140.0000 3,920.00

50 Print/Fold Notice - In Envelope 75,875 EA 0.0890 6,752.88

60 Proxy List Notification 1,497 EA 0.5900 883.23

70 Publication Notice - IBD 1/4 Page 1 EA 2,030.6000 2,030.60

80 Publication Notice - PR Newswire 1 EA 1,470.0000 1,470.00

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 2,076 EA 0.1700 352.92

100 Enter Change of Address - Postal Forward 236 EA 0.4500 106.20

Contact Center and Website Support

120 Static Website Deployment and Testing 1 EA 2,000.0000 2,000.00

130 Registration or Notice Request Module 1 EA 1,000.0000 1,000.00

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

150 IVR Configuration and Recording 1 EA 2,000.0000 2,000.00

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 72Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 3

Information Invoice No. 90178639 Invoice Date 01/20/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing Period: 4/1/16 to 12/31/16

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 426.670 EA 0.1700 72.53

180 Notice Request Transcription 6 EA 0.5500 3.30

200 Contact Center (shared) 606 MIN 0.9500 575.70

Opt Out Processing & Reporting

230 Opt Out and Objection Reporting 6 EA 3.5000 21.00

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 47,906.451 DLR 1.0000 47,906.45

260 Delivery Charges 3,887.750 EA 1.0000 3,887.75

270 Broker/Nominee Research Fees 5,469.670 DLR 1.0000 5,469.67

Standard Rates

300 Clerical - Document Control 0.800 H 50.0000 40.00

340 Claims Analyst 39.700 H 70.0000 2,779.00

350 Mailing Coordinator 22.900 H 70.0000 1,603.00

360 Claims Specialist 1.400 H 80.0000 112.00

370 Notice Coordinator 1.500 H 80.0000 120.00

400 Project Coordinators 47.400 H 90.0000 4,266.00

420 Technical Project Manager 48.300 H 115.0000 5,554.50

430 Data Analyst & Reporting 20.400 H 125.0000 2,550.00

440 Project Managers 20.800 H 150.0000 3,120.00

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 73Invoice of 89 Page 3 of 3

Information Invoice No. 90178639 Invoice Date 01/20/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing Period: 4/1/16 to 12/31/16

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 470 Software Engineer 6.200 H 190.0000 1,178.00

480 Project Director 2.900 H 225.0000 652.50

540 Box Storage 7 EA 3.5000 24.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 101,901.73 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 74Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90179405 Invoice Date 01/31/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 01/01/17 to 01/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

50 Print/Fold Notice - In Envelope 407 EA 0.0890 36.22

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 504 EA 0.1700 85.68

100 Enter Change of Address - Postal Forward 30 EA 0.4500 13.50

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 259.930 EA 0.1700 44.19

180 Notice Request Transcription 3 EA 0.5500 1.65

200 Contact Center (shared) 498 MIN 0.9500 473.10

Opt Out Processing & Reporting

230 Opt Out and Objection Reporting 12 EA 3.5000 42.00

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 196.820 DLR 1.0000 196.82

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 75Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90179405 Invoice Date 01/31/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 01/01/17 to 01/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 270 Broker/Nominee Research Fees 14,073.810 DLR 1.0000 14,073.81

Standard Rates

300 Clerical - Document Control 0.100 H 50.0000 5.00

340 Claims Analyst 14.800 H 70.0000 1,036.00

350 Mailing Coordinator 6.400 H 70.0000 448.00

360 Claims Specialist 0.600 H 80.0000 48.00

400 Project Coordinators 10.500 H 90.0000 945.00

440 Project Managers 6.600 H 150.0000 990.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 18,906.47 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 76Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90183316 Invoice Date 02/28/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 02/01/17 to 02/28/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

50 Print/Fold Notice - In Envelope 8,108 EA 0.0890 721.61

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 300 EA 0.1700 51.00

100 Enter Change of Address - Postal Forward 8 EA 0.4500 3.60

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 59.480 EA 0.1700 10.11

180 Notice Request Transcription 1 EA 0.5500 0.55

200 Contact Center (shared) 132 MIN 0.9500 125.40

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 3,990.300 DLR 1.0000 3,990.30

270 Broker/Nominee Research Fees 4,867.110 DLR 1.0000 4,867.11

Standard Rates

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 77Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90183316 Invoice Date 02/28/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 02/01/17 to 02/28/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 290 Clerical - Production 0.300 H 50.0000 15.00

340 Claims Analyst 7.100 H 70.0000 497.00

350 Mailing Coordinator 2.300 H 70.0000 161.00

360 Claims Specialist 0.100 H 80.0000 8.00

400 Project Coordinators 2.600 H 90.0000 234.00

440 Project Managers 2.700 H 150.0000 405.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 11,557.18 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 78Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90187407 Invoice Date 03/31/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 3/1/17 to 03/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 112 EA 0.1700 19.04

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 8.320 EA 0.1700 1.41

200 Contact Center (shared) 30 MIN 0.9500 28.50

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 0.920 DLR 1.0000 0.92

270 Broker/Nominee Research Fees 170.950 DLR 1.0000 170.95

Standard Rates

290 Clerical - Production 0.200 H 50.0000 10.00

340 Claims Analyst 5.500 H 70.0000 385.00

360 Claims Specialist 0.500 H 80.0000 40.00

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 79Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90187407 Invoice Date 03/31/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 3/1/17 to 03/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 400 Project Coordinators 2.600 H 90.0000 234.00

440 Project Managers 1.200 H 150.0000 180.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 1,537.32 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 80Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90191361 Invoice Date 04/30/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 4/1/17 to 4/30/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

50 Print/Fold Notice - In Envelope 946 EA 0.0890 84.19

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 55 EA 0.1700 9.35

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 96.180 EA 0.1700 16.35

200 Contact Center (shared) 114 MIN 0.9500 108.30

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 445.568 DLR 1.0000 445.57

270 Broker/Nominee Research Fees 50 DLR 1.0000 50.00

Standard Rates

290 Clerical - Production 0.100 H 50.0000 5.00

340 Claims Analyst 1.200 H 70.0000 84.00

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 81Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90191361 Invoice Date 04/30/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 4/1/17 to 4/30/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 350 Mailing Coordinator 1 H 70.0000 70.00

360 Claims Specialist 0.100 H 80.0000 8.00

400 Project Coordinators 1.900 H 90.0000 171.00

440 Project Managers 0.900 H 150.0000 135.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 1,654.26 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 82Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 1

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90198611 Invoice Date 06/27/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 5/1/17 to 5/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 29 EA 0.1700 4.93

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 19.670 EA 0.1700 3.34

200 Contact Center (shared) 78 MIN 0.9500 74.10

Standard Rates

340 Claims Analyst 0.800 H 70.0000 56.00

400 Project Coordinators 1.700 H 90.0000 153.00

440 Project Managers 0.500 H 150.0000 75.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 833.87 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 83Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 1

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90202534 Invoice Date 07/27/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 06/01/17 to 06/30/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 19 EA 0.1700 3.23

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 4.670 EA 0.1700 0.79

Standard Rates

340 Claims Analyst 0.600 H 70.0000 42.00

350 Mailing Coordinator 1.100 H 70.0000 77.00

400 Project Coordinators 0.500 H 90.0000 45.00

440 Project Managers 0.300 H 150.0000 45.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 680.52 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 84Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90205921 Invoice Date 08/21/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 07/01/17 to 07/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

50 Print/Fold Notice - In Envelope 3 EA 0.0890 0.27

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 13 EA 0.1700 2.21

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 6.170 EA 0.1700 1.05

180 Notice Request Transcription 2 EA 0.5500 1.10

200 Contact Center (shared) 24 MIN 0.9500 22.80

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 1.380 DLR 1.0000 1.38

Standard Rates

290 Clerical - Production 0.100 H 50.0000 5.00

340 Claims Analyst 1.500 H 70.0000 105.00

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 85Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90205921 Invoice Date 08/21/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 07/01/17 to 07/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 350 Mailing Coordinator 0.800 H 70.0000 56.00

360 Claims Specialist 0.200 H 80.0000 16.00

400 Project Coordinators 1.500 H 90.0000 135.00

540 Box Storage 5 EA 3.5000 17.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 813.31 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 86Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Attn: James Hughes Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd Information Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 Invoice No. 90209983 Invoice Date 09/27/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Currency USD Contract No. 40013151 Contract Description AMD Securities Litigation Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 8/1/17 to 8/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Data Standardization and Class Notice

50 Print/Fold Notice - In Envelope 1 EA 0.0890 0.09

90 Record Undeliverable Mail 7 EA 0.1700 1.19

Contact Center and Website Support

140 Website Hosting 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

160 IVR Maintenance Fee 1 EA 225.0000 225.00

170 IVR Minutes of Use 4.700 EA 0.1700 0.80

200 Contact Center (shared) 6 MIN 0.9500 5.70

Postage & Expenses

250 Postage 0.460 DLR 1.0000 0.46

Standard Rates

350 Mailing Coordinator 0.500 H 70.0000 35.00

400 Project Coordinators 0.200 H 90.0000 18.00

440 Project Managers 1.800 H 150.0000 270.00

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 87Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90209983 Invoice Date 09/27/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3002690 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 8/1/17 to 8/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 540 Box Storage 3 EA 3.5000 10.50

------Total Amount Due (USD) 791.74 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 88Invoice of 89 Page 1 of 2

Remit to Epiq Systems Tax ID: 93-1210932 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 Billing questions: call 503-350-5800 10300 SW Allen Blvd. PO Box 120286 or [email protected] Dallas, TX 75312-0286 Beaverton, OR 97005 Payment by Wire: Bank: Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara, CA) Bill-To ABA Routing: 121140399 Nicole M. Zeiss, Esq Acct No: 3300483242 SWIFT: SVBKUS6S Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway Information New York NY 10005 Invoice No. 90225524 Invoice Date 12/31/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3001600 Currency USD Contract No. 40019692 Contract Description AMD Settlement Terms of Payment End of Case Internal Reference No 8952

Comments Billing period: 09/01/17 to 12/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Settlement and Notice Administration

("Phase 2")

50 Print/Fold Notice & Claim Packet 115,773 EA 0.4000 46,309.20

60 Print Notice & Claim - Self-Mailer 150,000 EA 0.4200 63,000.00

70 Proxy List Notification 1,408 EA 1.0000 1,408.00

Contact Center and Website Support

130 Static Website Deployment and Testing 1 EA 2,000.0000 2,000.00

140 Registration or Notice Request Module 1 EA 1,000.0000 1,000.00

150 Website Hosting 4 EA 225.0000 900.00

160 IVR Configuration and Recording 1 EA 2,000.0000 2,000.00

170 IVR Maintenance Fee 4 EA 225.0000 900.00

180 IVR Minutes of Use 3,946.260 EA 0.1700 670.86

190 Notice Request Transcription 10 EA 0.5500 5.50

210 Contact Center (shared) 4,938 MIN 0.9500 4,691.10

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-3 Filed 01/23/18 Page 89Invoice of 89 Page 2 of 2

Information Invoice No. 90225524 Invoice Date 12/31/2017 Purchase Order No. Customer No. 3001600 Epiq Systems Class Action & Claims Solutions 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005

Comments Billing period: 09/01/17 to 12/31/17

Item Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 220 Contact Center Bilingual (shared) 48 MIN 0.9500 45.60

240 Claims Processing - First 25K Claims 1,561 EA 3.2500 5,073.25

Postage & Expenses

340 Post Office Box Dedicated (for 6mos) 1 EA 800.0000 800.00

350 Postage 83,331.470 DLR 1.0000 83,331.47

360 Delivery Charges 33.290 EA 1.0000 33.29

Standard Rates

660 Photocopy or Image 1 PAG 0.1200 0.12

670 Box Storage 51 EA 3.5000 178.50

680 Publication Fees 5,523.960 EA 1.0000 5,523.96

------Total Amount Due (USD) 217,870.85 ------

CONFIDENTIAL Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 67

Exhibit 4 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 67

5 Liaison Counsel

12 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class Co-Lead Counsel for the Class 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 OAKLAND DIVISION

16 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of 17 all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

18 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF 19 v. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR 20 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, EXPENSES 21 RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. SU, Date: Feb. 27, 2018 22 Time: 2:00 p.m. Defendants. Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor 23 Judge: The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

26 27 28

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 67

1 I, JONATHAN GARDNER, declare as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 2 3 1. I am a member of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP. I am submitting this

4 declaration in support of my firm’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and 5 expenses/charges (“expenses”) in connection with services rendered in the above-entitled action 6 (the “Action”). 7 2. This firm is Court-appointed Class Counsel in the Action and is counsel of record 8 for Court-appointed Class Representative Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. 9 10 3. The information in this declaration regarding the firm’s time and expenses is

11 taken from time and expense reports and supporting documentation prepared and/or maintained

12 by the firm in the ordinary course of business. These reports (and backup documentation where 13 necessary) were reviewed in connection with the preparation of this declaration. The purpose of 14 this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the entries in the reports as well as the necessity 15 for, and reasonableness of, the time and expenses committed to the litigation. As a result of this 16 17 review, reductions were made to both time and expenses in the exercise of billing judgment. As 18 a result of this review and the adjustments made, I believe that the time reflected in the firm’s

19 lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought as set forth in this declaration

20 are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and 21 resolution of the litigation. In addition, I believe that the expenses are all of a type that would 22 normally be charged to a fee-paying client in the private legal marketplace. 23 4. After the reductions referred to above, the number of hours spent on this litigation 24 25 by my firm is 29,530.80. A breakdown of the lodestar is provided in Exhibit A. The lodestar 26 amount for attorney/professional staff time based on the firm’s 2017 rates is $14,556,648.50.

27 The hourly rates shown in Exhibit A are the usual and customary rates set by the firm for each 28

1 individual in 2017 or, for individuals who left the firm before 2017, the last year of their

2 employment. 3 5. Attached as Exhibit B is a task-based summary of the work performed by each 4 attorney and professional staff member who performed services in this Action. 5 6. My firm seeks payment of $1,305,476.29 in expenses and charges in connection 6 with the prosecution of the litigation. These expenses and charges are summarized by category 7 8 in Exhibit C. Additional expenses in some of these categories were incurred by the joint

9 litigation expense fund (“Litigation Expense Fund”) maintained by my firm, which is described

10 below and reported in Exhibit I. 11 7. The following is additional information regarding certain of Labaton Sucharow’s 12 expenses: 13 (a) Filing, Witness and Other Fees: $1,875.00. These expenses have been 14 pro hac vice 15 paid to courts in connection with certificates of good standing and motions. The 16 vendors who were paid for these services are set forth in Exhibit D.

17 (b) Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $159,653.84. In

18 connection with the prosecution of this case, the firm has paid for work-related transportation 19 expenses, meals, and travel expenses related to, among other things, attending court conferences 20 and hearings, meeting with witnesses, mediation sessions, and taking or defending depositions. 21 (Any first-class airfare has been reduced to be comparable to economy rates.) The date, 22 23 destination, and purpose of each out-of-town trip are set forth in Exhibit E. 24 (c) Court Hearing and Deposition Reporting: $465.70. The vendors who were

25 paid for hearing or deposition transcripts are listed in Exhibit F. Additional deposition reporting 26 expenses were incurred by Motley Rice LLC and the Litigation Expense Fund, see Exhibit I. 27 28

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 2 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 67

1 (d) Experts/Consultants/Investigators: $5,000.00. The Class Representatives

2 retained Dr. Scott Thompson to provide expert advice and testimony concerning microprocessor 3 chip manufacturing, supply, and demand. This expense is a portion of his fees, which was paid 4 by my firm. The majority of his fees were paid by the Litigation Expense Fund. 5 (e) Duplicating: $186,036.57. In connection with this case, the firm made 6 617,731 in-house black and white copies, charging $0.20 per page for a total of $123,546.20. In 7 8 addition, the firm made 151,595 in-house color copies, charging $0.40 per page for a total of

9 $60,638.00. Each time an in-house copy machine or printer is used, our billing system requires

10 that a case or administrative billing code be entered and that is how the 769,326 copies were 11 identified as related to this case. My firm also paid $1,852.37 to outside vendors, such as FedEx 12 Office and hotel business centers, in connection with depositions that were held outside of New 13 York and court hearings. A breakdown of these outside charges by date and vendor is set forth 14 15 in Exhibit G. 16 (f) Online Legal and Factual Research: $57,283.22. The firm conducted

17 research using databases maintained by vendors such as PACER, Bloomberg BNA, Thomson

18 Reuters Markets, Thompson West, Westlaw, LexisNexis and LexisNexis Risk Solution. These 19 databases were used to obtain access to financial information, factual information, and to 20 conduct legal research. This expense represents the expense incurred by Labaton Sucharow for 21 use of these services in connection with this litigation. The charges for these vendors vary 22 23 depending upon the type of services requested. 24 (g) Litigation Support: $11,090.43. The majority of the expenses in this

25 category were paid to an electronic discovery vendor for fees and expenses in connection with 26 hosting documents produced in the Action by Class Representative ATRS. This category also 27 28

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 3 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 67

1 includes the costs of renting computers and of supplies in connection with depositions held in

2 Texas and California. 3 8. Information about the identification and background of my firm’s partners and of 4 counsels is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 5 9. My firm was also responsible for maintaining a joint litigation expense fund on 6 behalf of plaintiffs’ counsel (the “Litigation Expense Fund”) in order to monitor the major 7 8 expenses incurred in the Action and to facilitate their payment. The expenses incurred by the

9 Litigation Expense Fund are reported in Exhibit I, attached hereto. The Litigation Expense Fund

10 received contributions totaling $1,803,630.00, from my firm, Motley Rice LLC, and Bernstein 11 Liebhard LLP. These contributions are reported on Exhibit C to each firm’s individual fee and 12 expense declaration. The Litigation Expense Fund incurred a total of $1,860,215.98 in expenses 13 in connection with the prosecution of the Action, which were paid using the firms’ contributions. 14 15 Accordingly, there is an unpaid and outstanding balance of $56,585.98, which has been added to 16 my firm’s expense report so that, upon Court approval, any unpaid expenses can be paid.

17 10. The expenses pertaining to this case are reflected in the books and records of this

18 firm. These books and records are prepared from receipts, expense vouchers, check records and 19 other documents and are an accurate record of the expenses. 20

21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22 23rd day of January, 2018, at New York, NY 23

25 JONATHAN GARDNER 26 27

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 4 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 67

Exhibit A Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 67

1 EXHIBIT A

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018 5 NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR 6 Gardner, J. P 1,141.70 $950 $1,084,615.00 Zeiss, N. P 106.60 $875 $93,275.00 7 Belfi, E. P 93.00 $875 $81,375.00 Stocker, M. P 13.80 $875 $12,075.00 8 Villegas, C. P 2,537.4 $825 $2,093,355.00 Canty, M. P 314.40 $825 $259,380.00 9 Scarlato, P. OC 182.00 $775 $141,050.00 Avan, R. OC 27.20 $675 $18,360.00 10 Wierzbowski, E. A 73.60 $725 $53,360.00 Erroll, D. A 31.40 $675 $21,195.00 11 Cividini, D. A 1,907.20 $585 $1,115,712.00 Hawkins, T. A 41.70 $525 $21,892.50 12 Demann, Y. A 754.80 $500 $377,400.00 13 Yamada, R. A 498.90 $500 $249,450.00 Coquin, A. A 2,906.00 $450 $1,307,700.00 14 Mooney, C. A 316.30 $440 $139,172.00 Christie, J. A 868.50 $375 $325,687.50 15 Segel, S. SA 2,668.00 $425 $1,133,900.00 Nahoum, B. SA 3,810.20 $410 $1,562,182.00 16 Greene, T. SA 2,315.50 $410 $949,355.00 Pospischil, D. SA 2,101.60 $410 $861,656.00 17 Harley, D. SA 1,640.20 $410 $672,482.00 Katz, E. SA 934.00 $410 $382,940.00 18 Dolinger, L. SA 911.90 $410 $373,879.00 Quarcoo, E. SA 354.20 $360 $127,512.00 19 Pontrelli, J. I 15.20 $495 $7,524.00 Greenbaum, A. I 304.90 $455 $138,729.50 20 Crowley, M. I 189.80 $435 $82,563.00 Wroblewski, R. I 193.80 $425 $82,365.00 21 Clark, J. I 472.10 $400 $188,840.00 Malonzo, F. PL 738.30 $340 $251,022.00 22 Carpio, A. PL 617.50 $325 $200,687.50 Schneider, P. PL 230.90 $325 $75,042.50 23 Boria, C. PL 75.20 $325 $24,440.00 Molloy, M. PL 62.00 $325 $20,150.00 24 Mehringer, L. PL 59.50 $325 $19,337.50 Penrhyn, M. PL 21.50 $325 $6,987.50 25 TOTAL 29,530.80 $14,556,648.50 26 Partner (P) Staff Attorney (SA) 27 Of Counsel (OC) Investigator (I) 28 Associate (A) Paralegal (PL) CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 1 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 67

Exhibit B Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 67

1 2 Total 3 Lodestar 4 Rate 5 Total 6 Hours $500 $249,450.00 $450 $440 $1,307,700.00 $375 $139,172.00 $325,687.50 $525 $21,892.50 $675 $21,195.00 $585 $1,115,712.00 $675 $725 $18,360.00 $53,360.00 $875 $12,075.00 $825 $825 $2,093,355.00 $775 $259,380.00 $141,050.00 $875 $875 $93,275.00 $81,375.00 $950 $1,084,615.00 $500 $377,400.00 7 2,906.00 868.50 1,907.20 314.40 13.80 2,537.40 182.00 8 1,141.70 9 32.30 54.10 754.80 6.70 18.80 31.50 148.00 10 14.90 11 3.70 1.20 316.30 498.90 5.10 2.10 73.60 4.10 0.80 93.00 106.60 12 2.50 13 196.10 45.30 14.20 33.10 136.70 41.70 1.30 27.20 73.70 13.00 82.60 Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

14 28.80 38.90 0.30 21.00 2.00 15 123.30 EXHIBIT B 16 Labaton Sucharow LLP Labaton Sucharow 5.00 9.60 31.40 13.20 11.80 22.90

17 Negotiations,Stipulation,ttlement of Allocation Plan Inception through January 12, 2018 31.50 19.60 33.20 265.20 71.10 18 22.40 19 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced 0.50 54.50 1.50 30.10 17.00 4.00 5.00 6.30 28.20 1.20 10.90 133.40 92.50 0.80 58.00 18.50 20 97.50

21 315.20 911.00 129.70 382.30 281.90 30.10 7.20 88.30 512.80 39.50 2.00 22 148.30 23 1,603.10 596.60 8.10 1,352.00 4.50 24.20 13.00 4.70 24 474.20 25 26 27 Name Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Coquin, A.Coquin, C.Mooney, J.Christie, A A A 18.20 27.40 0.60 Yamada, R.Yamada, A 72.30 Demann, Y.Demann, A 384.50 Cividini, D.Cividini, Hawkins, T. A A 1,687.70 20.90 Wierzbowski, E.Wierzbowski, D. AErroll, A 17.00 45.40 Villegas, C.Villegas, Canty, M. P.Scarlato, P R.Avan, OC P 133.80 OC 33.70 1.50 191.00 Belfi, E. M.Stocker, P P 8.30 5.00 Gardner, J.Gardner, N.Zeiss, P P 20.00 17.00 (4) Court Appearances Appearances (4) Court Initial or(5) Amended Complaint (10) Trial Preparation Appeal (9) Management Case (11) 28 Categories: Investigation(1) Factual (Fact & Expert)Discovery (2) MotionsPretrial & Legal Research (3) Briefs, (8) Se (7) LitigationStrategy & Analysis (6) Client / Shareholder Communications CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 1 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 67

2 Total 3 Lodestar 4 Rate 5 21.50 472.10 193.80 189.80 354.20 911.90 934.00 Total Hours 6 2,315.50 $325 $325 $325 $75,042.50 $24,440.00 $325 $20,150.00 $19,337.50 $400 $340 $188,840.00 $251,022.00 $325 $200,687.50 $425 $82,365.00 $435 $82,563.00 $455 $138,729.50 $495 $7,524.00 $360 $127,512.00 $14,556,648.50 $410 $373,879.00 $325 $6,987.50 $410 $382,940.00 $410 $410 $949,355.00 $410 $861,656.00 $672,482.00 $425 $1,133,900.00 $410 $1,562,182.00 7 0.70 59.50 230.90 75.20 62.00 59.50 738.30 617.50 15.20 8 29,530.80 9 188.00 677.70 2,668.00 10 56.00 11 1.90 0.50 34.20 0.30 10.20 2,101.60 1,640.20 12 3,810.20 13 5.90 304.90 986.30 14

15 330.80 16 4.00 0.50 21.70 17 111.30 18 519.70 19 2.90 15.50 21.20 68.70 77.90 5.60 326.40 20 120.70 21 29.10 326.00 316.50 133.60

4,364.60 98.50 16.20 22 527.50 12.50 23 1,493.20 238.90

0.50

24 20,720.60 25 26 27 aetts23 4567891011 NameStatus12 Boria, C.Boria, M.Molloy, Mehringer, L.Penrhyn, PL M. PL PL PL 24.10 59.20 21.50 Malonzo, F.Malonzo, A.Carpio, PL PL 58.30 75.60 Schneider, P.Schneider, PL 19.40 Clark, J.Clark, I 472.10 Wroblewski, R.Wroblewski, I 193.80 Crowley, M.Crowley, I 189.80 Greenbaum, A. I 298.80 Pontrelli, J. I 14.50 Quarcoo, E.Quarcoo, SA 354.20 TOTAL: Dolinger, L.Dolinger, SA 911.90 Pospischil, D.Pospischil, D.Harley, SA E.Katz, SA SA 2,003.10 1,624.00 934.00 Segel, S.Segel, B.Nahoum, T.Greene, SA SA SA 3,162.00 2,655.50 2,315.50

28 (P) Partner Counsel Of (OC) Associate (A) Investigator (I) (SA)Staff Attorney (PL) Paralegal CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 2 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 67

Exhibit C Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 67

1 EXHIBIT C

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018 5

6 CATEGORY AMOUNT 7 Filing, Witness and Other Fees $ 1,875.00 8 Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals* $ 159,653.84 Long-Distance Telephone, Facsimile and 9 Conference Calling $ 4,257.72 Messenger, Overnight Delivery $ 10,894.04 10 Court Hearing and Deposition Reporting $ 465.70 11 Experts/Consultants/Investigators $ 5,000.00 Duplicating $ 186,036.57 12 Outside: $ 1,852.37 13 In-House Black and White: (617,731 pages at $0.20 per page) $123,546.20 14 In-House Color: (151,595 pages at $0.40 per page) $ 60,638.00 15 Online Legal and Factual Research $ 57,283.22 16 Litigation Support $ 11,090.43

17 Research Materials $ 58.79 Litigation Fund Contribution $ 812,275.00 18 Outstanding Litigation Expense Fund Costs $ 56,585.98 TOTAL $1,305,476.29 19

20 *$3,550.00 in estimated travel costs (for airfare, hotel, taxis, meals) has been included for me 21 and my colleague Nicole Zeiss to attend the final approval hearing. If less than $3,550.00 is incurred, the actual amount incurred will be deducted from the Settlement Fund. If more than 22 $3,550.00 is incurred, $3,550.00 will be the cap and only $3,550.00 will be deducted from the Settlement Fund. 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 1 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 67

Exhibit D Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 67

1 EXHIBIT D

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018 5 Filing, Witness and Other Fees: $1,875.00 6 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE 7 04/08/14 Clerk of the Court Certificate of Good Standing for Paul Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Scarlato 8 04/10/14 Clerk of the Court Certificate of Good Standing for Carol 9 Appellate Division 1st Dept. Villegas 04/11/14 Clerk of the Court Pro Hac Vice motion for Jonathan Gardner 10 N.D. San Francisco Cal. 04/14/14 Clerk of the Court Pro Hac Vice motion for Carol Villegas 11 N.D. San Francisco Cal. 07/30/14 Clerk of the Court Pro Hac Vice motion for Paul Scarlato 12 N.D. San Francisco Cal. 13 03/01/16 Clerk of the Court Pro Hac Vice motion for Alec Coquin N.D. San Francisco Cal. 14 01/25/17 Clerk of the Court Pro Hac Vice motion for Roger Yamada N.D. San Francisco Cal. 15 10/11/17 Clerk of the Court Certificate of Good Standing for Nicole 16 Appellate Division 2nd Dept. Zeiss 10/11/17 Clerk of the Court Pro Hac Vice motion for Nicole Zeiss 17 N.D. San Francisco Cal.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 2 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 67

Exhibit E

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 67

1 EXHIBIT E

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018 5

6 Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $ 159,653.84

7 - Out-of-Town Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $130,351.40 (trips detailed below)

8 - Local Work-Related Transportation & Meals: $29,302.44

9 NAME DATE DESTINATION PURPOSE 10 Jonathan Gardner 09/17/2014 San Francisco, CA Court Hearing

11 Jonathan Gardner; 10/28/2014 Oakland, CA Court Hearing Carol Villegas 12 Carol Villegas 06/17/2015 Oakland, CA Court Hearing 13 Carol Villegas 09/03/2015 Austin, TX Confidential Witness 14 Deposition Jonathan Gardner; 09/23/2015 Little Rock, AK ATRS Deposition 15 Eric Belfi Carol Villegas; 10/09/2015 Menlo Park, CA Confidential Witness 16 Tiffany Chan Deposition 17 Carol Villegas 10/08/2015 Menlo Park, CA Confidential Witness Deposition 18 Jonathan Gardner; 11/24/2015 Austin, TX Confidential Witness Alec Coquin Deposition 19 Jonathan Gardner; 12/03/2015 Austin, TX Confidential Witness 20 Yah Demann Deposition Rod Graves (ATRS), 01/14/2016 Newport Beach, CA Mediation 21 Jonathan Gardner; Carol Villegas** 22 Jonathan Gardner; 02/02/2016 Oakland, CA Court Hearing Yah Demann 23 Carol Villegas; Alec 05/05/2016 Oakland, CA Discovery Hearing 24 Coquin Carol Villegas; James 06/22/2016 Austin, TX Grasby Deposition 25 Christie Jonathan Gardner; 06/30/2016 Menlo Park, CA Kumar Deposition 26 James Christie 27 Carol Villegas; James 07/13/2016 Austin, TX Su Deposition Christie 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 3 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 67

1 NAME DATE DESTINATION PURPOSE Carol Villegas; Alec 07/19/2016 Austin, TX Zucker Deposition 2 Coquin Jonathan Gardner; 08/11/2016 Menlo Park, CA Seifert Deposition 3 Carol Villegas; Alec 4 Coquin Carol Villegas; 08/25/2016 Austin, TX Cloran Deposition 5 Benjamin Nahoum Carol Villegas; Alec 09/27/2016 Oakland, CA Discovery Hearing 6 Coquin 7 Carol Villegas; Alec 10/20/2016 Austin, TX Yacek Deposition Coquin 8 Carol Villegas; Alec 10/28/2016 Menlo Park, CA Smith Deposition Coquin 9 Michael Canty; Carol 01/31/2017 Charleston, SC Meeting with Expert Villegas; Alec Coquin 10 Jonathan Gardner; 02/07/2017 Charleston, SC Meeting with Expert 11 Carol Villegas; Michael Canty 12 Carol Villegas 02/16/2017 San Francisco, CA Kapoor Deposition

13 Michael Canty 02/15/2017 San Francisco, CA Meeting with Expert 14 Jonathan Gardner; 02/22/2017 Palo Alto, CA Cornell Deposition 15 Alec Coquin Carol Villegas; Alec 02/28/2017 San Francisco, CA Flemmons Deposition 16 Coquin Jonathan Gardner 03/05/2017 Chicago, ILL Meeting with Expert 17 Carol Villegas; Alec 03/10/2017 San Francisco, CA Axelson Depositions 18 Coquin 19 Jonathan Gardner; 03/07/2017 Palo Alto, CA Coffman Deposition Alec Coquin 20 Jonathan Gardner; 03/08/2017 Oakland, CA Court Hearing Carol Villegas; Alec 21 Coquin 22 Rod Graves (ATRS); 08/08/2017 Newport Beach, CA Mediation Jonathan Gardner; 23 Carol Villegas** Jonathan Gardner; 10/24/2017 Oakland, CA Preliminary Approval Hearing 24 Nicole Zeiss Jonathan Gardner; 02/27/2018 Oakland, CA Final Approval Hearing 25 Nicole Zeiss 26

27 ** Labaton partner Eric Belfi and associate Alec Coquin also attended the mediations, but we are not requesting reimbursement of their travel expenses given the number of Labaton 28 attendees. CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 4 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 67

Exhibit F

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 67

1 EXHIBIT F

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018 5

6 Court Hearing and Deposition Reporting: $465.70

7 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE 10/01/14 Raynee H. Mercado Hearing Transcript 8 01/16/15 Diane Skillman Hearing Transcript 9 09/01/15 Katherine Wyatt Hearing Transcript 09/09/15 Katherine Wyatt Hearing Transcript 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 5 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 67

Exhibit G Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 22 of 67

1 EXHIBIT G

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018 5

6 Duplicating: $186,036.57 7 In-House (Black and White): $123,546.20 (617,731 pages @ $0.20 per page) 8 In-House (Color): $ 60,638.00 (151,595 pages @ $0.40 per page) 9 Outside: $1,852.37 (detailed below) 10 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE 11 05/05/16 Vertical Systems Documents re Discovery Hearing 08/10/16 Uniguest Inc Documents re Seifert Deposition 12 08/24/16 FedEx Office Documents re Cloran Deposition 13 08/25/16 FedEx Office Documents re Cloran Deposition 09/26/16 Uniguest Inc Documents re Court Hearing 14 09/27/16 Uniguest Inc Documents re Court Hearing 10/20/16 FedEx Office Documents re Yacek Deposition 15 10/27/16 Uniguest Inc Documents re Smith Deposition 10/28/16 Uniguest Inc Documents re Smith Deposition 16 02/23/17 Uniguest Inc Documents re Cornell Deposition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 6 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 67

Exhibit H Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 24 of 67

Firm Resume Securities Class Action Litigation

New York, NY | Wilmington, DE | Washington, D.C. | Chicago, IL

www.labaton.com

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 67

Table of Contents

About the Firm ...... 1

Notable Successes ...... 2

Lead Counsel Appointments in Ongoing Litigation ...... 6

Innovative Legal Strategy ...... 7

Appellate Advocacy and Trial Experience ...... 8

Our Clients ...... 9

Awards and Accolades ...... 10

Community Involvement ...... 11

Firm Commitments ...... 11

Individual Attorney Commitments ...... 12

Commitment to Diversity ...... 13

Securities Litigation Attorneys ...... 14

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 67

About the Firm

Founded in 1963, Labaton Sucharow LLP has earned a reputation as one of the leading plaintiffs firms in the United States. We have recovered more than $12 billion and secured corporate governance reforms on behalf of the nation’s largest institutional investors, including public pension and Taft-Hartley funds, hedge funds, investment banks, and other financial institutions. These recoveries include more than $1 billion in In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, $671 million in In re HealthSouth Securities Litigation, $624 million in In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, and $473 million in In re Schering- Plough/ENHANCE Securities Litigation.

As a leader in the field of complex litigation, the Firm has successfully conducted class, mass, and derivative actions in the following areas: securities; antitrust; financial products and services; corporate governance and shareholder rights; mergers and acquisitions; derivative; REITs and limited partnerships; consumer protection; and whistleblower representation.

Along with securing newsworthy recoveries, the Firm has a track record for successfully prosecuting complex cases from discovery to trial to verdict. In court, as Law360 has noted, our attorneys are known for “fighting defendants tooth and nail.” Our appellate experience includes winning appeals that increased settlement value for clients, and securing a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court victory benefitting all investors by reducing barriers to the certification of securities class action cases.

Our Firm is equipped to deliver results with a robust infrastructure of more than 60 full-time attorneys, a dynamic professional staff, and innovative technological resources. Labaton Sucharow attorneys are skilled in every stage of business litigation and have challenged corporations from every sector of the financial markets. Our professional staff includes paralegals, financial analysts, e-discovery specialists, a certified public accountant, a certified fraud examiner, and a forensic accountant. With seven investigators, including former members of federal and state law enforcement, we have one of the largest in-house investigative teams in the securities bar. Managed by a law enforcement veteran who spent 12 years with the FBI, our internal investigative group provides us with information that is often key to the success of our cases.

Outside of the courtroom, the Firm is known for its leadership and participation in investor protection organizations, such as the Council for Institutional Investors, World Federation of Investors, National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, as well as serving as a patron of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance of the University of Delaware. The Firm shares these groups’ commitment to a market that operates with greater transparency, fairness, and accountability.

Labaton Sucharow has been consistently ranked as a top-tier firm in leading industry publications such as Chambers & Partners USA, The Legal 500, and Benchmark Litigation. For the past decade, the Firm was listed on The National Law Journal’s Plaintiffs’ Hot List and was inducted to the Hall of Fame for successive honors. The Firm has also been featured as one of Law360’s Most Feared Plaintiffs Firms and Class Action Practice Groups of the Year.

Visit www.labaton.com for more information about our Firm.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 67

Securities Class Action Litigation

Labaton Sucharow is a leader in securities litigation and a trusted advisor to more than 200 institutional investors. Since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), the Firm has recovered more than $9 billion in the aggregate for injured investors through securities class actions prosecuted throughout the United States and against numerous public corporations and other corporate wrongdoers.

These notable recoveries would not be possible without our exhaustive case evaluation process. The Firm has developed a proprietary system for portfolio monitoring and reporting on domestic and international securities litigation, and currently provides these services to more than 160 institutional investors, which manage collective assets of more than $2 trillion. The Firm’s in-house licensed investigators also gather crucial details to support our cases, whereas other firms rely on outside vendors, or conduct no confidential investigation at all.

As a result of our thorough case evaluation process, our securities litigators can focus solely on cases with strong merits. The benefits of our selective approach are reflected in the low dismissal rate of the securities cases we pursue, which is well below the industry average. Over the past decade, we have successfully prosecuted headline-making class actions against AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Bear Stearns, among others.

Notable Successes

Labaton Sucharow has achieved notable successes in financial and securities class actions on behalf of investors, including the following:

. In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04-cv-8141, (S.D.N.Y.)

In one of the most complex and challenging securities cases in history, Labaton Sucharow secured more than $1 billion in recoveries on behalf of lead plaintiff Ohio Public Employees’ Retirement System in a case arising from allegations of bid rigging and accounting fraud. To achieve this remarkable recovery, the Firm took over 100 depositions and briefed 22 motions to dismiss. The settlement entailed a $725 million settlement with American International Group (AIG), $97.5 million settlement with AIG’s auditors, $115 million settlement with former AIG officers and related defendants, and an additional $72 million settlement with General Reinsurance Corporation, which was approved by the Second Circuit on September 11, 2013.

. In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 07-cv-05295 (C.D. Cal.)

Labaton Sucharow, as lead counsel for the New York State Common Retirement Fund and the five New York City public pension funds, sued one of the nation’s largest issuers of mortgage loans for credit risk misrepresentations. The Firm’s focused investigation and discovery efforts uncovered incriminating evidence that led to a $624 million settlement for investors. On February 25, 2011, the court granted final approval to the settlement, which is one of the top 20 securities class action settlements in the history of the PSLRA.

. In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 03-cv-01500 (N.D. Ala.)

Labaton Sucharow served as co-lead counsel to New Mexico State Investment Council in a case stemming from one of the largest frauds ever perpetrated in the healthcare industry. Recovering $671 million for the class, the settlement is one of the top 15 securities class action settlements of all time. In

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 67

early 2006, lead plaintiffs negotiated a settlement of $445 million with defendant HealthSouth. On June 12, 2009, the court also granted final approval to a $109 million settlement with defendant Ernst & Young LLP. In addition, on July 26, 2010, the court granted final approval to a $117 million partial settlement with the remaining principal defendants in the case, UBS AG, UBS Warburg LLC, Howard Capek, Benjamin Lorello, and William McGahan.

. In re Schering-Plough/ENHANCE Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-00397 (D. N.J.)

As co-lead counsel, Labaton Sucharow obtained a $473 million settlement on behalf of co-lead plaintiff Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board. After five years of litigation, and three weeks before trial, the settlement was approved on October 1, 2013. This recovery is one of the largest securities fraud class action settlements against a pharmaceutical company. The Special Masters’ Report noted, "the outstanding result achieved for the class is the direct product of outstanding skill and perseverance by Co-Lead Counsel…no one else…could have produced the result here—no government agency or corporate litigant to lead the charge and the Settlement Fund is the product solely of the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel."

. In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. H-99-2183 (S.D. Tex.)

In 2002, the court approved an extraordinary settlement that provided for recovery of $457 million in cash, plus an array of far-reaching corporate governance measures. Labaton Sucharow represented lead plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds. At that time, this settlement was the largest common fund settlement of a securities action achieved in any court within the Fifth Circuit and the third largest achieved in any federal court in the nation. Judge Harmon noted, among other things, that Labaton Sucharow “obtained an outstanding result by virtue of the quality of the work and vigorous representation of the class.”

. In re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 06-cv-1749, (E.D. Mich.)

As co-lead counsel in a case against automotive giant, General Motors (GM), and Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte), its auditor, Labaton Sucharow obtained a settlement of $303 million—one of the largest settlements ever secured in the early stages of a securities fraud case. Lead plaintiff Deka Investment GmbH alleged that GM, its officers, and its outside auditor overstated GM’s income by billions of dollars, and GM’s operating cash flows by tens of billions of dollars, through a series of accounting manipulations. The final settlement, approved on July 21, 2008, consisted of a cash payment of $277 million by GM and $26 million in cash from Deloitte.

. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corp., No. 11-cv-10230 (D. Mass)

Labaton Sucharow served as lead counsel for the plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) in this securities class action against Boston-based financial services company, State Street Corporation (State Street). On November 2, 2016, the court granted final approval of the $300 million settlement with State Street. The plaintiffs claimed that State Street, as custodian bank to a number of public pension funds, including ATRS, was responsible for foreign exchange (FX) trading in connection with its clients global trading. Over a period of many years, State Street systematically overcharged those pension fund clients, including Arkansas, for those FX trades.

. Wyatt v. El Paso Corp., No. H-02-2717 (S.D. Tex.)

Labaton Sucharow secured a $285 million class action settlement against the El Paso Corporation on behalf of co-lead plaintiff, an individual. The case involved a securities fraud stemming from the company’s inflated earnings statements, which cost shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars during a four-year span. On March 6, 2007, the court approved the settlement and also commended the

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 67

efficiency with which the case had been prosecuted, particularly in light of the complexity of the allegations and the legal issues.

. In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, No. 08-cv-2793 (S.D.N.Y.)

Labaton Sucharow served as co-lead counsel, representing lead plaintiff, the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, and the class. The action alleged that Bear Stearns and certain officers and directors made misstatements and omissions in connection with Bear Stearns’ financial condition, including losses in the value of its mortgage-backed assets and Bear Stearns’ risk profile and liquidity. The action further claimed that Bear Stearns’ outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, made misstatements and omissions in connection with its audits of Bear Stearns’ financial statements for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Our prosecution of this action required us to develop a detailed understanding of the arcane world of packaging and selling subprime mortgages. Our complaint has been called a “tutorial” for plaintiffs and defendants alike in this fast-evolving area. After surviving motions to dismiss, on November 9, 2012, the court granted final approval to settlements with the Bear Stearns defendants for $275 million and with Deloitte for $19.9 million.

. In re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation, No. 10-CV-00689 (S.D. W.Va.)

As co-lead counsel representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust, Labaton Sucharow achieved a $265 million all-cash settlement in a case arising from one of the most notorious mining disasters in U.S. history. On June 4, 2014, the settlement was reached with Alpha Natural Resources, Massey’s parent company. Investors alleged that Massey falsely told investors it had embarked on safety improvement initiatives and presented a new corporate image following a deadly fire at one of its coal mines in 2006. After another devastating explosion which killed 29 miners in 2010, Massey’s market capitalization dropped by more than $3 billion. Judge Irene C. Berger noted that “Class counsel has done an expert job of representing all of the class members to reach an excellent resolution and maximize recovery for the class.”

. Eastwood Enterprises, LLC v. Farha (WellCare Securities Litigation), No. 07-cv-1940 (M.D. Fla.)

On behalf of The New Mexico State Investment Council and the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, Labaton Sucharow served as co-lead counsel and negotiated a $200 million settlement over allegations that WellCare Health Plans, Inc., a Florida-based managed healthcare service provider, disguised its profitability by overcharging state Medicaid programs. Under the terms of the settlement approved by the court on May 4, 2011, WellCare agreed to pay an additional $25 million in cash if, at any time in the next three years, WellCare was acquired or otherwise experienced a change in control at a share price of $30 or more after adjustments for dilution or stock splits.

. In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, No. 00-cv-1990 (D.N.J.)

Labaton Sucharow served as lead counsel representing the lead plaintiff, union-owned LongView Collective Investment Fund of the Amalgamated Bank, against drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). Lead plaintiff claimed that the company’s press release touting its new blood pressure medication, Vanlev, left out critical information, other results from the clinical trials indicated that Vanlev appeared to have life-threatening side effects. The FDA expressed serious concerns about these side effects, and BMS released a statement that it was withdrawing the drug's FDA application, resulting in the company's stock price falling and losing nearly 30 percent of its value in a single day. After a five year battle, we won relief on two critical fronts. First, we secured a $185 million recovery for shareholders, and second, we negotiated major reforms to the company's drug development

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 30 of 67

process that will have a significant impact on consumers and medical professionals across the globe. Due to our advocacy, BMS must now disclose the results of clinical studies on all of its drugs marketed in any country.

. In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-7831 (S.D.N.Y.)

As co-lead counsel representing co-lead plaintiff Boston Retirement System, Labaton Sucharow secured a $170 million settlement on March 3, 2015 with Fannie Mae. Lead plaintiffs alleged that Fannie Mae and certain of its current and former senior officers violated federal securities laws, by making false and misleading statements concerning the company’s internal controls and risk management with respect to Alt-A and subprime mortgages. Lead plaintiffs also alleged that defendants made misstatements with respect to Fannie Mae’s core capital, deferred tax assets, other- than-temporary losses, and loss reserves. This settlement is a significant feat, particularly following the unfavorable result in a similar case for investors of Fannie Mae’s sibling company, Freddie Mac. Labaton Sucharow successfully argued that investors' losses were caused by Fannie Mae's misrepresentations and poor risk management, rather than by the financial crisis.

. In re Broadcom Corp. Class Action Litigation, No. 06-cv-05036 (C.D. Cal.)

Labaton Sucharow served as lead counsel on behalf of lead plaintiff New Mexico State Investment Council in a case stemming from Broadcom Corp.’s $2.2 billion restatement of its historic financial statements for 1998 - 2005. In August 2010, the court granted final approval of a $160.5 million settlement with Broadcom and two individual defendants to resolve this matter, the second largest up- front cash settlement ever recovered from a company accused of options backdating. Following a Ninth Circuit ruling confirming that outside auditors are subject to the same pleading standards as all other defendants, the district court denied Broadcom’s auditor Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss on the ground of loss causation. This ruling is a major victory for the class and a landmark decision by the court—the first of its kind in a case arising from stock-options backdating. In October 2012, the court approved a $13 million settlement with Ernst & Young.

. In re Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 09-md-2027 (S.D.N.Y.)

Satyam, referred to as “India’s Enron,” engaged in one of the most egregious frauds on record. In a case that rivals the Enron and Bernie Madoff scandals, the Firm represented lead plaintiff UK-based Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, which alleged that Satyam Computer Services Ltd., related entities, its auditors, and certain directors and officers made materially false and misleading statements to the investing public about the company’s earnings and assets, artificially inflating the price of Satyam securities. On September 13, 2011, the court granted final approval to a settlement with Satyam of $125 million and a settlement with the company’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the amount of $25.5 million. Judge Barbara S. Jones commended lead counsel during the final approval hearing noting that the “…quality of representation which I found to be very high…”

. In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 05-cv-3395 (N.D. Cal.)

Labaton Sucharow served as co-lead counsel on behalf of co-lead plaintiff Steamship Trade Association/International Longshoremen’s Association Pension Fund, which alleged Mercury backdated option grants used to compensate employees and officers of the company. Mercury’s former CEO, CFO, and General Counsel actively participated in and benefited from the options backdating scheme, which came at the expense of the company’s shareholders and the investing public. On September 25, 2008, the court granted final approval of the $117.5 million settlement.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 31 of 67

. In re Oppenheimer Champion Fund Securities Fraud Class Actions, No. 09-cv-525 (D. Colo.) and In re Core Bond Fund, No. 09-cv-1186 (D. Colo.)

Labaton Sucharow served as lead counsel and represented individuals and the proposed class in two related securities class actions brought against OppenheimerFunds, Inc., among others, and certain officers and trustees of two funds—Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund and Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund. The lawsuits alleged that the investment policies followed by the funds resulted in investor losses when the funds suffered drops in net asset value although the funds were presented as safe and conservative investments to consumers. In May 2011, the Firm achieved settlements amounting to $100 million: $52.5 million in In re Oppenheimer Champion Fund Securities Fraud Class Actions, and a $47.5 million settlement in In re Core Bond Fund.

. In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 11-cv-610 (E.D. Va.)

As lead counsel representing Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, Labaton Sucharow secured a $97.5 million settlement in this “rocket docket” case involving accounting fraud. The settlement was the third largest all cash recovery in a securities class action in the Fourth Circuit and the second largest all cash recovery in such a case in the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that IT consulting and outsourcing company Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) fraudulently inflated its stock price by misrepresenting and omitting the truth about the state of its most visible contract and the state of its internal controls. In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that CSC assured the market that it was performing on a $5.4 billion contract with the UK National Health Services when CSC internally knew that it could not deliver on the contract, departed from the terms of the contract, and as a result, was not properly accounting for the contract. Judge T.S. Ellis, III stated, “I have no doubt—that the work product I saw was always of the highest quality for both sides.”

Lead Counsel Appointments in Ongoing Litigation

Labaton Sucharow’s institutional investor clients are regularly chosen by federal judges to serve as lead plaintiffs in prominent securities litigations brought under the PSLRA. Dozens of public pension funds and union funds have selected Labaton Sucharow to represent them in federal securities class actions and advise them as securities litigation/investigation counsel. Our recent notable lead and co-lead counsel appointments include the following:

. In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 10-cv-03461 (S.D.N.Y)

Labaton Sucharow represents Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in this high-profile litigation based on the scandals involving Goldman Sachs’ sales of the Abacus CDO.

. In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, No. 12-md-02389 (S.D.N.Y.)

Labaton Sucharow represents North Carolina Department of State Treasurer and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in this securities class action that involves one of the largest initial public offerings for a technology company.

. In re Tempur Sealy International, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-2169 (S.D.N.Y.)

Labaton Sucharow represents Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System in this securities class action against Tempur Sealy, a mattress and bedding-products company.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 32 of 67

. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co., No. 15-cv-05999 (S.D.N.Y.)

Labaton Sucharow represents Pipefitters Union Local 537 Pension Fund in this class action against one of the country’s largest credit card lenders to reveal the company’s hidden cost of losing its Costco partnership.

. In re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-04581 (E.D.N.Y.)

Labaton Sucharow represents Rosewood Funeral Home in the securities class action against Hain Celestial Group, Inc., alleging violation of generally accepted accounting practices.

. In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-01920 (N.D. Cal.)

Labaton Sucharow represents the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii in this securities class action alleging violations of securities fraud laws by concealing FDA regulations violations and a dangerous defect in the company’s primary product, the da Vinci Surgical System.

Innovative Legal Strategy

Bringing successful litigation against corporate behemoths during a time of financial turmoil presents many challenges, but Labaton Sucharow has kept pace with the evolving financial markets and with corporate wrongdoer’s novel approaches to committing fraud.

Our Firm’s innovative litigation strategies on behalf of clients include the following:

. Mortgage-Related Litigation

In In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 07-cv-5295 (C.D. Cal.), our client’s claims involved complex and data-intensive arguments relating to the mortgage securitization process and the market for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in the United States. To prove that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Countrywide’s business as an issuer of residential mortgages, Labaton Sucharow utilized both in-house and external expert analysis. This included state-of-the-art statistical analysis of loan level data associated with the creditworthiness of individual mortgage loans. The Firm recovered $624 million on behalf of investors.

Building on its experience in this area, the Firm has pursued claims on behalf of individual purchasers of RMBS against a variety of investment banks for misrepresentations in the offering documents associated with individual RMBS deals.

. Options Backdating

In 2005, Labaton Sucharow took a pioneering role in identifying options-backdating practices as both damaging to investors and susceptible to securities fraud claims, bringing a case, In re Mercury Interactive Securities Litigation, No. 05-cv-3395 (N.D. Cal.), that spawned many other plaintiff recoveries.

Leveraging its experience, the Firm went on to secure other significant options backdating settlements, in, for example, In re Broadcom Corp. Class Action Litigation, No. 06-cv-5036 (C.D. Cal.), and in In re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, No. 06-cv-0803 (S.D.N.Y.). Moreover, in Take- Two, Labaton Sucharow was able to prompt the SEC to reverse its initial position and agree to distribute a disgorgement fund to investors, including class members. The SEC had originally planned

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 33 of 67

for the fund to be distributed to the U.S. Treasury. As a result, investors received a very significant percentage of their recoverable damages.

. Foreign Exchange Transactions Litigation

The Firm has pursued or is pursuing claims for state pension funds against BNY Mellon and State Street Bank, the two largest custodian banks in the world. For more than a decade, these banks failed to disclose that they were overcharging their custodial clients for foreign exchange transactions. Given the number of individual transactions this practice affected, the damages caused to our clients and the class were significant. Our claims, involving complex statistical analysis, as well as qui tam jurisprudence, were filed ahead of major actions by federal and state authorities related to similar allegations commenced in 2011. Our team favorably resolved the BNY Mellon matter in 2012. The case against State Street Bank resulted in a $300 million recovery.

Appellate Advocacy and Trial Experience

When it is in the best interest of our clients, Labaton Sucharow repeatedly has demonstrated our willingness and ability to litigate these complex cases all the way to trial, a skill unmatched by many firms in the plaintiffs bar.

Labaton Sucharow is one of the few firms in the plaintiffs securities bar to have prevailed in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (Feb. 27, 2013), the Firm persuaded the court to reject efforts to thwart the certification of a class of investors seeking monetary damages in a securities class action. This represents a significant victory for all plaintiffs in securities class actions.

In In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation, Labaton Sucharow’s advocacy significantly increased the settlement value for shareholders. The defendants were unwilling to settle for an amount the Firm and its clients viewed as fair, which led to a six-week trial. The Firm and co-counsel ultimately obtained a landmark $184 million jury verdict. The jury supported the plaintiffs’ position that the defendants knowingly violated the federal securities laws, and that the general partner had breached his fiduciary duties to shareholders. The $184 million award was one of the largest jury verdicts returned in any PSLRA action and one in which the class, consisting of 18,000 investors, recovered 100 percent of their damages.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 34 of 67

Our Clients

Labaton Sucharow represents and advises the following institutional investor clients, among others:

. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System . Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System

. Baltimore County Retirement System . New York City Pension Funds

. Boston Retirement System . New York State Common Retirement Fund

. California Public Employees’ . Norfolk County Retirement System Retirement System

. California State Teachers’ Retirement . Office of the Ohio Attorney General and System several of its Retirement Systems

. City of New Orleans Employees’ . Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Retirement System System

. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust . Plymouth County Retirement System Funds

. Division of Investment of the New . Office of the New Mexico Attorney General Jersey Department of the Treasury and several of its Retirement Systems

. Genesee County Employees’ . Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho Retirement System

. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund . Rhode Island State Investment Commission

. Teachers’ Retirement System of . San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System Louisiana

. Macomb County Employees . Santa Barbara County Employees’ Retirement Retirement System System

. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit . State of Oregon Public Employees’ Retirement Authority System

. Michigan Retirement Systems . State of Wisconsin Investment Board

. Virginia Retirement System

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 35 of 67

Awards and Accolades

Industry publications and peer rankings consistently recognize the Firm as a respected leader in securities litigation.

Chambers & Partners USA Leading Plaintiffs Securities Litigation Firm (2009-2017)

effective and greatly respected…a bench of partners who are highly esteemed by competitors and adversaries alike

The Legal 500 Leading Plaintiffs Securities Litigation Firm and also recognized in Antitrust (2010-2017) and M&A Litigation (2013, 2015-2017)

'Superb' and 'at the top of its game.' The Firm's team of 'hard-working lawyers, who push themselves to thoroughly investigate the facts' and conduct 'very diligent research.'

Benchmark Litigation Recommended in Securities Litigation Nationwide and in New York State (2012-2018); and Noted for Corporate Governance and Shareholder Rights Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery (2016-2018), Top 10 Plaintiffs Firm in the United States (2017)

clearly living up to its stated mission 'reputation matters'...consistently earning mention as a respected litigation-focused firm fighting for the rights of institutional investors

Law360 Most Feared Plaintiffs Firm (2013-2015) and Class Action Practice Group of the Year (2012 and 2014-2016)

known for thoroughly investigating claims and conducting due diligence before filing suit, and for fighting defendants tooth and nail in court

The National Law Journal Winner of the Elite Trial Lawyers Award in Securities Law (2015), Hall of Fame Honoree, and Top Plaintiffs’ Firm on the annual Hot List (2006-2016)

definitely at the top of their field on the plaintiffs’ side 10

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 36 of 67

Community Involvement

To demonstrate our deep commitment to the community, Labaton Sucharow devotes significant resources to pro bono legal work and public and community service.

Firm Commitments

Brooklyn Law School Securities Arbitration Clinic Mark S. Arisohn, Adjunct Professor and Joel H. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor

Labaton Sucharow has partnered with Brooklyn Law School to establish a securities arbitration clinic. The program serves a dual purpose: to assist defrauded individual investors who cannot otherwise afford to pay for legal counsel; and to provide students with real-world experience in securities arbitration and litigation. Partners Mark S. Arisohn and Joel H. Bernstein lead the program as adjunct professors.

Change for Kids

Labaton Sucharow supports Change for Kids (CFK) as a Strategic Partner of P.S. 182 in East Harlem. One school at a time, CFK rallies communities to provide a broad range of essential educational opportunities at under-resourced public elementary schools. By creating inspiring learning environments at our partner schools, CFK enables students to discover their unique strengths and develop the confidence to achieve.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Edward Labaton, Member, Board of Directors

The Firm is a long-time supporter of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy. The Lawyers’ Committee involves the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination.

Labaton Sucharow attorneys have contributed on the federal level to U.S. Supreme Court nominee analyses (analyzing nominees for their views on such topics as ethnic equality, corporate diversity, and gender discrimination) and national voters’ rights initiatives.

Sidney Hillman Foundation

Labaton Sucharow supports the Sidney Hillman Foundation. Created in honor of the first president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Sidney Hillman, the foundation supports investigative and progressive journalism by awarding monthly and yearly prizes. Partner Thomas A. Dubbs is frequently invited to present these awards.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 37 of 67

Individual Attorney Commitments

Labaton Sucharow attorneys give of themselves in many ways, both by volunteering and in leadership positions in charitable organizations. A few of the awards our attorneys have received or organizations they are involved in are:

. Awarded “Champion of Justice” by the Alliance for Justice, a national nonprofit association of over 100 organizations which represent a broad array of groups “committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society.”

. Pro bono representation of mentally ill tenants facing eviction, appointed as guardian ad litem in several housing court actions.

. Recipient of a Volunteer and Leadership Award from a tenants' advocacy organization for work defending the rights of city residents and preserving their fundamental sense of public safety and home.

. Board Member of the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund—the largest private funding agency of its kind supporting research into a method of early detection and, ultimately, a cure for ovarian cancer.

Our attorneys have also contributed to or continue to volunteer with the following charitable organizations, among others:

. American Heart Association . Legal Aid Society

. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of New York City . Mentoring USA

. Boys and Girls Club of America . National Lung Cancer Partnership

. Carter Burden Center for the Aging . National MS Society

. City Harvest . National Parkinson Foundation

. City Meals-on-Wheels . New York Cares

. Coalition for the Homeless . New York Common Pantry

. Cycle for Survival . Peggy Browning Fund

. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation . Sanctuary for Families

. Dana Farber Cancer Institute . Sandy Hook School Support Fund

. Food Bank for New York City . Save the Children

. Fresh Air Fund . Special Olympics

. Habitat for Humanity . Toys for Tots

. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights . Williams Syndrome Association

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 38 of 67

Commitment to Diversity

Recognizing that business does not always offer equal opportunities for advancement and collaboration to women, Labaton Sucharow launched its Women’s Networking and Mentoring Initiative in 2007.

Led by Firm partners and co-chairs Serena P. Hallowell and Carol C. Villegas, the Women’s Initiative reflects our commitment to the advancement of women professionals. The goal of the Initiative is to bring professional women together to collectively advance women’s influence in business. Each event showcases a successful woman role model as a guest speaker. We actively discuss our respective business initiatives and hear the guest speaker’s strategies for success. Labaton Sucharow mentors young women inside and outside of the firm and promotes their professional achievements. The Firm also is a member of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). For more information regarding Labaton Sucharow’s Women’s Initiative, please visit www.labaton.com/en/about/women/Womens-Initiative.cfm.

Further demonstrating our commitment to diversity in the legal profession and within our Firm, in 2006, we established the Labaton Sucharow Minority Scholarship and Internship. The annual award—a grant and a summer associate position—is presented to a first-year minority student who is enrolled at a metropolitan New York law school and who has demonstrated academic excellence, community commitment, and personal integrity.

Labaton Sucharow has also instituted a diversity internship which brings two Hunter College students to work at the Firm each summer. These interns rotate through various departments, shadowing Firm partners and getting a feel for the inner workings of the Firm.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 67

Securities Litigation Attorneys

Our team of securities class action litigators includes:

Partners Ira A. Schochet Lawrence A. Sucharow (Co-Chairman) Michael W. Stocker Christopher J. Keller (Co-Chairman) Carol C. Villegas Mark S. Arisohn Irina Vasilchenko Eric J. Belfi Ned Weinberger Joel H. Bernstein Mark S. Willis Michael P. Canty Nicole M. Zeiss Marisa N. DeMato Thomas A. Dubbs Of Counsel Christine M. Fox Rachel A. Avan Jonathan Gardner Mark Bogen David J. Goldsmith Joseph H. Einstein Louis Gottlieb Mark Goldman Serena P. Hallowell Lara Goldstone Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr. Francis P. McConville James W. Johnson James McGovern Edward Labaton Domenico Minerva Christopher J. McDonald Corban S. Rhodes Michael H. Rogers David J. Schwartz

Detailed biographies of the team’s qualifications and accomplishments follow.

Lawrence A. Sucharow, Co-Chairman [email protected]

With more than four decades of experience, Co-Chairman Lawrence A. Sucharow is an internationally recognized trial lawyer and a leader of the class action bar. Under his guidance, the Firm has grown into and earned its position as one of the top plaintiffs securities and antitrust class action firms in the world. As Co-Chairman, Larry focuses on counseling the Firm’s large institutional clients, developing creative and compelling strategies to advance and protect clients’ interests, and the prosecution and resolution of many of the Firm’s leading cases.

Over the course of his career, Larry has prosecuted hundreds of cases and the Firm has recovered billions in groundbreaking securities, antitrust, business transaction, product liability, and other class actions. In fact, a landmark case tried in 2002—In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation—was the very first securities action successfully tried to a jury verdict following the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Experience such as this has made Larry uniquely qualified to evaluate and successfully prosecute class actions.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 40 of 67

Other representative matters include: In re CNL Resorts, Inc. Securities Litigation ($225 million settlement); In re Paine Webber Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation ($200 million settlement); In re Prudential Securities Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation ($110 million partial settlement); In re Prudential Bache Energy Income Partnerships Securities Litigation ($91 million settlement) and Shea v. New York Life Insurance Company (over $92 million settlement).

Larry’s consumer protection experience includes leading the national litigation against the tobacco companies in Castano v. American Tobacco Co., as well as litigating In re Imprelis Herbicide Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. Currently, he plays a key role in In re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation and a nationwide consumer class action against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., arising out of the wide-scale fraud concerning Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” vehicles. Larry further conceptualized the establishment of two Dutch foundations, or “Stichtingen” to pursue settlement of claims against Volkswagen on behalf of injured car owners and investors in Europe.

In recognition of his career accomplishments and standing in the securities bar at the Bar, Larry was selected by Law360 as one the 10 Most Admired Securities Attorneys in the United States and as a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar. Further, he is one of a small handful of plaintiffs' securities lawyers in the United States recognized by Chambers & Partners USA, The Legal 500, Benchmark Litigation, and Lawdragon 500 for his successes in securities litigation. Referred to as a “legend” by his peers in Benchmark Litigation, Chambers describes him as an “an immensely respected plaintiff advocate” and a “renowned figure in the securities plaintiff world…[that] has handled some of the most high-profile litigation in this field.” According to The Legal 500, clients characterize Larry as a “a strong and passionate advocate with a desire to win.” In addition, Brooklyn Law School honored Larry with the 2012 Alumni of the Year Award for his notable achievements in the field.

Larry has served a two-year term as President of the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, a membership organization of approximately 100 law firms that practice complex civil litigation including class actions. A longtime supporter of the Federal Bar Council, Larry serves as a trustee of the Federal Bar Council Foundation. He is a member of the Federal Bar Council’s Committee on Second Circuit Courts, and the Federal Courts Committee of the New York County Lawyers’ Association. He is also a member of the Securities Law Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association and was the Founding Chairman of the Class Action Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association, a position he held from 1988-1994. In addition, Larry serves on the Advocacy Committee of the World Federation of Investors Corporation, a worldwide umbrella organization of national shareholder associations. In May 2013, Larry was elected Vice Chair of the International Financial Litigation Network, a network of law firms from 15 countries seeking international solutions to cross-border financial problems.

Larry is admitted to practice in the States of New York, New Jersey, and Arizona as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the District of New Jersey.

Christopher J. Keller, Co-Chairman [email protected]

Christopher J. Keller focuses on complex securities litigation. His clients are institutional investors, including some of the world's largest public and private pension funds with tens of billions of dollars under management.

Described by The Legal 500 as a “sharp and tenacious advocate” who “has his pulse on the trends,” Chris has been instrumental in the Firm’s appointments as lead counsel in some of the largest securities matters arising out of the financial crisis, such as actions against Countrywide ($624 million settlement), Bear Stearns ($275 million settlement with Bear Stearns Companies, plus a $19.9 million settlement with Deloitte & Touche LLP, Bear Stearns' outside auditor), Fannie Mae ($170 million settlement), and Goldman Sachs.

Chris has also been integral in the prosecution of traditional fraud cases such as In re Schering-Plough Corporation / ENHANCE Securities Litigation; In re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation, where the Firm

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 41 of 67

obtained a $265 million all-cash settlement with Alpha Natural Resources, Massey’s parent company; as well as In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. Securities Litigation, where the Firm obtained a settlement of more than $150 million. Chris was also a principal litigator on the trial team of In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation. The six-week jury trial resulted in a $184 million plaintiffs’ verdict, one of the largest jury verdicts since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

In addition to his active caseload, Chris holds a variety of leadership positions within the Firm, including serving on the Firm's Executive Committee. In response to the evolving needs of clients, Chris also established, and currently leads, the Case Development Group, which is composed of attorneys, in-house investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. The group is responsible for evaluating clients' financial losses and analyzing their potential legal claims both in and outside of the U.S. and tracking trends that are of potential concern to investors.

Educating institutional investors is a significant element of Chris’ advocacy efforts for shareholder rights. He is regularly called upon for presentations on developing trends in the law and new case theories at annual meetings and seminars for institutional investors.

He is a member of several professional groups, including the New York State Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers’ Association. In 2017, he was elected to the New York City Bar Fund Board of Directors. The City Bar Fund is the nonprofit 501(c)(3) arm of the New York City Bar Association aimed at engaging and supporting the legal profession in advancing social justice.”

He is admitted to practice in the States of New York and Ohio, as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the District of Colorado.

Mark S. Arisohn, Partner [email protected]

Mark S. Arisohn focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors. Mark is an accomplished litigator, with nearly 40 years of extensive trial experience in jury and non-jury matters in the state and federal courts nationwide. He has also argued in the New York Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and appeared before the United States Supreme Court in the landmark insider trading case of Chiarella v. United States.

Mark's wide-ranging practice has included prosecuting and defending individuals and corporations in cases involving securities fraud, mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and RICO violations. He has represented public officials, individuals, and companies in the construction and securities industries as well as professionals accused of regulatory offenses and professional misconduct. He also has appeared as trial counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil fraud matters and corporate and commercial matters, including shareholder litigation, business torts, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

Mark is one of the few litigators in the plaintiffs' bar to have tried two securities fraud class action cases to a jury verdict.

Mark is an active member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and has served on its Judiciary Committee, the Committee on Criminal Courts, Law and Procedure, the Committee on Superior Courts, and the Committee on Professional Discipline. He serves as a mediator for the Complaint Mediation Panel of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York where he mediates attorney client disputes and as a hearing officer for the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct where he presides over misconduct cases brought against judges.

Mark also co-leads Labaton Sucharow’s Securities Arbitration pro bono project in conjunction with Brooklyn Law School where he serves as an adjunct professor. Mark, together with Labaton Sucharow associates and

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 42 of 67

Brooklyn Law School students, represents aggrieved and defrauded individual investors who cannot otherwise afford to pay for legal counsel in financial industry arbitration matters against investment advisors and stockbrokers.

Mark was named to the recommended list in the field of Securities Litigation by The Legal 500 and recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a Securities Litigation Star. He has also received a rating of AV Preeminent from publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell directory.

Mark is admitted to practice in the State of New York and the District of Columbia as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Districts of New York, the Northern District of Texas, and the Northern District of California.

Eric J. Belfi, Partner [email protected]

Representing many of the world’s leading pension funds and other institutional investors, Eric J. Belfi is an accomplished litigator with experience in a broad range of commercial matters. Eric focuses on domestic and international securities and shareholder litigation, as well as direct actions on behalf of governmental entities. He serves as a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee.

As an integral member of the Firm’s Case Development Group, Eric has brought numerous high-profile domestic securities cases that resulted from the credit crisis, including the prosecution against Goldman Sachs. In In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, he played a significant role in the investigation and drafting of the operative complaint. Eric was also actively involved in securing a combined settlement of $18.4 million in In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation, regarding material misstatements and omissions in SEC filings by Colonial BancGroup and certain underwriters.

Along with his domestic securities litigation practice, Eric leads the Firm’s Non-U.S. Securities Litigation Practice, which is dedicated exclusively to analyzing potential claims in non-U.S. jurisdictions and advising on the risk and benefits of litigation in those forums. The practice, one of the first of its kind, also serves as liaison counsel to institutional investors in such cases, where appropriate. Currently, Eric represents nearly 30 institutional investors in over a dozen non-U.S. cases against companies including SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. in Canada, Vivendi Universal, S.A. in France, OZ Minerals Ltd. in Australia, Lloyds Banking Group in the UK, and Olympus Corporation in Japan.

Eric’s international experience also includes securing settlements on behalf of non-U.S. clients including the UK-based Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme in In re Satyam Computer Securities Services Ltd. Securities Litigation, an action related to one of the largest securities fraud in India which resulted in $150.5 million in collective settlements. Representing two of Europe’s leading pension funds, Deka Investment GmbH and Deka International S.A., Luxembourg, in In re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation, Eric was integral in securing a $303 million settlement in a case regarding multiple accounting manipulations and overstatements by General Motors.

Additionally, Eric oversees the Financial Products and Services Litigation Practice, focusing on individual actions against malfeasant investment bankers, including cases against custodial banks that allegedly committed deceptive practices relating to certain foreign currency transactions. Most recently, he served as lead counsel to Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in a class action against State Street Corporation and certain affiliated entities alleging misleading actions in connection with foreign currency exchange trades, which resulted in a $300 million recovery. He has also represented the Commonwealth of Virginia in its False Claims Act case against Bank of New York Mellon, Inc.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 43 of 67

Eric’s M&A and derivative experience includes noteworthy cases such as In re Medco Health Solutions Inc. Shareholders Litigation, in which he was integrally involved in the negotiation of the settlement that included a significant reduction in the termination fee.

Eric’s prior experience included serving as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York and as an Assistant District Attorney for the County of Westchester. As a prosecutor, Eric investigated and prosecuted white-collar criminal cases, including many securities law violations. He presented hundreds of cases to the grand jury and obtained numerous felony convictions after jury trials.

Eric is a member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA) Securities Litigation Working Group. He has spoken on the topics of shareholder litigation and U.S.-style class actions in European countries and has discussed socially responsible investments for public pension funds.

Eric is admitted to practice in the State of New York, as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern District of Michigan, the District of Colorado, the District of Nebraska, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Joel H. Bernstein, Partner [email protected]

With nearly four decades of experience in complex litigation, Joel H. Bernstein’s practice focuses on the protection of victimized individuals. Joel advises large public and labor pension funds, banks, mutual funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, and other institutional and individual investors with respect to securities- related litigation in the federal and state courts, as well as in arbitration proceedings before the NYSE, FINRA, and other self-regulatory organizations. His experience in the area of representing plaintiffs in complex litigation has resulted in the recovery of more than a billion dollars in damages to wronged class members.

For several years Joel led the Firm’s Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities team, a group of more than 20 legal professionals representing large domestic and foreign institutional investors in 75 individual litigations involving billions of dollars lost in fraudulently marketed investments at the center of the subprime crisis and has successfully recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on their behalf thus far. He also currently serves as lead counsel in class actions, including Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. and In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation.

Joel recently led the team that secured a $265 million all-cash settlement for a class of investors in In re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation, a matter that stemmed from the 2010 mining disaster at the company’s Upper Big Branch coal mine. Joel also led the team that achieved a $120 million recovery with one of the largest global providers of products and services for the oil and gas industry, Weatherford International in 2015. As lead counsel for one of the most prototypical cases arising from the financial crisis, In re Countrywide Corporation Securities Litigation, he obtained a settlement of $624 million for co-lead plaintiffs, New York State Common Retirement Fund and the New York City Pension Funds.

In the past, Joel has played a central role in numerous high profile cases, including In re Paine Webber Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation ($200 million settlement); In re Prudential Securities Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation ($130 million settlement); In re Prudential Bache Energy Income Partnerships Securities Litigation ($91 million settlement); Shea v. New York Life Insurance Company ($92 million settlement); and Saunders et al. v. Gardner ($10 million—the largest punitive damage award in the history of NASD Arbitration at that time). In addition, Joel was instrumental in securing a $117.5 million settlement in In re Mercury Interactive Securities Litigation, the largest settlement at the time in a securities fraud litigation based upon options backdating. He also has litigated cases which arose out of deceptive practices by custodial banks relating to certain foreign currency transactions.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 44 of 67

Joel has been recommended by The Legal 500 in the field of Securities Litigation, where he was described by sources as a “formidable adversary,” and by Benchmark Litigation as a Securities Litigation Star. He was also featured in The AmLaw Litigation Daily as Litigator of the Week for his work on In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation. Joel has received a rating of AV Preeminent from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell directory.

In addition to his active legal practice, Joel co-leads Labaton Sucharow’s Securities Arbitration pro bono project in collaboration with Brooklyn Law School where he serves as an adjunct professor. Together with Labaton Sucharow partner Mark Arisohn, firm associates, and Brooklyn Law School students, he represents aggrieved and defrauded individual investors who cannot otherwise afford to pay for legal counsel in financial industry arbitration matters against investment advisors and stockbrokers.

As a recognized leader in his field, Joel is frequently sought out by the press to comment on legal matters and has also authored numerous articles and lectured on related issues. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers’ Association, and the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA).

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Michael P. Canty, Partner [email protected]

Michael P. Canty prosecutes complex fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors and consumers. Currently, Michael is investigating potential claims brought by state and local governments against large companies in the widespread opioid epidemic. Recommended by The Legal 500 in the field of securities litigation, Michael is also an accomplished litigator with more than a decade of trial experience in matters relating to national security, white collar crime, and cybercrime.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Michael was a federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Deputy Chief of the Office’s General Crimes Section. Michael also served in the Office’s National Security and Cybercrimes Section. During his time as lead prosecutor, Michael investigated complex and high-profile white collar, national security, and cybercrime offenses. He also served as an Assistant District Attorney for the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, where he handled complex state criminal offenses.

Michael has extensive trial experience both from his days as a prosecutor in New York City for the United States Department of Justice and during his six years as an Assistant District Attorney. He served as trial counsel in more than 35 matters, many of which related to violent crime, white collar and terrorism related offenses. He played a pivotal role in United States v. Abid Naseer, where he prosecuted and convicted an al- Qaeda operative who conspired to carry out attacks in the United States and Europe. Michael also led the investigation in United States v. Marcos Alonso Zea, a case in which he successfully prosecuted a citizen for attempting to join a terrorist organization in the Arabian Peninsula and for providing material support intended for planned attacks.

Michael also has a depth of experience investigating and prosecuting cases involving the distribution of prescription opioids. In January 2012, Michael was assigned to the U.S. Attorney's Office Prescription Drug Initiative to mount a comprehensive response to what the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Disease Control and Prevention has called an epidemic increase in the abuse of so-called opioid analgesics. As a member of the initiative, in United States. v. Conway and United States v. Deslouches Michael successfully prosecuted medical professionals who were illegally prescribing opioids. In United States v. Moss et al. he was responsible for dismantling one of the largest oxycodone rings operating

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 45 of 67

in the New York metropolitan area at the time. In addition to prosecuting these cases, Michael spoke regularly to the community on the dangers of opioid abuse as part of the Office’s community outreach

Before becoming a prosecutor, Michael worked as a Congressional Staff Member for the United States House of Representatives. He primarily served as a liaison between the Majority Leader’s Office and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. During his time with the House of Representatives, Michael managed congressional oversight of the United States Postal Service and reviewed and analyzed counter-narcotics legislation as it related to national security matters.

Michael is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Marisa N. DeMato, Partner [email protected]

With more than 12 years of securities litigation experience, Marisa N. DeMato advises leading pension funds and other institutional investors in the United States and Canada on issues related to corporate fraud in the U.S. securities markets. Her work focuses on complex securities class actions, counseling clients on best practices in the corporate governance of publicly traded companies, and advising institutional investors on monitoring the well-being of their investments. Marisa also advises municipalities and health plans on issues related to U.S. antitrust law and potential violations.

Marisa recently represented the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System in securing a $9.5 million settlement with Castlight Health, Inc. for securities violations in connection with the company’s initial public offering. She also served as legal adviser to the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund in In re Walgreen Co. Derivative Litigation, which secured significant corporate governance reforms and required Walgreens to extend its Drug Enforcement Agency commitments as part of the settlement related to the company’s violation of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Marisa worked for a nationally recognized securities litigation firm and devoted a substantial portion of her time to litigating securities fraud, derivative, mergers and acquisitions, consumer fraud, and qui tam actions. Over the course of those eight years she represented numerous pension funds, municipalities, and individual investors throughout the United States and she was an integral member of the legal teams that helped secure multimillion dollar settlements, including In re Managed Care Litigation ($135 million recovery); Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group ($70 million recovery); Michael v. SFBC International, Inc. ($28.5 million recovery); Ross v. Career Education Corporation ($27.5 million recovery); and Village of Dolton v. Taser International Inc. ($20 million recovery).

Marisa has been invited to speak on shareholder litigation-related matters, frequently lecturing on topics pertaining to securities fraud litigation, fiduciary responsibility, and corporate governance issues. Most recently, she testified before the Texas House of Representatives Pensions Committee to address the changing legal landscape public pensions have faced since the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision and highlighted the best practices for non-U.S. investment recovery. During the 2008 financial crisis, Marisa spoke widely on the subprime mortgage crisis and its disastrous effect on the pension fund community at regional and national conferences, and addressed the crisis’ global implications and related fraud to institutional investors internationally in Italy, France, and the United Kingdom. Marisa has also presented on issues pertaining to the federal regulatory response to the 2008 crisis, including implications of the Dodd-Frank legislation and the national debate on executive compensation and proxy access for shareholders. Marisa is an active member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA) and also a member of the Federal Bar Council, an organization of lawyers dedicated to promoting excellence in federal practice and fellowship among federal practitioners.

In the spring of 2006, Marisa was selected over 250,000 applicants to appear on the sixth season of The Apprentice, which aired on January 7, 2007, on NBC. As a result of her role on The Apprentice, Marisa has

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 46 of 67

appeared in numerous news media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, People magazine, and various national legal journals.

Marisa is admitted to practice in the State of Florida and the District of Columbia as well as before the United States District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Florida.

Thomas A. Dubbs, Partner [email protected]

Thomas A. Dubbs focuses on the representation of institutional investors in domestic and multinational securities cases. Recognized as a leading securities class action attorney, Tom has been named as a top litigator by Chambers & Partners for nine consecutive years.

Tom has served or is currently serving as lead or co-lead counsel in some of the most important federal securities class actions in recent years, including those against American International Group, Goldman Sachs, the Bear Stearns Companies, Facebook, Fannie Mae, Broadcom, and WellCare. Tom has also played an integral role in securing significant settlements in several high-profile cases including: In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (settlements totaling more than $1 billion); In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation ($275 million settlement with Bear Stearns Companies, plus a $19.9 million settlement with Deloitte & Touche LLP, Bear Stearns' outside auditor); In re HealthSouth Securities Litigation ($671 million settlement); Eastwood Enterprises LLC v. Farha et al. (WellCare Securities Litigation) (over $200 million settlement); In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation ($170 million settlement); In re Broadcom Corp. Securities Litigation ($160.5 million settlement with Broadcom, plus $13 million settlement with Ernst & Young LLP, Broadcom's outside auditor); In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation ($144.5 million settlement); In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation ($95 million settlement); and In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation ($79 million settlement).

Representing an affiliate of the Amalgamated Bank, the largest labor-owned bank in the United States, a team led by Tom successfully litigated a class action against Bristol-Myers Squibb, which resulted in a settlement of $185 million as well as major corporate governance reforms. He has argued before the United States Supreme Court and has argued 10 appeals dealing with securities or commodities issues before the United States Courts of Appeals.

Due to his reputation in securities law, Tom frequently lectures to institutional investors and other groups such as the Government Finance Officers Association, the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, and the Council of Institutional Investors. He is a prolific author of articles related to his field, and he recently penned “Textualism and Transnational Securities Law: A Reappraisal of Justice Scalia’s Analysis in Morrison v. National Australia Bank,” Southwestern Journal of International Law (2014). He has also written several columns in UK-wide publications regarding securities class action and corporate governance.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Tom was Senior Vice President & Senior Litigation Counsel for Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated, where he represented the company in many class actions, including the First Executive and Orange County litigation and was first chair in many securities trials. Before joining Kidder, Tom was head of the litigation department at Hall, McNicol, Hamilton & Clark, where he was the principal partner representing Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc. in many matters, including the Petro Lewis and Baldwin-United class actions.

In addition to his Chambers & Partners recognition, Tom was named a Leading Lawyer by The Legal 500, and inducted into its Hall of Fame, an honor presented to only three other plaintiffs securities litigation lawyers "who have received constant praise by their clients for continued excellence." Law360 also named him an "MVP of the Year" for distinction in class action litigation in 2012 and 2015, and he has been recognized by The National Law Journal, Lawdragon 500, and Benchmark Litigation as a Securities Litigation Star. Tom has received a rating of AV Preeminent from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell directory.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 47 of 67

Tom serves as a FINRA Arbitrator and is an Advisory Board Member for the Institute for Transnational Arbitration. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the American Law Institute, and he is a Patron of the American Society of International Law. He was previously a member of the Members Consultative Group for the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation and the Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law. Tom also serves on the Board of Directors for The Sidney Hillman Foundation.

Tom is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Christine M. Fox, Partner [email protected]

With more than a decade of securities litigation experience, Christine M. Fox prosecutes complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors. Christine is actively involved in litigating matters against CommVault Systems, Intuitive Surgical, and Horizon Pharma, PLC.

Christine has played a pivotal role in securing favorable settle for investors in class actions against Barrick Gold Corporation, one of the largest gold mining companies in the world ($140 million recovery); CVS Caremark, the nation’s largest pharmacy retail chain ($48 million recovery); Nu Skin Enterprises, a multilevel marketing company ($47 million recovery); and Genworth Financial, Inc. ($20 million recovery).

Prior to joining the Firm, Christine worked at a national litigation firm focusing on securities, antitrust, and consumer litigation in state and federal courts. She played a significant role in securing class action recoveries in a number of high-profile securities cases, including In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation ($475 million recovery); In re Informix Corp. Securities Litigation ($136.5 million recovery); In re Alcatel Alsthom Securities Litigation ($75 million recovery); and In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation ($33 million recovery).

Christine received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and her B.A. from Cornell University. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, and the Puerto Rican Bar Association.

Christine is conversant in Spanish.

Christine is admitted to the practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Jonathan Gardner, Partner [email protected]

With more than 25 years of experience, Jonathan Gardner leads one of the litigation teams at the Firm and prosecutes complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors. He has played an integral role in securing some of the largest class action recoveries against corporate offenders since the global financial crisis. Jonathan also serves as General Counsel to the Firm.

A Benchmark Litigation “Star” acknowledged by peers as “engaged and strategic,” Jonathan also was named an MVP by Law360 for securing hard-earned successes in high-stakes litigation and complex global matters. Recently, he led the Firm's team in the investigation and prosecution of In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, which resulted in a $140 million recovery. Jonathan has also served as the lead attorney in several cases resulting in significant recoveries for injured class members, including: In re Hewlett-Packard Company Securities Litigation, resulting in a $57 million recovery; Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corporation, resulting in a $48 million recovery; In re Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., Securities Litigation, resulting in a $47 million recovery; In

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 48 of 67

re Carter's Inc. Securities Litigation, resulting in a $23.3 million recovery against Carter's and certain of its officers as well as PricewaterhouseCoopers, its auditing firm; In re Aeropostale Inc. Securities Litigation, resulting in a $15 million recovery; In re Lender Processing Services Inc., involving claims of fraudulent mortgage processing which resulted in a $13.1 million recovery; and In re K-12, Inc. Securities Litigation, resulting in a $6.75 million recovery.

Recommended and described by The Legal 500 as having the "ability to master the nuances of securities class actions," Jonathan has led the Firm's representation of investors in many recent high-profile cases including Rubin v. MF Global Ltd., which involved allegations of material misstatements and omissions in a Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with MF Global's IPO in 2007. In November 2011, the case resulted in a recovery of $90 million for investors. Jonathan also represented lead plaintiff City of Edinburgh Council as Administering Authority of the Lothian Pension Fund in In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which resulted in settlements totaling exceeding $600 million against Lehman Brothers’ former officers and directors, Lehman’s former public accounting firm as well as the banks that underwrote Lehman Brothers’ offerings. In representing lead plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds in an action against Deutsche Bank, Jonathan secured a $32.5 million dollar recovery for a class of investors injured by the Bank’s conduct in connection with certain residential mortgage-backed securities.

Jonathan has also been responsible for prosecuting several of the Firm's options backdating cases, including In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation ($47.5 million settlement); In re SafeNet, Inc. Securities Litigation ($25 million settlement); In re Semtech Securities Litigation ($20 million settlement); and In re MRV Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation ($10 million settlement). He also was instrumental in In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, which settled for $117.5 million, one of the largest settlements or judgments in a securities fraud litigation based upon options backdating.

Jonathan also represented the Successor Liquidating Trustee of Lipper Convertibles, a convertible bond hedge fund, in actions against the fund's former independent auditor and a member of the fund's general partner as well as numerous former limited partners who received excess distributions. He successfully recovered over $5.2 million for the Successor Liquidating Trustee from the limited partners and $29.9 million from the former auditor.

He is a member of the Federal Bar Council, New York State Bar Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Jonathan is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

David J. Goldsmith, Partner [email protected]

David J. Goldsmith has nearly 20 years of experience representing public and private institutional investors in a variety of securities and class action litigations. A principal litigator at the Firm, David has twice been recommended by The Legal 500 as part of the Firm’s recognition as a top-tier plaintiffs firm in securities class action litigation.

David was an integral member of the team representing the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in a significant action alleging unfair and deceptive practices by State Street Bank in connection with foreign currency exchange trades executed for its custodial clients. The resulting $300 million settlement is the largest class action settlement ever reached under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, and one of the largest class action settlements reached in the First Circuit. David also represented the New York State Common Retirement Fund and New York City pension funds as lead plaintiffs in the landmark In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, which settled for $624 million. He has successfully represented state and county pension funds in class actions in California state court arising from the IPOs of

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 49 of 67

technology companies, and recovered tens of millions of dollars for a large German bank and a major Irish special-purpose vehicle in individual actions alleging fraud in connection with the sale of residential mortgage- backed securities. David’s representation of a hedge fund and individual investors as lead plaintiffs in an action concerning the well-publicized collapse of four Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds led to a $62 million settlement.

David regularly advises the Genesee County (Michigan) Employees' Retirement Commission with respect to potential securities, shareholder, and antitrust claims, and represents the System in a major action charging a conspiracy by some of the world’s largest banks to manipulate the U.S. Dollar ISDAfix benchmark interest rate. He is also currently prosecuting several securities class actions, including In re Eros International Securities Litigation, a case where the Firm exposed fraud and nepotism involving a Bollywood film production company, Tadros v. Celladon Corp., a case against a failed biotech company, and Shoemaker v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a case against a medical device manufacturer that recently settled a whistleblower action arising from the same alleged conduct.

In 2016, David participated in a panel moderated by Prof. Arthur Miller at the 22nd Annual Symposium of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy, discussing changes in Rule 23 since the 1966 Amendments. David is an active member of several professional organizations, including The National Association of Shareholder & Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), a membership organization of approximately 100 law firms that practice complex civil litigation including class actions, the American Association for Justice, New York State Bar Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

During law school, David was Managing Editor of the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal and served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, then a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

For many years, David has been a member of AmorArtis, a renowned choral organization with a diverse repertoire.

He is admitted to practice in the States of New York and New Jersey as well as before the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Colorado, and the Western District of Michigan.

Louis Gottlieb, Partner [email protected]

Louis Gottlieb focuses on representing institutional and individual investors in complex securities and consumer class action cases. He has played a key role in some of the most high-profile securities class actions in recent history, securing significant recoveries for plaintiffs and ensuring essential corporate governance reforms to protect future investors, consumers, and the general public.

Lou was integral in prosecuting In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (settlements totaling more than $1 billion) and In re 2008 Fannie Mae Securities Litigation ($170 million settlement pending final approval). He also helped lead major class action cases against the company and related defendants in In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. Securities Litigation ($150.5 million settlement). He has led successful litigation teams in securities fraud class action litigations against Metromedia Fiber Networks and Pricesmart, as well as consumer class actions against various life insurance companies.

In the Firm’s representation of the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds in In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lou’s efforts were essential in securing a $457 million settlement. The settlement also included important corporate governance enhancements, including an agreement by management to support a campaign to obtain shareholder approval of a resolution to declassify its board of directors, and a resolution to encourage and safeguard whistleblowers among the company’s employees. Acting on behalf of New York

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 50 of 67

City pension funds in In re Orbital Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation, Lou helped negotiate the implementation of measures concerning the review of financial results, the composition, role and responsibilities of the Company’s Audit and Finance committee, and the adoption of a Board resolution providing guidelines regarding senior executives’ exercise and sale of vested stock options.

Lou was a leading member of the team in the Napp Technologies Litigation that won substantial recoveries for families and firefighters injured in a chemical plant explosion. Lou has had a major role in national product liability actions against the manufacturers of orthopedic bone screws and atrial pacemakers, and in consumer fraud actions in the national litigation against tobacco companies.

A well-respected litigator, Lou has made presentations on punitive damages at Federal Bar Association meetings and has spoken on securities class actions for institutional investors.

Lou brings a depth of experience to his practice from both within and outside of the legal sphere. He graduated first in his class from St. John’s School of Law. Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, he clerked for the Honorable Leonard B. Wexler of the Eastern District of New York, and he worked as an associate at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

Lou is admitted to practice in the States of New York and Connecticut as well as before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Serena P. Hallowell, Partner [email protected]

Serena P. Hallowell leads the Direct Action Litigation Practice and focuses on complex litigation, prosecuting securities fraud cases on behalf of some of the world's largest institutional investors as well as investigations and litigation on behalf of governmental entities aimed at achieving significant financial recoveries and injunctive relief that remedies and deters fraudulent, illegal, or improper conduct. She is prosecuting In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International plc, and Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma PLC. She is also currently advising a number of institutional investors in connection with pursuing potential direct actions against a large pharmaceutical manufacturer. In addition to her litigation responsibilities, Serena serves as Co-Chair of the Firm's Women's Networking and Mentoring Initiative.

For the last two years Serena has been recommended by The Legal 500 in securities litigation. In 2016, she was named a Benchmark Litigation Rising Star and a Rising Star by Law360.

Serena was part of a highly skilled team that reached a $140 million settlement against one of the world's largest gold mining companies in In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation. Playing a principal role in prosecuting In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation in a "rocket docket" jurisdiction, she helped secure a settlement of $97.5 million on behalf of lead plaintiff Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, the third largest all cash settlement in the Fourth Circuit at the time. She was also instrumental in securing a $48 million recovery in Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corporation, as well as a $41.5 million settlement in In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. Serena also has broad appellate and trial experience.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Serena was an attorney at Ohrenstein & Brown LLP, where she participated in various federal and state commercial litigation matters. During her time there, she also defended financial companies in regulatory proceedings and assisted in high-profile litigation matters in connection with mutual funds trading investigations.

Serena received a J.D. from Boston University School of Law, where she served as the Note Editor for the Journal of Science & Technology Law. She earned a B.A. in Political Science from Occidental College.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 51 of 67

Serena is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the Federal Bar Council, and the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). She has also devoted time to pro bono work with the Securities Arbitration Clinic at Brooklyn Law School.

She is conversational in Urdu/Hindi.

Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr., Partner [email protected]

Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr. focuses on representing institutional investors in complex securities actions.

Thomas was instrumental in securing a $1 billion recovery in the eight-year litigation against AIG and related defendants. He also was a key member of the Labaton Sucharow team that recovered $170 million for investors in In re 2008 Fannie Mae Securities Litigation. Currently, Thomas is prosecuting cases against BP, Facebook, and American Express.

Thomas received a J.D. from UCLA School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review, and he served as a Moot Court Executive Board Member. In addition, he was a judicial extern to the Honorable William J. Rea, United States District Court for the Central District of California. Thomas earned a B.F.A., with honors, from New York University.

Thomas is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

James W. Johnson, Partner [email protected]

James W. Johnson focuses on complex securities fraud cases. In representing investors who have been victimized by securities fraud and breaches of fiduciary responsibility, Jim's advocacy has resulted in record recoveries for wronged investors. Currently, he is prosecuting high-profile cases against financial industry leader Goldman Sachs in In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Securities Litigation, and the world’s most popular social network, in In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation. In addition to his active caseload, Jim holds a variety of leadership positions within the Firm, including serving on the Firm’s Executive Committee and acting as the Firm’s Hiring Partner. He also serves as the Firm’s Executive Partner overseeing firmwide issues.

A recognized leader in his field, Jim has successfully litigated a number of complex securities and RICO class actions including: In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation ($275 million settlement with Bear Stearns Companies, plus a $19.9 million settlement with Deloitte & Touche LLP, Bear Stearns' outside auditor); In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation ($671 million settlement); Eastwood Enterprises LLC v. Farha et al. (WellCare Securities Litigation) ($200 million settlement); In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation ($185 million settlement), in which the court also approved significant corporate governance reforms and recognized plaintiff's counsel as "extremely skilled and efficient"; In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation ($95 million settlement); In re National Health Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, which resulted in a recovery of $80 million in the federal action and a related state court derivative action; and In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation ($79 million settlement).

In County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., Jim represented the plaintiff in a RICO class action, securing a jury verdict after a two-month trial that resulted in a $400 million settlement. The Second Circuit quoted the trial judge, Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, as stating "counsel [has] done a superb job [and] tried this case as well as I have ever seen any case tried." On behalf of the Chugach Native Americans, he also assisted in prosecuting environmental damage claims resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 52 of 67

Jim is a member of the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, where he served on the Federal Courts Committee, and he is a Fellow in the Litigation Council of America.

Jim has received a rating of AV Preeminent from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell directory.

He is admitted to practice in the States of New York and Illinois as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Districts of New York, and the Northern District of Illinois.

Edward Labaton, Partner [email protected]

An accomplished trial lawyer and partner with the Firm, Edward Labaton has devoted 50 years of practice to representing a full range of clients in class action and complex litigation matters in state and federal court. He is the recipient of the Alliance for Justice’s 2015 Champion of Justice Award, given to outstanding individuals whose life and work exemplifies the principle of equal justice.

Ed has played a leading role as plaintiffs' class counsel in a number of successfully prosecuted, high-profile cases, involving companies such as PepsiCo, Dun & Bradstreet, Financial Corporation of America, ZZZZ Best, Revlon, GAF Co., American Brands, Petro Lewis and Jim Walter, as well as several Big Eight (now Four) accounting firms. He has also argued appeals in state and federal courts, achieving results with important precedential value.

Ed has been President of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy (ILEP) since its founding in 1996. Each year, ILEP co-sponsors at least one symposium with a major law school dealing with issues relating to the civil justice system. In 2010, he was appointed to the newly formed Advisory Board of George Washington University's Center for Law, Economics, & Finance (C-LEAF), a think tank within the Law School, for the study and debate of major issues in economic and financial law confronting the United States and the globe. Ed is an Honorary Lifetime Member of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law, a member of the American Law Institute, and a life member of the ABA Foundation. In addition, he has served on the Executive Committee and has been an officer of the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund since its inception in 1996.

Ed is the past Chairman of the Federal Courts Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association, and was a member of the Board of Directors of that organization. He is an active member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, where he was Chair of the Senior Lawyers’ Committee and served on its Task Force on the Role of Lawyers in Corporate Governance. He has also served on its Federal Courts, Federal Legislation, Securities Regulation, International Human Rights, and Corporation Law Committees. He also served as Chair of the Legal Referral Service Committee, a joint committee of the New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He has been an active member of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Council, and the New York State Bar Association, where he has served as a member of the House of Delegates.

For more than 30 years, he has lectured on many topics including federal civil litigation, securities litigation, and corporate governance.

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Central District of Illinois.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 53 of 67

Christopher J. McDonald, Partner [email protected]

Christopher J. McDonald focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases. Chris also works with the Firm’s Antitrust & Competition Litigation Practice, representing businesses, associations, and individuals injured by anticompetitive activities and unfair business practices.

Most recently, he served as lead counsel in In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation, a case against global biotechnology company Amgen and certain of its former executives, resulting in a $95 million settlement. He served as co-lead counsel in In re Schering-Plough Corporation / ENHANCE Securities Litigation, which resulted in a $473 million settlement, one of the largest securities class action settlement ever against a pharmaceutical company and among the ten largest recoveries ever in a securities class action that did not involve a financial reinstatement. He was also an integral part of the team that successfully litigated In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, where Labaton Sucharow secured a $185 million settlement, as well as significant corporate governance reforms, on behalf of Bristol-Myers shareholders.

In the antitrust field, Chris was most recently co-lead counsel in In re TriCor Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, obtaining a $65.7 million settlement on behalf of the class.

Chris began his legal career at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, where he gained extensive trial experience in areas ranging from employment contract disputes to false advertising claims. Later, as a senior attorney with a telecommunications company, Chris advocated before government regulatory agencies on a variety of complex legal, economic, and public policy issues. Since joining Labaton Sucharow, Chris’ practice has developed a focus on life sciences industries; his cases often involve pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or medical device companies accused of wrongdoing.

During his time at Fordham University School of Law, Chris was a member of the Law Review. He is currently a member of the New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Chris is admitted to practice in the State of New York and the United States Supreme Court. He is also admitted before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Third, Ninth, and Federal Circuit, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Western District of Michigan.

Michael H. Rogers, Partner [email protected]

Michael H. Rogers focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors. Currently, Mike is actively involved in prosecuting In re Goldman Sachs, Inc. Securities Litigation; 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.; Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Markets, Inc.; Vancouver Asset Alumni Holdings, Inc. v. Daimler AG; Jyotindra Patel v. Cigna Corp.; and In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Since joining Labaton Sucharow, Mike has been a member of the lead counsel teams in federal class actions against Countrywide Financial Corp. ($624 million settlement), HealthSouth Corp. ($671 million settlement), State Street ($300 million settlement), Mercury Interactive Corp. ($117.5 million settlement), and Computer Sciences Corp. ($97.5 million settlement).

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Mike was an attorney at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, where he practiced securities and antitrust litigation, representing international banking institutions bringing federal securities and other claims against major banks, auditing firms, ratings agencies and individuals in complex multidistrict litigation. He also represented an international chemical shipping firm in arbitration of antitrust and other claims against conspirator ship owners.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 54 of 67

Mike began his career as an attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell, where he was part of Microsoft’s defense team in the remedies phase of the Department of Justice antitrust action against the company.

Mike received a J.D., magna cum laude, from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where he was a member of the Cardozo Law Review. He earned a B.A., magna cum laude, in Literature-Writing from Columbia University.

Mike is proficient in Spanish.

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Ira A. Schochet, Partner [email protected]

A seasoned litigator with three decades of experience, Ira A. Schochet focuses on class actions involving securities fraud. Ira has played a lead role in securing multimillion dollar recoveries and major corporate governance reforms in high-profile cases such as those against Countrywide Financial, Boeing, Massey Energy, Caterpillar, Spectrum Information Technologies, InterMune, and Amkor Technology.

A longtime leader in the securities class action bar, Ira represented one of the first institutional investors acting as a lead plaintiff in a post-Private Securities Litigation Reform Act case and ultimately obtained one of the first rulings interpreting the statute's intent provision in a manner favorable to investors. His efforts are regularly recognized by the courts, including in Kamarasy v. Coopers & Lybrand, where the court remarked on "the superior quality of the representation provided to the class." Further, in approving the settlement he achieved in the InterMune litigation, the court complimented Ira's ability to secure a significant recovery for the class in a very efficient manner, shielding the class from prolonged litigation and substantial risk.

Ira has also played a key role in groundbreaking cases in the field of merger and derivative litigation. In In re Freeport-McMoRAn Copper &Gold Inc. Derivative Litigation, he achieved the second largest derivative settlement in the Delaware Court of Chancery history, a $153.75 million settlement with an unprecedented provision of direct payments to stockholders by means of a special dividend. In another first-of-its-kind case, Ira was featured in The AmLaw Litigation Daily as Litigator of the Week for his work in In re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation. The action alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with a merger transaction, including specific reference to wrongdoing by a conflicted financial advisory consultant, and resulted in a $110 million recovery for a class of shareholders and a waiver by the consultant of its fee.

From 2009-2011, Ira served as President of the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), a membership organization of approximately 100 law firms that practice class action and complex civil litigation. During this time, he represented the plaintiffs' securities bar in meetings with members of Congress, the Administration, and the SEC.

From 1996 through 2012, Ira served as Chairman of the Class Action Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association. During his tenure, he has served on the Executive Committee of the Section and authored important papers on issues relating to class action procedure including revisions proposed by both houses of Congress and the Advisory Committee on Civil Procedure of the United States Judicial Conference. Examples include: "Proposed Changes in Federal Class Action Procedure," "Opting Out On Opting In," and "The Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999."

He also has lectured extensively on securities litigation at continuing legal education seminars. He has also been awarded an AV Preeminent rating, the highest distinction, from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell directory.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 55 of 67

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Central District of Illinois, the Northern District of Texas, and the Western District of Michigan.

Michael W. Stocker, Partner [email protected]

Representing institutional investors and consumers as co-chair of one of the Firm’s litigation teams, Michael W. Stocker prosecutes securities, data privacy, antitrust, and consumer class actions. Recognized by The Legal 500 in the fields of securities, M&A, and antitrust litigation, Mike was also named a Securities Litigation Star by Benchmark Litigation.

Mike played an instrumental part of the team that took on American International Group, Inc. and 21 other defendants. The Firm negotiated a recovery of more than $1 billion. He was also key in litigating In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, where the Firm secured a $275 million settlement with Bear Stearns, plus a $19.9 million settlement with the company's outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP. In a case against one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, In re Abbott Laboratories Norvir Antitrust Litigation, Mike played a leadership role in litigating a landmark action arising at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law.

He currently spearheads several securities class actions, including In re Eros International Securities Litigation, a case where we exposed a drama of fraud and nepotism involving a leading Bollywood film production/distribution company; Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp., a sprawling class action against a major industrial goods company in the aerospace and defense industry; Shoemaker v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a case against a manufacturer of medical devices that recently settled a significant qui tam action arising from the same conduct; and In re CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, a class action against a maker of chip- enabled financial cards that allegedly misled investors by overselling its product prior to a $172.5 million IPO.

With the rise of cybersecurity risks in corporate America, Mike has leveraged his experience to advise boards and investors on the possible implications of data breaches for corporate fiduciaries. Most recently, Mike chaired a Practising Law Institute panel advising regulators and corporate counsel regarding widespread data breaches and the potential exposure of management. He has been selected to serve as one of three panelists for Skytop Strategies’ Cyber Risk Governance Conference panel to discuss issues related to cybersecurity and securities litigation, and will serve as panelist in a teleconference that will address confronting the challenge of cybersecurity from an investor’s perspective, hosted by the Council of Institutional Investors. Mike also recently co-authored “Cyber Threats and Securities Litigation: The Emerging Landscape” in Thomson Reuters Westlaw Journal Securities Litigation & Regulation.

Earlier in his career, Mike served as a senior staff attorney with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and completed a legal externship with federal Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, currently sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He earned a B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, a Master of Criminology from the University of Sydney, and a J.D. from University of California's Hastings College of the Law.

He is an active member of the National Association of Public Pension Plan Attorneys (NAPPA), the New York State Bar Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Since 2013, Mike has served on Law360's Securities Editorial Advisory Board, advising on timely and interesting topics warranting media coverage. For three consecutive years (2015-2017), the Council of Institutional Investors has appointed Mike to the Markets Advisory Council, which provides input on legal, financial reporting, and investment market trends. In 2016, he was elected as a member of The American Law Institute, the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law. Mike also serves on the Advisory Committee for the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance of the University of Delaware, one of the longest-standing corporate governance centers in academia.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 56 of 67

He is admitted to practice in the States of California and New York as well as before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Carol C. Villegas, Partner [email protected]

Carol C. Villegas focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors. Leading one of the Firm’s litigation teams, she currently oversees litigation against Nimble Storage, Liquidity Services, Inc., Extreme Networks, Inc., SanDisk, and Advanced Micro Devices, where she is the lead discovery attorney. Currently, she is litigating cases against Nimble Storage, Liquidity Services, Inc., and Advanced Micro Devices. In addition to her litigation responsibilities, Carol also serves as Co-Chair of the Firm's Women's Networking and Mentoring Initiative.

Carol’s skillful handling of discovery work, her development of innovative case theories in complex cases, and her adept ability during oral argument earned her recent accolades from the New York Law Journal as a Top Woman in Law as well as a Rising Star by Benchmark Litigation.

Carol played a pivotal role in securing favorable settlements for investors from Aeropostale, a leader in the international retail apparel industry, ViroPharma Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, and Vocera, a healthcare communications provider. A true advocate for her clients, Carol’s argument in the case against Vocera resulted in a ruling from the bench, denying defendants motion to dismiss in that case.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Carol served as the Assistant District Attorney in the Supreme Court Bureau for the Richmond County District Attorney's office, where she took several cases to trial. She began her career as an associate at King & Spalding LLP where she worked as a federal litigator in the Intellectual Property practice group.

Carol received a J.D. from New York University School of Law, and she was the recipient of The Irving H. Jurow Achievement Award for the Study of Law and selected to receive the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Minority Fellowship. Carol served as the Staff Editor, and later the Notes Editor, of the Environmental Law Journal. She earned a B.A., with honors, in English and Politics from New York University.

Carol is a member of National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA), the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and a member of the Executive Council for the New York State Bar Association's Committee on Women in the Law. She also devotes time to pro bono work with the Securities Arbitration Clinic at Brooklyn Law School.

Carol is admitted to practice in the States of New York and New Jersey as well as before the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Colorado, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

She is fluent in Spanish.

Irina Vasilchenko, Partner [email protected]

Irina Vasilchenko focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors.

Currently, Irina is actively involved in prosecuting In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, and In re Eaton Corporation Securities Litigation. Since joining Labaton Sucharow, she has been part of the Firm's teams in In re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation, where the Firm obtained a $265 million all-cash settlement with Alpha Natural Resources, Massey's parent

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 57 of 67

company; In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation ($170 million settlement); In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation ($95 million settlement); and In re Hewlett-Packard Company Securities Litigation ($57 million settlement).

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Irina was an associate in the general litigation practice group at Ropes & Gray LLP, where she focused on securities litigation.

Irina maintains a commitment to pro bono legal service including, most recently, representing an indigent defendant in a criminal appeal case before the New York First Appellate Division, in association with the Office of the Appellate Defender. As part of this representation, she argued the appeal before the First Department panel.

Irina received a J.D., magna cum laude, from Boston University School of Law, where she was an editor of the Boston University Law Review and was the G. Joseph Tauro Distinguished Scholar (2005), the Paul L. Liacos Distinguished Scholar (2006), and the Edward F. Hennessey Scholar (2007). Irina earned a B.A. in Comparative Literature with Distinction, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Yale University.

She is fluent in Russian and proficient in Spanish.

Irina is admitted to practice in the State of New York and the State of Massachusetts as well as before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Ned Weinberger, Partner [email protected]

Ned Weinberger is Chair of the Firm’s Corporate Governance and Shareholder Rights Litigation Practice. An experienced advocate of shareholder rights, Ned focuses on representing investors in corporate governance and transactional matters, including class action and derivative litigation. Ned was recognized by Chambers & Partners USA in the Delaware Court of Chancery and was named "Up and Coming," noting his impressive range of practice areas. He was also recently named a "Leading Lawyer" by The Legal 500 and a Rising Star by Benchmark Litigation.

Ned is currently prosecuting, among other matters, In re Straight Path Communications Inc. Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, which alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the controlling stockholder of Straight Path Communications, Howard Jonas, in connection with the company’s proposed sale to Verizon Communications Inc. He also leads a class and derivative action on behalf of stockholders of Providence Service Corporation— Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley—that challenges an acquisition financing arrangement involving Providence’s board chairman and his hedge fund. The case recently settled for $10 million, and is currently pending court approval.

Ned was part of a team that achieved a $12 million recovery on behalf of stockholders of ArthroCare Corporation in a case alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the ArthroCare board of directors and other defendants in connection with Smith & Nephew, Inc.’s acquisition of ArthroCare. Other recent successes on behalf of stockholders include In re Vaalco Energy Inc. Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, which resulted in the invalidation of charter and bylaw provisions that interfered with stockholders’ fundamental right to remove directors without cause.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Ned was a litigation associate at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. where he gained substantial experience in all aspects of investor protection, including representing shareholders in matters relating to securities fraud, mergers and acquisitions, and alternative entities. Representative of Ned's experience in the Delaware Court of Chancery is In re Barnes & Noble Stockholders Derivative Litigation, in which Ned assisted in obtaining approximately $29 million in settlements on behalf of Barnes & Noble investors. Ned was also part of the litigation team in In re Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. Shareholder

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 58 of 67

Litigation, the settlement of which provided numerous benefits for Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings and its shareholders, including, among other things, a $200 million cash dividend to the company's shareholders.

Ned received his J.D. from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville where he served on the Journal of Law and Education. He earned his B.A. in English Literature, cum laude, at Miami University.

Ned is admitted to practice in the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York as well as before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Mark S. Willis, Partner [email protected]

With nearly three decades of experience, Mark S. Willis’ practice focuses on domestic and international securities litigation. Mark advises leading pension funds, investment managers, and other institutional investors from around the world on their legal remedies when impacted by securities fraud and corporate governance breaches. Mark represents clients in U.S. litigation and maintains a significant practice advising clients of their legal rights abroad to pursue securities-related claims.

Mark represents institutions from the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and the United States in a novel lawsuit in Texas against BP plc to salvage claims that were dismissed from the U.S. class action because the claimants’ BP shares were purchased abroad (thus running afoul of the Supreme Court’s Morrison rule that precludes a U.S. legal remedy for such shares). These previously dismissed claims have now been sustained and are being pursued under English law in a Texas federal court.

Mark also represents Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, one of Canada’s largest institutional investors, in an ongoing U.S. shareholder class action against Liquidity Services, the Utah Retirement Systems in a shareholder action against the DeVry Education Group, and he represented the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System in a shareholder action against The Bancorp (which settled for $17.5 million).

In the Converium class action, Mark represented a Greek institution in a nearly four-year battle that eventually became the first U.S. class action settled on two continents. This trans-Atlantic result saw part of the $145 million recovery approved by a federal court in New York, and the rest by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The Dutch portion was resolved using the Netherlands then newly enacted Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims. In doing so, the Dutch Court issued a landmark decision that substantially broadened its jurisdictional reach, extending jurisdiction for the first time to a scenario in which the claims were not brought under Dutch law, the alleged wrongdoing took place outside the Netherlands, and none of the potentially liable parties were domiciled in the Netherlands.

In the corporate governance arena, Mark has represented both U.S. and overseas investors. In a shareholder derivative action against Abbott Laboratories’ directors, he charged the defendants with mismanagement and fiduciary breaches for causing or allowing the company to engage in a 10-year off-label marketing scheme, which had resulted in a $1.6 billion payment pursuant to a Justice Department investigation—at the time the second largest in history for a pharmaceutical company. In the derivative action, the company agreed to implement sweeping corporate governance reforms, including an extensive compensation clawback provision going beyond the requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as the restructuring of a board committee and enhancing the role of the Lead Director. In the Parmalat case, known as the “Enron of Europe” due to the size and scope of the fraud, Mark represented a group of European institutions and eventually recovered nearly $100 million and negotiated governance reforms with two large European banks who, as part of the settlement, agreed to endorse their future adherence to key corporate governance principles designed to advance investor protection and to minimize the likelihood of future deceptive transactions. Securing governance reforms from a defendant that was not an issuer was a first at that time in a shareholder fraud class action.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 59 of 67

Mark has also represented clients in opt-out actions. In one, brought on behalf of the Utah Retirement Systems, Mark negotiated a settlement that was nearly four times more than what its client would have received had it participated in the class action.

On non-U.S. actions Mark has advised clients, and represented their interests as liaison counsel, in more than 30 cases against companies such as Volkswagen, Olympus, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Lloyds Banking Group, and Petrobras, and in jurisdictions ranging from the UK to Japan to Australia to Brazil to Germany.

Mark has written on corporate, securities, and investor protection issues—often with an international focus—in industry publications such as International Law News, Professional Investor, European Lawyer, and Investment & Pensions Europe. He has also authored several chapters in international law treatises on European corporate law and on the listing and subsequent disclosure obligations for issuers listing on European stock exchanges. He also speaks at conferences and at client forums on investor protection through the U.S. federal securities laws, corporate governance measures, and the impact on shareholders of non-U.S. investor remedies.

He is admitted to practice in the State of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, as well as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nicole M. Zeiss, Partner [email protected]

A litigator with nearly two decades of experience, Nicole M. Zeiss leads the Settlement Group at Labaton Sucharow, analyzing the fairness and adequacy of the procedures used in class action settlements. Her practice includes negotiating and documenting complex class action settlements and obtaining the required court approval of the settlements, notice procedures, and payments of attorneys' fees.

Over the past year, Nicole was actively involved in finalizing settlements with Massey Energy Company ($265 million), Fannie Mae ($170 million), and Hewlett-Packard Company ($57 million), among others.

Nicole was part of the Labaton Sucharow team that successfully litigated the $185 million settlement in In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, and she played a significant role in In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation ($47.5 million settlement). Nicole also litigated on behalf of investors who have been damaged by fraud in the telecommunications, hedge fund, and banking industries.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Nicole practiced in the area of poverty law at MFY Legal Services. She also worked at Gaynor & Bass practicing general complex civil litigation, particularly representing the rights of freelance writers seeking copyright enforcement.

Nicole maintains a commitment to pro bono legal services by continuing to assist mentally ill clients in a variety of matters—from eviction proceedings to trust administration.

She received a J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Barnard College.

Nicole is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

She is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the District of Colorado.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 60 of 67

Rachel A. Avan, Of Counsel [email protected]

Rachel A. Avan prosecutes complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors. She focuses on advising institutional investor clients regarding fraud-related losses on securities, and on the investigation and development of U.S. and non-U.S. securities fraud class, group, and individual actions. Rachel manages the Firm’s Non-U.S. Securities Litigation Practice, which is dedicated to analyzing the merits, risks, and benefits of potential claims outside the United States. She has played a key role in ensuring that the Firm’s clients receive substantial recoveries through non-U.S. securities litigation.

In evaluating new and potential matters, Rachel draws on her extensive experience as a securities litigator. She was an active member of the team prosecuting the securities fraud class action against Satyam Computer Services, Inc., in In re Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Securities Litigation, dubbed "India's Enron." That case achieved a $150.5 million settlement for investors from the company and its auditors. She also had an instrumental part in the pleadings in a number of class actions including, In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation ($140 million settlement); Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. ($47 million recovery); and Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund v. NII Holdings, Inc. ($41.5 million recovery).

Rachel has spearheaded the filing of more than 75 motions for lead plaintiff appointment in U.S. securities class actions including, In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Securities & Derivative Litigation; In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation; In re Petrobras Securities Litigation; In re Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation; Weston v. RCS Capital Corporation; and Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc.

In addition to her securities class action litigation experience, Rachel also played a role in prosecuting several of the Firm’s derivative matters, including In re Barnes & Noble Stockholder Derivative Litigation; In re Coca- Cola Enterprises Inc. Shareholders Litigation; and In re The Student Loan Corporation Litigation.

Rachel brings to the Firm valuable insight into corporate matters, having served as an associate at Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, where she counseled domestic and international public companies regarding compliance with federal and state securities laws. Her analysis of corporate securities filings is also informed by her previous work assisting with the preparation of responses to inquiries by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Rachel earned her B.A., cum laude, in Philosophy and English and American Literature from Brandeis University in 2000, and her M.A. in English and American Literature from Boston University in 2002. She received her J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2006.

Before entering law school, Rachel enjoyed a career in editing for a Boston-based publishing company.

Rachel is proficient in Hebrew. Rachel is admitted to practice in the States of New York and Connecticut as well as before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mark Bogen, Of Counsel [email protected]

Mark Bogen advises leading pension funds and other institutional investors on issues related to corporate fraud in domestic and international securities markets. His work focuses on securities, antitrust, and consumer class action litigation, representing Taft-Hartley and public pension funds across the country.

Among his many efforts to protect his clients’ interests and maximize shareholder value, Mark recently helped bring claims against and secure a settlement with Abbott Laboratories’ directors, whereby the company agreed to implement sweeping corporate governance reforms, including an extensive compensation clawback provision going beyond the requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 61 of 67

Mark has written weekly legal columns for the Sun-Sentinel, one of the largest daily newspapers circulated in Florida. He has been legal counsel to the American Association of Professional Athletes, an association of over 4,000 retired professional athletes. He has also served as an Assistant State Attorney and as a Special Assistant to the State Attorney’s Office in the State of Florida.

Mark obtained his J.D. from Loyola University School of Law. He received his B.A. in Political Science from the University of Illinois.

He is admitted to practice in the States of Illinois and Florida.

Joseph H. Einstein, Of Counsel [email protected]

A seasoned litigator, Joseph H. Einstein represents clients in complex corporate disputes, employment matters, and general commercial litigation. He has litigated major cases in the state and federal courts and has argued many appeals, including appearing before the United States Supreme Court.

His experience encompasses extensive work in the computer software field including licensing and consulting agreements. Joe also counsels and advises business entities in a broad variety of transactions.

Joe serves as an official mediator for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He is an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association and FINRA. Joe is a former member of the New York State Bar Association Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules and the Council on Judicial Administration of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He currently is a member of the Arbitration Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

During Joe’s time at New York University School of Law, he was a Pomeroy and Hirschman Foundation Scholar, and served as an Associate Editor of the Law Review.

Joe has been awarded an AV Preeminent rating, the highest distinction, from the publishers of the Martindale- Hubbell directory.

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First and Second Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Mark Goldman, Of Counsel [email protected]

Mark S. Goldman has 30 years of experience in commercial litigation, primarily litigating class actions involving securities fraud, consumer fraud, and violations of federal and state antitrust laws.

Mark is currently prosecuting securities fraud claims on behalf of institutional and individual investors against the manufacturer of communications systems used by hospitals that allegedly misrepresented the impact of the ACA and budget sequestration of the company's sales, and a multi-layer marketing company that allegedly misled investors about its business structure in China. Mark is also participating in litigation brought against international air cargo carriers charged with conspiring to fix fuel and security surcharges, and domestic manufacturers of various auto parts charged with price-fixing.

Mark successfully litigated a number of consumer fraud cases brought against insurance companies challenging the manner in which they calculated life insurance premiums. He also prosecuted a number of insider trading cases brought against company insiders who, in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, engaged in short swing trading. In addition, Mark participated in the prosecution of In re AOL Time Warner Securities Litigation, a massive securities fraud case that settled for $2.5 billion.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 62 of 67

He is admitted to practice in the State of Pennsylvania, the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Colorado, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Lara Goldstone, Of Counsel [email protected]

Lara Goldstone advises pension funds and other institutional investors on issues related to corporate fraud in the U.S. securities markets. Before joining Labaton Sucharow, Lara worked as a legal intern in the Larimer County District Attorney’s Office and the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office.

Prior to her legal career, Lara worked at Industrial Labs where she worked closely with Federal Drug Administration standards and regulations. In addition, she was a teacher in Irvine, California.

Lara received a J.D. from University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where she was a judge of The Providence Foundation of Law & Leadership Mock Trial and a competitor of the Daniel S. Hoffman Trial Advocacy Competition. She earned a B.A. from The George Washington University where she was a recipient of a Presidential Scholarship for academic excellence. She earned a B.A. from The George Washington University where she was a recipient of a Presidential Scholarship for academic excellence.

Lara is admitted to practice in the State of Colorado.

Francis P. McConville, Of Counsel [email protected]

Francis P. McConville focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investor clients. As a lead member of the Firm's Case Development Group, he focuses on the identification, investigation, and development of potential actions to recover investment losses resulting from violations of the federal securities laws and various actions to vindicate shareholder rights in response to corporate and fiduciary misconduct.

Most recently, Francis has played a key role in filing several matters on behalf of the Firm including, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc.; Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox Corporation; In re Target Corporation Securities Litigation; City of Warwick Municipal Employees Pension Fund v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc.; and Frankfurt-Trust Investment Luxemburg AG v. United Technologies Corporation.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Francis was a litigation associate at a national law firm primarily focused on securities and consumer class action litigation. Francis has represented institutional and individual clients in federal and state court across the country in class action securities litigation and shareholder disputes, along with a variety of commercial litigation matters. He assisted in the prosecution of several matters, including Kiken v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. ($42 million recovery); Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. ($23.5 million recovery); and In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation ($20 million recovery).

Francis received his J.D. from New York Law School, magna cum laude, where he served as Associate Managing Editor of the New York Law School Law Review, worked in the Urban Law Clinic, named a John Marshall Harlan Scholar, and received a Public Service Certificate. He earned his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame.

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of Colorado, and the Eastern District of Michigan.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 63 of 67

James McGovern, Of Counsel [email protected]

James McGovern advises leading pension funds and other institutional investors on issues related to corporate fraud in domestic and international securities markets. His work focuses primarily on securities litigation and corporate governance, representing Taft-Hartley, public pension funds, and other institutional investors across the country in domestic securities actions. He also advises clients as to their potential claims tied to securities- related actions in foreign jurisdictions.

James has worked on a number of large securities class action matters, including In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, the second-largest securities class action settlement since the passage of the PSLRA ($6.1 billion recovery); In re Parmalat Securities Litigation ($90 million recovery); In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation (amount of the opt-out client’s recovery is confidential); In re The Bancorp Inc. Securities Litigation ($17.5 million recovery); In re Pozen Securities Litigation ($11.2 million recovery); In re Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation ($10.5 million settlement); and In re UICI Securities Litigation ($6.5 million recovery).

In the corporate governance arena, James helped bring claims against Abbott Laboratories’ directors, on account of their mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duties for allowing the company to engage in a 10- year off-label marketing scheme. Upon settlement of this action, the company agreed to implement sweeping corporate governance reforms, including an extensive compensation clawback provision going beyond the requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Following the unprecedented takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the federal government in 2008, James was retained by a group of individual and institutional investors to seek recovery of the massive losses they had incurred when the value of their shares in these companies was essentially destroyed. He brought and continues to litigate a complex takings class action against the federal government for depriving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders of their property interests in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and causing damages in the tens of billions of dollars.

James also has addressed members of several public pension associations, including the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems and the Michigan Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, where he discussed how institutional investors could guard their assets against the risks of corporate fraud and poor corporate governance.

Prior to focusing his practice on plaintiffs’ securities litigation, James was an attorney at Latham & Watkins where he worked on complex litigation and FIFRA arbitrations, as well as matters relating to corporate bankruptcy and project finance. At that time, he co-authored two articles on issues related to bankruptcy filings: Special Issues In Partnership and Limited Liability Company Bankruptcies and When Things Go Bad: The Ramifications of a Bankruptcy Filing.

James earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center. He received his B.A. and M.B.A. from American University, where he was awarded a Presidential Scholarship and graduated with high honors.

He is admitted to practice in the State of Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Domenico Minerva, Of Counsel [email protected]

Domenico “Nico” Minerva advises leading pension funds and other institutional investors on issues related to corporate fraud in the U.S. securities markets. A former financial advisor, his work focuses on securities, antitrust, and consumer class action litigation and shareholder derivative litigation, representing Taft-Hartley and public pension funds across the country.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 64 of 67

Nico’s extensive experience litigating securities cases includes those against global securities systems company Tyco and co-defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers (In re Tyco International Ltd., Securities Litigation), which resulted in a $3.2 billion settlement, achieving the largest single defendant settlement in post-PSLRA history. He also has counseled companies and institutional investors on corporate governance reform.

Nico has also done substantial work in antitrust class actions in pay-for-delay or “product hopping” cases in which pharmaceutical companies allegedly obstructed generic competitors in order to preserve monopoly profits on patented drugs, including Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, In re Solodyn (MinocyclineHydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, and Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund et al. v. Actavis PLC et al. In an anticompetitive antitrust matter, The Infirmary LLC vs. National Football League Inc et al., Nico played a part in challenging an exclusivity agreement between the NFL and DirectTV over the service’s “NFL Sunday Ticket” package, and he litigated on behalf of indirect purchasers of potatoes in a case alleging that growers conspired to control and suppress the nation’s potato supply In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation.

On behalf of consumers, Nico represented a plaintiff in In Re ConAgra Foods Inc. over its claims that Wesson- brand vegetable oils are 100 percent natural.

An accomplished speaker, Nico has given numerous presentations to investors on a variety of topics of interest regarding corporate fraud, wrongdoing, and waste. He is also an active member of the National Association of Public Pension Plan Attorneys (NAPPA).

Nico obtained his J.D. from Tulane University Law School, where he also completed a two-year externship with the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He earned his B.S. in Business Administration from the University of Florida.

Nico is admitted to practice in the state courts of New York and Delaware, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.

Corban S. Rhodes, Of Counsel [email protected]

Corban S. Rhodes focuses on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors, as well as consumer data privacy litigation.

Currently, Corban represents shareholders litigating fraud-based claims against TerraVia (formerly Solazyme) and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. He has successfully litigated dozens of cases against most of the largest Wall Street banks in connection with their underwriting and securitization of mortgage-backed securities leading up to the financial crisis.

Corban is also pursuing a number of matters involving consumer data privacy, including cases of intentional misuse or misappropriation of consumer data, and cases of negligence or other malfeasance leading to data breaches, including In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation and Schwartz v. Yahoo Inc.

Before joining Labaton Sucharow, Corban was an associate at Sidley Austin LLP where he practiced complex commercial litigation and securities regulation. He has served as the lead associate on behalf of large financial institutions in several investigations by regulatory and enforcement agencies related to the recent financial crisis. He also received a Thurgood Marshall Award in 2008 for his pro bono representation on a habeas petition of a capital punishment sentence.

Corban co-authored “Parmalat Judge: Fraud by Former Executives of Bankrupt Company Bars Trustee’s Claims Against Auditors,” published by the American Bar Association.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 65 of 67

Corban received a J.D., cum laude, from Fordham University School of Law, where he received the 2007 Lawrence J. McKay Advocacy Award for excellence in oral advocacy and was a board member of the Fordham Moot Court team. He earned his B.A., magna cum laude, in History from Boston College.

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as well as before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

David J. Schwartz, Of Counsel [email protected]

David J. Schwartz’s practice focuses on event driven, special situation, and illiquid asset litigation, using legal strategies to enhance clients’ investment return.

His extensive experience includes prosecuting as well as defending against securities and corporate governance actions for an array of institutional clients including pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, and asset management companies. He played a pivotal role against real estate service provider Altisource Portfolio Solutions, where he helped achieve a $32 million cash settlement.

David has done substantial work in mergers and acquisitions appraisal litigation, representing institutional clients in connection with the $8.9 billion merger of Towers Watson & Co. with Willis Group Holdings plc.; the $15 billion acquisition of Jarden Corporation by Newell Rubbermaid Inc.; the $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. by TransCanada Corporation; and the $2.2 billion acquisition of Diamond Resorts by Apollo Global.

David obtained his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he served as an editor of the Urban Law Journal. He received his B.A. in economics from the University of Chicago.

He is admitted to practice in the State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 66 of 67

Exhibit I Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-4 Filed 01/23/18 Page 67 of 67

1 EXHIBIT I

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

3 Labaton Sucharow LLP

4 Inception through January 12, 2018

5 6 LITIGATION EXPENSE FUND 7 DEPOSITS: TOTALS 8 Labaton Sucharow LLP $812,275.00 9 Motley Rice LLC $847,065.00 10 Bernstein Liebhard LLP $144,290.00 TOTAL DEPOSITS $1,803,630.00 11

12 EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE LITIGATION EXPENSE FUND:

13 Experts $1,668,353.87 14 Accounting $706,560.71 Damages $510,677.91 15 Industry $448,110.30 16 Research Material $3,004.95 Court and Deposition Reporting Services $84,908.44 17 Process Service/Court Fees $1,760.00 18 Mediation $35,147.23 Litigation Support $13,056.35 19 Counsel for Confidential Witnesses $56,990.09 20

21 TOTAL EXPENSES OF LITIGATION FUND $1,860,215.98 22 BALANCE REMAINING IN LITIGATION EXPENSE FUND 23 ($56,585.98) AS OF JANUARY 12, 2018 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC) 8 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER FILED ON BEHALF OF LABATON SUCHAROW LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 62

Exhibit 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 62

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 1 BERNSTEIN, LLP Katherine C. Lubin (State Bar No. 259826) 2 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 3 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 4 Liaison Counsel 5 6 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP MOTLEY RICE LLC 7 Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice) James M. Hughes (pro hac vice) Carol C. Villegas (pro hac vice) William S. Norton (pro hac vice) 8 Alec T. Coquin (pro hac vice) Max N. Gruetzmacher (pro hac vice) 140 Broadway Michael J. Pendell (pro hac vice) 9 New York, NY 10005 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 10 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 11 12 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class Co-Lead Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 15 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) 16 SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 17 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF JAMES M. 18 HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF v. MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF 19 APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 20 RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. Date: Feb. 27, 2018 21 SU, Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor 22 Defendants. Judge: The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 62

I, James M. Hughes, declare as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1 2 1. I am a member of Motley Rice LLC (“Motley Rice” or the “firm”). I am 3 submitting this declaration in support of Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’

4 Fees and Payment of Litigation Expenses, in connection with the firm’s services rendered in the 5 above-entitled Action. 6 2. Motley Rice is a court-appointed Class Counsel in this Action and is counsel of 7 record for court-appointed Class Representative KBC Asset Management NV. 8 3. The information in this declaration regarding the firm’s time and expenses is 9 10 taken from time and expense reports and supporting documentation prepared and/or maintained

11 by the firm in the ordinary course of business. These reports (and backup documentation where

12 necessary) were reviewed in connection with the preparation of this declaration. The purpose of 13 this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the entries in the reports as well as the necessity 14 for, and reasonableness of, the time and expenses committed to the litigation. As a result of this 15 review, reductions were made to both time and expenses in the exercise of billing judgment. As 16 17 a result of this review and the adjustments made, I believe that the time reflected in the firm’s 18 lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought, as set forth in this

19 declaration, are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient

20 prosecution and resolution of the litigation. In addition, I believe that the expenses are all of a 21 type that would normally be charged to a fee-paying client in the private legal marketplace. 22 4. After the reductions referenced above, the number of hours spent on this litigation 23 by my firm is 32,917.20. A breakdown of the lodestar is provided in Exhibit A to this 24 25 declaration. The lodestar amount for attorney/professional staff time based on the firm’s 2017 26 rates is $16,398.078.75. The hourly rates shown in Exhibit A are the usual and customary rates

27 set by the firm for each individual in 2017. For personnel who are no longer employed by the 28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 62

firm, the lodestar calculation is based upon the rates for such personnel in his or her final year of 1 2 employment by the firm. 3 5. Attached as Exhibit B is a task-based summary of the work performed by each

4 attorney and professional staff member who performed services in this Action. 5 6. My firm seeks an award of $1,342,907.21 in expenses and charges in connection 6 with the prosecution of the litigation. These expenses and charges are summarized by category 7 in Exhibit C. 8 7. The following is additional information regarding certain of these expenses: 9 10 (a) Filing, Witness and Other Fees: $7,194.38. These expenses have been

11 paid to the Court for filing fees; to attorney service firms who served process of subpoenas; to

12 third parties to process and produce documents in connection with a subpoena; and to local 13 counsel related to enforcing compliance of a non-party subpoena. The vendors who were paid 14 for these services are set forth in Exhibit D. 15 (b) Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $88,495.65. In connection 16 17 with the prosecution of this case, the firm has paid for work-related transportation expenses, 18 meals, and travel expenses related to, among other things, attending court conferences, hearings,

19 mediations with opposing counsel, and taking or defending depositions. Any first-class airfare

20 has been reduced to be comparable to economy rates. The date, destination and purpose of each 21 out-of-town trip are set forth in Exhibit E. 22 (c) Court Hearing and Deposition Reporting: $48,963.30. The vendors who 23 were paid for hearing or deposition transcripts and/or other reporting are listed in Exhibit F. 24 25 Additional expenses related to hearing or deposition reporting were also paid by the joint 26 litigation fund created for the Action, which was maintained by Co-Class Counsel Labaton

27 Sucharow LLP and is discussed in that firm’s fee and expense declaration.

28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 2 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 62

(d) Experts/Consultants/Investigators: $7,182.39. 1 2 (i) Prof. Scott Thompson, Ph.D. Professor Thompson is a 3 semiconductor industry expert who provided expert services in connection with microprocessor

4 chip manufacturing, supply, and demand as those topics pertained to the case. The amount 5 above includes travel expenses for Prof. Thompson’s meetings with Class Counsel in 6 New York, New York, and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; for scheduled (but cancelled) 7 deposition in San Francisco, California, and a rescheduled deposition in New York, New York. 8 Additional expenses related to Prof. Thompson’s fees were paid by the joint litigation fund 9 10 maintained by Co-Class Counsel Labaton Sucharow.

11 (e) Duplicating: $26,131.37. In connection with this case, the firm made

12 46,554 in-house black and white copies, charging $0.23 per page for a total of $10,707.42. In 13 addition, the firm made 10,981 in-house color copies, charging $0.40 per page for a total of 14 $4,392.40. Each time a firm copy machine or printer is used, our billing system requires that a 15 case or administrative billing code be entered and that is how the 57,525 copies were identified 16 17 as related to this case. My firm also paid $11,031.55 to outside copy vendors. A breakdown of 18 these outside charges by date, vendor, and purpose is set forth in Exhibit G.

19 (f) Online Legal and Factual Research: $14,741.67. The firm conducted

20 electronic research using databases maintained by vendors such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, 21 PACER, and Bloomberg BNA. These databases were used to obtain access to SEC filings, 22 factual databases, legal research, and for cite-checking of briefs. This expense represents the 23 expense incurred by Motley Rice for use of these services in connection with this litigation. The 24 25 charges for these vendors vary depending upon the type of services requested. 26 (g) Litigation Support: $298,947.07. The firm incurred $298,947.07 for ESI

27 database management and hosting charges related to this litigation. The amount requested was

28 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 3 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 62 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 62

Exhibit A Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 62

EXHIBIT A 1 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., 2 Motley Rice LLC Inception through December 31, 2017 3 4 NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR Hughes, James M. (M) 1,631.50 $900 $1,468,350.00 5 Levin, Gregg (M) 39.00 $900 $35,100.00 Narwold, William H (M) 255.75 $1,025 $262,143.75 6 Norton, Bill (M) 972.25 $775 $753,493.75 7 Pendell, Michael (M) 350.70 $775 $271,792.50 8 Ritter, Ann (SC) 12.75 $925 $11,793.75 Sturman, Deborah (CC) 45.75 $925 $42,318.75 9 Abel, David (A) 44.25 $525 $23,231.25 10 Camm, Matthew (A) 100.50 $400 $40,200.00 Gruetzmacher, Max (A) 3,986.50 $575 $2,292,237.50 11 Kouba, Annie (A) 111.75 $375 $41,906.25 12 Miller, Meredith (A) 148.00 $525 $77,700.00 Moriarty, Christopher (A) 76.75 $550 $42,212.50 13 Tinkler, William (A) 675.50 $525 $354,637.50 14 Camputaro, Elizabeth (SA) 2,994.75 $475 $1,422,506.25 Jacobs, Rebecca (SA) 25.00 $400 $10,000.00 15 Quillin, Kelly (SA) 313.75 $400 $125,500.00 16 Cash, Andrew (PA) 769.25 $415 $319,238.75 Christensen, Paul (PA) 95.50 $480 $45,840.00 17 During, Vanessa (PA) 1,359.25 $395 $536,903.75 18 Fisher, Heather (PA) 1,200.75 $525 $630,393.75 Geel, Tekesha (PA) 2,199.75 $430 $945,892.50 19 Goodman, Harold (PA) 1,020.25 $525 $535,631.25 20 Greene, Kathleen (PA) 464.25 $395 $183,378.75 Grossman, Elizabeth (PA) 582.00 $375 $218,250.00 21 Isom, John (PA) 949.75 $495 $470,126.25 22 Jackson-Bailey, Julie (PA) 96.00 $410 $39,360.00 Kolokithas, Marianthe (PA) 646.25 $385 $248,806.25 23 Lang, Katherine (PA) 1,661.75 $430 $714,552.50 24 McCorry, Dena (PA) 353.50 $360 $127,260.00 McCulloch, Robert (PA) 1,014.50 $525 $532,612.50 25 Nixon, Elizabeth Ashby (PA) 733.50 $415 $304,402.50 26 O'Daniel, Ashley (PA) 688.00 $410 $282,080.00 Rublee, Laura (PA) 521.25 $525 $273,656.25 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 62

1 NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR Sherbow, Michael (PA) 1,419.75 $425 $603,393.75 2 Shih, Mei (PA) 1,546.50 $440 $680,460.00 Stiegman, Jane D. (PA) 112.50 $495 $55,687.50 3 Tate, Jennifer (PA) 583.00 $385 $224,455.00 4 Van Shura, Mairin (PA) 1,106.25 $460 $508,875.00 5 Friedman, Samuel (LC) 12.00 $300 $3,600.00 Richards, Evelyn (LC) 170.75 $350 $59,762.50 6 Blackiston, Victoria (PA) 1,085.00 $325 $352,625.00 7 Brown, Dominique (PA) 165.25 $245 $40,486.25 Greve, Daphne (PA) 19.00 $275 $5,225.00 8 McLaughlin, Lora (PA) 21.75 $350 $7,612.50 9 Parker, Holly (PA) 10.00 $240 $2,400.00 Shaarda, Lynn (PA) 337.50 $325 $109,687.50 10 Weil, Katherine (PA) 172.00 $325 $55,900.00 11 Wilson, Arden (PA) 16.00 $275 $4,400.00 TOTAL 32,917.20 $16,398,078.75 12 13 Member (M) 14 Associate (A) 15 Senior Counsel (SC) Co-Counsel (CC) 16 Staff Attorney (SA) 17 Project Attorney (PA) Law Clerk (LC) 18 Paralegal (PL) 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 62

Exhibit B Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 62

EXHIBIT B

Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.,

Firm Name: Motley Rice LLC Reporting Period: Inception through December 31, 2017

Categories: (1) Factual Investigation (6) Client / Shareholder Communications (2) Discovery (Fact & Expert) (7) Litigation Strategy & Analysis (3) Briefs, Pretrial Motions & Legal Research (8) Settlement Negotiations, Stipulation, Plan of Allocation (4) Court Appearances (9) Appeal (5) Initial or Amended Complaint (10) Trial Preparation (11) Case Management

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Hours Rate Lodestar Hughes, James M. (M) 870.00 437.75 116.00 16.75 15.25 71.25 51.75 52.75 1,631.50 $900 $1,468,350.00 Levin, Gregg (M) 3.25 35.50 0.25 39.00 $900 $35,100.00 Narwold, William H (M) 69.25 13.75 32.25 0.25 1.25 68.00 70.75 0.25 255.75 $1,025 $262,143.75 Norton, Bill (M) 2.50 550.25 338.00 6.75 35.50 28.50 10.75 972.25 $775 $753,493.75 Pendell, Michael (M) 340.20 2.00 8.50 350.70 $775 $271,792.50 Ritter, Ann (SC) 0.50 11.50 0.75 12.75 $925 $11,793.75 Sturman, Deborah (CC) 23.25 22.50 45.75 $925 $42,318.75 Abel, David (A) 2.00 1.50 29.00 0.75 3.50 6.50 1.00 44.25 $525 $23,231.25 Camm, Matthew (A) 100.50 100.50 $400 $40,200.00 Gruetzmacher, Max (A) 15.50 2,699.75 1,048.25 7.75 94.25 93.50 27.50 3,986.50 $575 $2,292,237.50 Kouba, Annie (A) 83.50 27.25 1.00 111.75 $375 $41,906.25 Miller, Meredith (A) 93.00 22.00 29.75 0.25 3.00 148.00 $525 $77,700.00 Moriarty, Christopher (A) 0.25 12.25 38.00 21.50 4.25 0.25 0.25 76.75 $550 $42,212.50 Tinkler, William (A) 314.25 222.25 34.50 76.50 24.00 4.00 675.50 $525 $354,637.50 Camputaro, Elizabeth (SA) 2,392.25 150.50 89.00 26.75 336.25 2,994.75 $475 $1,422,506.25 Jacobs, Rebecca (SA) 25.00 25.00 $400 $10,000.00 Quillin, Kelly (SA) 313.75 313.75 $400 $125,500.00 Cash, Andrew (PA) 769.25 769.25 $415 $319,238.75 Christensen, Paul (PA) 95.50 95.50 $480 $45,840.00 During, Vanessa (PA) 1,359.25 1,359.25 $395 $536,903.75 Fisher, Heather (PA) 1,200.75 1,200.75 $525 $630,393.75 Geel, Tekesha (PA) 2,199.75 2,199.75 $430 $945,892.50 Goodman, Harold (PA) 1,020.25 1,020.25 $525 $535,631.25 Greene, Kathleen (PA) 464.25 464.25 $395 $183,378.75 Grossman, Elizabeth (PA) 582.00 582.00 $375 $218,250.00 Isom, John (PA) 949.75 949.75 $495 $470,126.25 Jackson-Bailey, Julie (PA) 96.00 96.00 $410 $39,360.00 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 62

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Hours Rate Lodestar Kolokithas, Marianthe (PA) 646.25 646.25 $385 $248,806.25 Lang, Katherine (PA) 1,661.75 1,661.75 $430 $714,552.50 McCorry, Dena (PA) 353.50 353.50 $360 $127,260.00 McCulloch, Robert (PA) 1,014.50 1,014.50 $525 $532,612.50 Nixon, Elizabeth Ashby (PA) 733.50 733.50 $415 $304,402.50 O'Daniel, Ashley (PA) 688.00 688.00 $410 $282,080.00 Rublee, Laura (PA) 521.25 521.25 $525 $273,656.25 Sherbow, Michael (PA) 1,419.75 1,419.75 $425 $603,393.75 Shih, Mei (PA) 1,545.75 0.75 1,546.50 $440 $680,460.00 Stiegman, Jane D. (PA) 112.50 112.50 $495 $55,687.50 Tate, Jennifer (PA) 522.50 20.00 40.50 583.00 $385 $224,455.00 Van Shura, Mairin (PA) 1,106.25 1,106.25 $460 $508,875.00 Friedman, Samuel (LC) 12.00 0.00 12.00 $300 $3,600.00 Richards, Evelyn (LC) 41.75 111.50 5.75 11.75 170.75 $350 $59,762.50 Blackiston, Victoria (PA) 1,026.25 1.00 6.50 6.25 45.00 1,085.00 $325 $352,625.00 Brown, Dominique (PA) 142.00 9.00 14.25 165.25 $245 $40,486.25 Greve, Daphne (PA) 18.25 0.75 19.00 $275 $5,225.00 McLaughlin, Lora (PA) 0.50 2.75 18.50 21.75 $350 $7,612.50 Parker, Holly (PA) 3.25 0.25 5.50 1.00 10.00 $240 $2,400.00 Shaarda, Lynn (PA) 310.50 22.50 4.50 337.50 $325 $109,687.50 Weil, Katherine (PA) 3.25 32.75 57.50 0.50 78.00 172.00 $325 $55,900.00 Wilson, Arden (PA) 8.00 6.00 2.00 16.00 $275 $4,400.00 TOTAL: 24.00 28,519.20 2,602.25 148.25 17.75 162.25 485.00 310.75 - - 647.75 32,917.20 $16,398,078.75

(M) Member (A) Associate (SC) Senior Counsel (CC) Co-Counsel (SA) Staff Attorney (PA) Project Attorney (LC) Law Clerk (PL) Paralegal Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 62

Exhibit C Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 62

EXHIBIT C 1 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., 2 Motley Rice LLC Inception through January 12, 2018 3 4 CATEGORY AMOUNT 5 Filing, Witness and Other Fees $7,194.38 Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals* $88,495.65 6 Long-Distance Telephone, Facsimile and Conference Calling $88.80 7 Postage $82.61 8 Messenger, Overnight Delivery $4,014.97 Court Hearing and Deposition Reporting $48,963.30 9 Experts/Consultants/Investigators $7,182.39 10 Dr. Scott Thompson $7,182.39 Duplicating $26,131.37 11 Outside $11,031.55 12 In-House Black and White: (46,554 pages at $0.23 per page) $10,707.42 13 In-House Color: (10,981 pages at $0.40 per page) $4,392.40 14 Online Legal and Factual Research $14,741.67 15 Litigation Fund Contribution $847,065.00 Litigation Support $298,947.07 16 TOTAL $1,342,907.21 17 *$2,300.00 in estimated travel costs (for airfare, hotel, taxis, meals) has been included for me to 18 attend the final approval hearing. If less than $2,300.00 is incurred, the actual amount incurred 19 will be deducted from the Settlement Fund. If more than $2,300.00 is incurred, $2,300.00 will be the cap and only $2,300.00 will be deducted from the Settlement Fund. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 62

Exhibit D Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 62

EXHIBIT D 1 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., 2 Motley Rice LLC 3 Filing, Witness and Other Fees: $7,194.38

4 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE 04/09/14 Clerk of Court James Hughes - Pro Hac Vice Motion 5 07/21/14 Appellate Division, Second Bill Norton - Certificate of Good Standing 6 Department 08/05/14 Clerk of Court Bill Norton - Pro Hac Vice Motion 7 05/08/15 Clerk of Court William Narwold - Pro Hac Vice Motion 8 08/05/15 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. 9 08/13/15 Supreme Court of South Carolina William Tinkler - Certificate of Good Standing 10 09/03/15 Clerk of Court Meredith Miller - Pro Hac Vice Motion 11 09/24/15 Clerk of Court Max Gruetzmacher - Pro Hac Vice Motion 12 10/22/15 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - TigerDirect Inc. 10/22/15 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - Samsung Electronics 13 America, Inc. 11/30/15 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - Screen SPE USA, 14 LLC 11/30/15 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - Apple Inc. 15 12/17/15 Lightspeed LLC Process and produce documents subject to 16 non-party subpoena 01/20/16 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - Newegg Inc. 17 04/28/16 Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court Michael Pendell - Certificate of Good Standing 18 05/24/16 Clerk of Court Michael Pendell - Pro Hac Vice Motion 19 05/31/16 Sterne, Agee & Leah, Inc. Process and produce documents subject to non-party subpoena 20 06/02/16 LegalEase, Inc. Subpoena service - Tony Prophet 21 08/25/16 Dell, Inc. Process and produce documents subject to non-party subpoena 22 01/24/17 Byrd Davis Alden & Henrichson, Fees for local counsel related to motion to LLP compel compliance with non-party 23 subpoena 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 62

Exhibit E Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 62

EXHIBIT E 1 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., 2 Motley Rice LLC 3 Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $88,495.65 4 - Out-of-Town Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $87,677.85 (trips detailed below) 5 - Local Work-Related Transportation & Meals: $817.80 6 NAME DATE DESTINATION PURPOSE 7 Hughes, James 09/15/14- San Francisco, CA Motion to Dismiss Hearing 09/16/14 (cancelled midway through 8 flight) Hughes, James 10/26/14- San Francisco, CA Motion to Dismiss Hearing 9 10/29/14 10 Narwold, Bill 06/09/15- New York, NY Co-counsel and expert meetings 06/10/15 11 Narwold, Bill 06/16/15- San Francisco, CA Case Management Conference 06/17/15 12 Gruetzmacher, Max 09/08/15- New York, NY 30(b)(6) deposition 09/11/15 13 Miller, Meredith 09/09/15- New York, NY 30(b)(6) deposition 09/11/15 14 Procureur, Tine 09/09/15- New York, NY 30(b)(6) deposition (KBC) 09/12/15 15 Hughes, James 01/13/16- Newport Beach, Mediation 16 01/15/16 CA Narwold, Bill 01/13/16- Newport Beach, Mediation 17 01/15/16 CA Hughes, James 02/01/16- San Francisco, CA Class Certification Hearing 18 02/03/16 Hughes, James 02/10/16- Austin, TX Deposition of Scott Kehm 19 02/12/16 Gruetzmacher, Max 02/10/16- Austin, TX Deposition of Scott Kehm 20 02/12/16 21 Gruetzmacher, Max 06/05/16- Austin, TX Deposition of Derrick Meyer 06/18/16 22 Pendell, Michael 06/05/16- Austin, TX Deposition of Derrick Meyer 06/18/16 23 Gruetzmacher, Max 06/29/16- Tampa, FL Deposition of Michael Massetti 07/02/16 24 Pendell, Michael 06/30/16- Tampa, FL Deposition of Michael Massetti 07/01/16 25 Gruetzmacher, Max 07/20/16- Austin, TX Deposition of John Docherty 07/23/16 26 Hughes, James 07/21/16- Austin, TX Deposition of John Docherty 27 07/23/16 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 62

NAME DATE DESTINATION PURPOSE 1 Gruetzmacher, Max 07/27/16- Austin, TX and Depositions of Rory Read and 08/03/16 Palo Alto, CA Richard Bregmann 2 Pendell, Michael 07/28/16- Austin, TX and Depositions of Rory Read and 3 08/03/16 Palo Alto, CA Richard Bregmann Norton, Bill 08/10/16- Seattle, WA Deposition of Tony Prophet 4 08/14/16 Tinkler, William 08/10/16- Seattle, WA Deposition of Tony Prophet 5 08/14/16 Sturman, Deborah 09/14/16- Brussels, Belgium Meeting with new KBC legal 6 10/01/16 team Pendell, Michael 10/19/16- Charleston, SC Deposition preparation 7 10/21/16 8 Gruetzmacher, Max 10/23/16- San Jose, CA Depositions of Emilio Ghilardi 10/28/16 and Ruth Cotter 9 Pendell, Michael 10/24/16- San Jose, CA Depositions of Emilio Ghilardi 10/28/16 and Ruth Cotter 10 Norton, Bill 11/03/16- Austin, TX Deposition of Bruce Claflin 11/5/16 11 Sturman, Deborah 11/26/16- Prague, Czech Meeting with KBC general 12/13/16 Republic counsel 12 Gruetzmacher, Max 12/13/16- New York, NY Expert depo preparation 12/14/16 13 Pendell, Michael 12/13/16 New York, NY Expert depo preparation 14 Gruetzmacher, Max 02/15/17- San Francisco, CA Deposition of Rahul Kapoor 15 02/17/17 Hughes, James 02/15/17- San Francisco, CA Deposition of Rahul Kapoor 16 02/17/17 Gruetzmacher, Max 02/27/17- San Francisco, CA Deposition of Kenneth Lisiak 17 03/02/17 18 Narwold, Bill 03/07/17- San Francisco, CA Court hearing 03/09/17 19 Gruetzmacher, Max 3/15/17- New York, NY Deposition of Scott Thompson 3/17/17 20 Gruetzmacher, Max 08/07/17- Newport Beach, Mediation 08/09/17 CA 21 Narwold, Bill 08/07/17- Newport Beach, Mediation 08/09/17 CA 22 Moriarty, 8/29/17 San Francisco, CA Meeting with Elide Sonck Christopher (KBC) 23 Sonck, Elide (KBC) 8/29/17 San Francisco, CA Meeting with Chris Moriarty 24 Hughes, James 10/23/17- San Francisco, CA Preliminary Approval Hearing 25 10/25/17 Hughes, James 02/26/18- San Francisco, CA Final Approval Hearing 26 02/28/18 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HUGHES FILED ON BEHALF OF MOTLEY RICE LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 62

Exhibit F Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 62

EXHIBIT F 1 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., 2 Motley Rice LLC 3 Court Hearing and Deposition Reporting: $48,963.30

4 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE 10/07/15 Veritext Deposition transcript of Tine Procureur on 5 09/10/15 6 07/14/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Derrick Meyer on 06/07/16 7 08/23/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Michael Massetti on 07/01/16 8 08/23/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of John Docherty on 07/22/16 9 08/23/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Richard Bergman on 08/02/16 10 09/01/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Rory Read on 07/29/16 11 09/13/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Tony Prophet on 08/12/16 12 11/07/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Emilio Ghilardi on 10/25/16 13 11/21/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Ruth Cotter on 10/27/16 14 11/21/16 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Bruce Claflin on 11/04/16 15 03/14/17 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Rahul Kapoor on 02/16/17 16 04/04/17 U.S. Legal Support (CA Deposition transcript of Scott Thompson on Reporting) 03/17/17 17 05/16/17 Golkow, Inc. Deposition transcript and videotape deposition of Kenneth Lisiak on 03/01/17 18 11/01/17 Sarah Goekler Preliminary approval hearing transcript 19

Exhibit G Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 62

EXHIBIT G 1 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., 2 Motley Rice LLC 3 Duplicating: $26,131.37 4 In-House (Black and White): $10,707.42 (46,554 pages @ $0.23 per page) 5 In-House (Color): $4,392.40 (10,981 pages @ $0.40 per page) Outside: $11,031.55 (detailed below) 6 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE 7 03/10/16 Teris Documents for deposition of 30(b)(6) AMD representative 8 08/08/16 One Stop Litigation Services Documents for deposition of Rory Read 08/23/16 Teris Documents for deposition of Rory Read and 9 John Docherty 08/23/16 Baluster Discovery, LLC Documents for deposition of Tony Prophet 10 11/21/16 Teris Documents for deposition of Bruce Claflin 11/21/16 Advanced Discovery Inc. Documents for depositions of Emilio Ghilardi 11 and Ruth Cotter 12 03/14/17 Advanced Discovery Inc. Documents for depositions of Kenneth Lisiak and Rahul Kapoor 13 11/01/17 Teris Documents for deposition of Bruce Claflin 10/13/16 Advanced Discovery Inc. Documents for deposition of Richard Bergman 14 15 16 17 18 19

Exhibit H Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 62

SHAREHOLDER AND SECURITIES FRAUD RESUME Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 62 INTRODUCTION

Founded as a trial lawyers’ firm with a complex litigation focus by Ron Motley, Joe Rice and nearly 50 other lawyers, Motley Rice LLC has become one of the nation’s largest plaintiffs’ law firms.

Motley Rice LLC (“Motley Rice”) is led by lawyers who received Our attorneys have substantial experience analyzing securities their training and trial experience in complex litigation involving cases and advising institutional investor clients, whether to seek in-depth investigations, discovery battles and multi-week trials. lead-plaintiff appointment (alone or with a similarly-minded From asbestos and tobacco to counter-terrorism and human group), remain an absent class member, or consider an opt-out rights cases, Motley Rice attorneys have shaped developments case based on the particular factual and legal circumstances of in U.S. jurisprudence over several decades. Shareholder the case. litigation has earned an increasing portion of our firm’s focus When analyzing new filings, our attorneys draw upon their in recent years as threats to global retirement security have securities, business, and litigation experience, which is increased. Motley Rice seeks to create a better, more secure supplemented by our in-house team of paralegals and business future for pensioners, unions, government entities and analysts. In addition, the firm has developed close working institutional investors through improved corporate governance relationships with widely-respected forensic accountants and and accountability. expert witnesses, whose involvement at the earliest stages of complex cases can be critical to determining the best course APPROACH TO SECURITIES LITIGATION of action. If Motley Rice believes that a case deserves an As concerns about our global financial system have intensified, institutional investor’s involvement, we provide our clients with a so has our focus on securities litigation as a practice area. As detailed written analysis of potential claims and loss-recoupment one presenter at the 2009 International Foundation of Employee strategies. Benefit Plans annual conference noted, “2008 likely will go down Motley Rice attorneys have secured important corporate in history as one of the worst years for retirement security in the governance reforms and returned money to shareholders in United States.” shareholder derivative cases, served as lead or co-lead counsel Our securities litigation philosophy is straightforward – obtain in several significant, multi-million dollar securities fraud class the best possible results for our clients and any class of investors actions, and taken leadership roles in cases involving fiduciaries we represent. Unlike some other firms, we are extremely who failed to maximize shareholder value and fulfill disclosure selective about the cases that we recommend our clients pursue, obligations in a variety of merger and acquisition cases. recognizing that many securities fraud class action cases filed each year are unworthy of an institutional investor’s involvement for a variety of reasons. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 62 OUR BACKGROUND IN COMPLEX LITIGATION

Motley Rice attorneys have been at the forefront of some of the most significant and monumental civil actions over the last 30 years. Our experience in complex trial litigation includes class actions and individual cases involving securities and consumer fraud, occupational disease and toxic tort, medical drugs and devices, environmental damage, terrorist attacks and human rights abuses.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement BP PLC Oil Spill Litigation In the 1990s, Motley Rice attorneys and more than half of In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon disaster spilled the states’ attorneys general took on the tobacco industry. approximately 4.9 million gallons of oil into the water, killed Armed with evidence acquired from whistleblowers, individual 11 oil rig workers, devastated the Gulf’s natural resources and smokers’ cases and tobacco liability class actions, the attorneys profoundly harmed the economic and emotional well-being led the campaign in the courtroom and at the negotiation of hundreds of thousands of people. The Deepwater Horizon table to recoup state healthcare funds and exact marketing Economic and Property Damages Settlement is the largest civil restrictions from cigarette manufacturers. The effort resulted in class action settlement in U.S. history. Motley Rice co-founder significant restrictions on cigarette marketing to children and Joseph Rice is a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee member and culminated in the $246 billion Master Settlement Agreement, served as one of the primary negotiators of that Settlement the largest civil settlement in U.S. history. and the Medical Benefits Settlement. In addition, Rice led Asbestos Litigation negotiations in the $1.028 billion settlement between the PSC and Halliburton Energy Services for its alleged role in the oil From the beginning, our lawyers were integral to the story of how spill. Motley Rice attorneys continue to hold leadership roles “a few trial lawyers and their asbestos-afflicted clients came in the litigation and are currently working to ensure that all out . . . to challenge giant asbestos corporations and uncover qualifying oil spill victims are fairly compensated. the greatest and longest business cover-up of an epidemic disease, caused by a product, in American history.”1 In addition Volkswagen ‘Clean Diesel’ Litigation to representing thousands of workers and family members In 2015, Volkswagen Group’s admission that it had programmed impacted by asbestos, Motley Rice has represented numerous more than 11 million vehicles to cheat emissions tests and public entities, and litigated claims alleging various insurers of bypass standards sparked worldwide outrage. Motley Rice asbestos defendants engaged in unfair settlement practices in co-founder Joe Rice served as one of the lead negotiators in connection with the resolution of underlying asbestos personal the nearly $15 billion settlement deal reached in 2016 for U.S. injury claims. This litigation resulted in, among other things, an owners and lessees of 2.0-liter TDI vehicles, the largest auto- eleven-state settlement with Travelers Insurance Company. related consumer class action settlement in U.S. history. Rice Anti-Terrorism and Human Rights and other Motley Rice attorneys also helped recover up to $4.4 billion with regards to affected 3.0-liter vehicles. In In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Motley Rice attorneys brought a landmark lawsuit against the alleged Transvaginal Mesh Litigation private and state sponsors of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden Motley Rice attorneys represent thousands of women and in an action filed on behalf of more than 6,500 family members, have played a leading role in litigation alleging debilitating and survivors, and those killed on 9/11—including the representation life-altering complications caused by defective transvaginal of more than 900 firefighters and their families. In prosecuting mesh devices. In 2014, Joe Rice, with co-counsel, negotiated this action, Motley Rice has undertaken a global investigation the original settlement deal reached in In re American Medical into terrorism financing. Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation Our attorneys also initiated the In re September 11 Litigation that numerous subsequent settlements with the manufacturer and negotiated settlements for 56 families that opted out of were modeled after. the Victim Compensation Fund that far exceeded existing Opioid Litigation precedents at the time for wrongful death cases against the At the forefront of litigation targeting the alleged overprescribing airline industry. and deceptive marketing of addictive opioid painkillers, Motley Rice, led by attorney Linda Singer, the former Attorney General for the District of Columbia, serves as lead counsel for the first jurisdictions to file complaints against pharmaceutical companies, the City of Chicago and Santa Clara County. Motley Rice has since filed cases for several states, cities, and counties aimed at combatting the deadly opioid crisis.

2 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 62 CASES

Securities Fraud Class Actions In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-03851-RMB injectables and integrated infusion therapy and medication (S.D.N.Y.). As sole lead counsel, Motley Rice represented Co- management systems. The lawsuit alleges that Hospira and Lead Plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AG and certain executive officers engaged in a fraudulent scheme LRI Invest S.A. in a class action on behalf of investors who to artificially inflate the company’s stock price by concealing purchased shares of Barrick Gold Corporation, the world’s significant deteriorating conditions, manufacturing and largest gold mining company. The suit alleged that Barrick Gold quality control deficiencies at its largest manufacturing facility had fraudulently underreported the cost and the time to develop located in Rocky Mount, N.C., and the costly effects of these its Pascua-Lama gold mine on the border between Argentina deficiencies on production capacity. These deteriorating and Chile, and misrepresented its compliance with applicable conditions culminated in a series of regulatory actions by the environmental regulations and the sufficiency of its internal FDA which the defendants allegedly misrepresented to their controls. Barrick Gold eventually abandoned its development investors. The case settled for $60 million in 2014. of the Pascua-Lama mine after an injunction was issued by a In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Securities Litigation, No. SACV 11- Chilean court following the company’s failure to comply with 1404 AG (RNBx) (C.D. Cal.). Motley Rice served as co-lead environmental regulations, and causing Barrick Gold to take an counsel representing investors who purchased Hewlett- impairment charge of over $5 billion. A $140 million settlement Packard common stock between November 22, 2010 and August was reached, and received final approval in December 2016. 18, 2011. The lawsuit alleged that Hewlett-Packard misled Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, No. 2:09-cv-02122-EFM- investors about its ability to release over a hundred million KMH (D. Kan.). As co-lead counsel, Motley Rice represented the webOS-enabled devices by the end of 2011. After Hewlett- PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund (PIUMPF) and Packard abandoned webOS development in August 2011, the two other institutional investors who purchased Sprint Nextel company’s stock price declined significantly. The court granted common stock between October 26, 2006 and February 27, 2008. final approval to a $57 million settlement on September 15, 2014. The class action complaint alleged that the defendants made In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. A-06-CA-726-SS (W.D. materially false and misleading statements regarding Sprint’s Tex.). Motley Rice was appointed lead counsel for the lead business and financial results. As a result, the complaint alleged plaintiff, Union Asset Management Holding AG, which sued that Sprint stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the on behalf of a class of purchasers of Dell common stock. class period and that, when the market learned the truth, the The suit alleged that Dell and certain senior executives lied value of Sprint’s shares plummeted. In August 2015, the court to investors and manipulated financial announcements to granted final approval to a $131 million settlement. meet performance objectives that were tied to executive Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Pharmacia Corp., No. 03- compensation. The defendants’ alleged fraud ultimately caused 1519 (D.N.J.). Motley Rice served as co-class counsel in the price of Dell’s stock to decline by over 40 percent. After the federal securities fraud litigation alleging that the defendants case was dismissed by the district court, Motley Rice attorneys misrepresented clinical trial results of Celebrex® to make its launched an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. After safety profile appear better than rival drugs. In January 2013, the fully briefing the case and oral arguments, the parties settled lawsuit settled in mediation for $164 million. the case for $40 million. Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association v. Medtronic, Inc., City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., No. No. 08-6324 (PAM/AJB) (D. Minn.). Motley Rice is co-lead counsel 11 Civ. 4665 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.). Motley Rice serves as sole lead for a class of investors who purchased Medtronic common stock counsel representing lead plaintiffs in a class action on behalf in this case that survived the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The of all persons who acquired Avon common stock between suit alleges that Medtronic engaged in a pervasive campaign of July 31, 2006 and Oct. 26, 2011. The action alleges that the illegal off-label marketing in which the company advised doctors defendants falsely assured investors they had effective internal to use Medtronic’s Infuse Bone Graft in ways not FDA-approved, controls and accounting systems, as required under the Foreign leading to severe complications in patients. Medtronic’s stock Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In October 2008, Avon disclosed price dropped significantly after investors learned that the FDA that it had begun an investigation into possible FCPA violations and Department of Justice were investigating Medtronic’s off- in China in June 2008. The action alleges that, unbeknownst label marketing. The $85 million settlement was approved on to investors, Avon had an illegal practice of paying bribes in Nov. 8, 2012. violation of the FCPA extending as far back as 2004 and which continued even after its October 2008 disclosure. Despite its City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System certifications of the effectiveness of its internal controls, Avon’s v. Hospira, Inc., No. 11 C 8332 (N.D. Ill.). Motley Rice serves as internal controls were allegedly severely deficient, allowing the co-lead counsel representing investors in this lawsuit against company to engage in millions of dollars of improper payments Hospira, the world’s largest manufacturer of generic injectable in more than a dozen countries. On August 24, 2016, the court pharmaceuticals, including generic acute-care and oncology approved a final settlement of $62 million.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 62 CASES

South Ferry LP #2 v. Killinger, No. C04-1599C-(W.D. Wash.) Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group, No. 08 Civ. 3758 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.). (regarding Washington Mutual). Motley Rice served as co-lead Motley Rice served as co-counsel in an action against Credit counsel on behalf of a class of investors who purchased WaMu Suisse Group alleging the defendants issued materially false common stock between April 15, 2003, and June 28, 2004. The suit and misleading statements regarding the company’s business alleged that WaMu misrepresented its ability to hedge risk and and financial results and failed to write down impaired securities withstand changes in interest rates, as well as its integration of containing mortgage-related debt. Subsequently, Credit differing technologies resulting from various acquisitions. The Suisse’s stock price relative to other market events declined 2.83 Court granted class certification in January 2011 and approved percent when impaired securities came to light. A $70 million the $41.5 million settlement on June 5, 2012. settlement was approved in July 2011. In re MBNA Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 05-CV-00272- In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, GMS (D. Del.). Motley Rice served as co-lead counsel on behalf No. 05 Civ. 2827 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.). Motley Rice represented PIUMPF of investors who purchased MBNA common stock. The suit in a securities fraud class action alleging that the company and alleged that MBNA manipulated its financial statements in its officers misrepresented the safety, efficacy, and side effects violation of GAAP, and MBNA executives sold over one million of several drugs. Motley Rice, in cooperation with other class shares of stock based on inside information for net proceeds counsel, helped the parties reach a $65 million settlement that of more than $50 million, knowing these shares would drop in was approved on May 15, 2009. value once MBNA’s true condition was revealed to the market. Hill v. State Street Corporation, No. 09-cv-12146-NG (D. Mass.). The case was settled with many motions pending. The $25 Motley Rice represents institutional investors as co-lead counsel million settlement was approved on October 6, 2009. against State Street. The action alleges that State Street defrauded In re NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. institutional investors – including the state of California’s two 2:06-cv-00570-PGC-PMW (D. Utah). Motley Rice represented the largest pension funds, California Public Employees’ Retirement lead plaintiff as sole lead counsel in a class action brought on System (CalPERS) and California State Teachers’ Retirement behalf of stockholders of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., concerning System (CalSTRS) — by misrepresenting its exposure to toxic the drug PREOS. NPS claimed that PREOS would be a “billion assets and overcharging them for foreign exchange trades. A dollar drug” that could effectively treat “millions of women $60 million settlement was approved January 8, 2015. around the world who have osteoporosis.” The complaint In re Synovus Financial Corp., No. 1:09-cv-01811 (N.D. Ga.). alleged fraudulent misrepresentations regarding PREOS’s Motley Rice and our client, Sheet Metal Workers’ National efficacy, market potential, prospects for FDA approval and Pension Fund, serve as court-appointed co-lead counsel and dangers of hypercalcimic toxicity. The case settled after the lead co-lead plaintiff for investors in Synovus Financial Corp. The plaintiff moved for class certification and the parties engaged lawsuit alleges that the bank artificially inflated its stock price in document production and protracted settlement negotiations. by concealing its troubled lending relationship with the Sea The $15 million settlement was approved on June 18, 2009. Island Company, a resort real estate and hospitality company to In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 07 Civ. 9901 (SHS) whom Synovus allegedly made hundreds of millions of dollars (DCF) (S.D.N.Y.). Motley Rice served as co-counsel in this of “insider loans” with “little more than a handshake” facilitated securities fraud action alleging that Citigroup responded to the by personal relationships among certain senior executives and widely-known financial crisis by concealing both the extent of its board members. In 2014, the court approved a final settlement ownership of toxic assets—most prominently, collateralized debt of $11.75 million. obligations (CDO) backed by nonprime mortgages—and the In re Molson Coors Brewing Co. Securities Litigation, No. 1:05- risks associated with them. By alleged misrepresentations and cv-00294 (D. Del.). Motley Rice served as co-lead counsel for omissions of what amounted to more than two years of income co-lead plaintiffs Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local and an entire significant line of business, Citigroup allegedly 675 Pension Fund and Metzler Investment GmbH in litigation artificially manipulated and inflated its stock prices throughout against Molson Coors Brewing Co. and several of its officers the class period. Citigroup’s alleged actions caused its stock and directors. The lawsuit alleged that, following the February price to trade in a range of $42.56 to $56.41 per share for most 9, 2005, merger of Molson, Inc. and the Adolph Coors Company, of the class period. These disclosures helped place Citigroup the defendants fraudulently misrepresented the financial and in serious danger of insolvency, a danger that was averted only operational performance of the combined company prior through a $300 billion dollar emergency government bailout. On to reporting a net loss for the first quarter of 2005. Following August 1, 2013, the Court approved the settlement resolving all protracted negotiations, the parties reached a $6 million claims in the Citigroup action in exchange for payment of $590 settlement in May 2009. million for the benefit of the class.

4 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 30 of 62 CASES

Marsden v. Select Medical Corporation, No. 04-cv-4020 (E.D. Pa.). Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder, Motley Rice served as co-lead counsel on behalf of stockholders No. 10-CI-01212 (Ky. Cir. Ct.) (regarding Omnicare, Inc.). of Select Medical, a healthcare provider specializing in long- On April 14, 2010, Motley Rice, sole lead counsel in this action, term care hospital facilities. The suit alleged that Select filed a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of plaintiff Medical exploited its business structure to improperly Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust. Plaintiff’s claims maximize Medicare reimbursements, misled investors and that stem from a November 3, 2009, announcement by the U.S. the company’s executives engaged in massive insider trading Department of Justice that Omnicare, Inc. had agreed to pay for proceeds of over $100 million. A $5 million settlement was $98 million to settle state and federal investigations into three reached and approved on April 15, 2009. kickback schemes through which the company paid or solicited Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., N.V., No. 06-CV-01283 payments in violation of state and federal anti-kickback laws. (JES) (S.D.N.Y). Motley Rice represented the co-lead plaintiff The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss in in this case that alleged that the defendants issued numerous their entireties on April 27, 2011. The defendants sought an materially false and misleading statements which caused CB&I’s interlocutory appeal, which was denied on October 6, 2011. securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The litigation Following significant discovery, which included plaintiff’s resulted in a $10.5 million settlement that was approved on June counsel’s review and analysis of approximately 1.4 million pages 3, 2008. of documents, the parties reached agreement on a settlement, which received final approval from the court on October 28, Ross v. Career Education Corp. No. 1:12-cv-00276 (N.D. Ill.). 2013. Under the settlement, a $16.7 million fund (less court On April 16, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District awarded fees and costs) will be created to be used over a four of Illinois issued an order granting final judgment and dismissing year period by Omnicare to fund certain corporate governance with prejudice Ross v. Career Education Corp. Motley Rice measures and provide funding for the company’s compliance served as co-lead counsel in the lawsuit, which alleged that committee in connection with the performance of its duties. Career Education and certain of its executive officers violated Additionally, the settlement calls for Omnicare to adopt and/ the federal securities laws by misleading the company’s or maintain corporate governance measures relating to, among investors about its placement practices and reporting. The other things, employee training and ensuring the appropriate court approved a final settlement of $27.5 million. flow of information to the compliance committee. Freedman v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 12-3070 (RHK/JJG) (D. Service Employees International Union v. Hills, No. A0711383 (Ohio Minn.). Motley Rice served as co-lead counsel representing Ct. Com. Pl.) (regarding Chiquita Brands International, Inc.). In co-lead plaintiff Första AP-fonden, a Swedish pension fund, this shareholder derivative litigation, SEIU retained Motley Rice in this securities fraud class action against St. Jude Medical, to bring an action on behalf of Chiquita Brands International. Inc., a manufacturer of medical devices for cardiac rhythm The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary management and the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This action duties by paying bribes to terrorist organizations in violation of alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements U.S. and Columbian law. In October 2010, the plaintiffs resolved and concealed material information relating to the safety, their state court action as part of a separate federal derivative durability, and manufacturing processes of the company’s new claim. generation of cardiac rhythm management devices marketed under the name “Durata.” A $39.5 million settlement was Mercier v. Whittle, No. 2008-CP-23-8395 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl.) approved in November 2016. (regarding the South Financial Group). This shareholder derivative action was brought on behalf of South Financial Group, Inc., following the company’s decision to apply for Shareholder Derivative Litigation federal bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program Walgreens / Controlled Substances Violations: In re Walgreen (TARP) while allegedly accelerating the retirement of its former Co. Derivative Litigation. On October 4, 2013, Motley Rice filed chairman and CEO to protect his multi-million dollar golden a consolidated complaint for a group of institutional investors parachute, which would be prohibited under TARP. The litigation against the board of directors of Walgreen Co. The complaint was settled prior to trial and achieved, among other benefits, alleges that Walgreen’s board engaged in a scheme to maximize payment back to the company from chairman Whittle, increased revenues by encouraging the company’s pharmacists to fill board independence and enhanced shareholder rights. improper or suspicious prescriptions for Schedule-II drugs, particularly oxycodone, in Florida. The complaint followed the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Farmer, No. A June 2013 announcement of an $80 million settlement between 0806822 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl.) (regarding Cintas Corporation). Walgreens and the Drug Enforcement Administration relating to In this shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of the misconduct. A settlement was approved in December 2014, Cintas Corporation, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants in which Walgreens agreed to, among other things, extended breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing compliance-related commitments, including maintaining a to cause the company to comply with applicable worker safety Department of Pharmaceutical Integrity.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 31 of 62 CASES

laws and regulations. In November 2009, the court approved a stockholders led by the company’s CEO, who controlled about settlement agreement that provided for the implementation of 41 percent the company’s shares. The shareholders alleged corporate governance measures designed to increase the flow that the CEO used his stock holdings and influence over board of employee safety information to the company’s board; ensure members to accomplish the buyout at the expense of Allion’s the company’s compliance with a prior agreement between itself public shareholders. After a lengthy mediation, the shareholders and OSHA relating to workplace safety violations; and secure succeeded in negotiating a settlement resulting in a $4 million the attendance of the company’s chief health and safety officer increase in the merger consideration available to shareholders. at shareholder meetings. In January 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement. Corporate Takeover Litigation In re RehabCare Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. In re The Shaw Group, Inc., Shareholders Litigation, No. 6197-VCL (Del. Ch.). Motley Rice represented institutional 614399 (19th Jud. Dist. La.). Motley Rice attorneys served as shareholders in their challenge to the acquisition of healthcare co-lead counsel in the class action brought by our client, a provider RehabCare Group, Inc., by Kindred Healthcare, Inc. As European asset management company, on behalf of the public co-lead counsel, Motley Rice uncovered important additional shareholders of The Shaw Group, Inc. The lawsuit challenged facts about the relationship between RehabCare, Kindred, and Shaw’s proposed sale to Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. in the exclusive financial advisor for the transaction, as well as how a transaction valued at approximately $3.04 billion. The plaintiffs those relationships affected the process RehabCare’s board alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of directors undertook to sell the company. After extensive to Shaw’s shareholders by agreeing to a transaction that was discovery, the parties reached a settlement in which RehabCare financially unfair and the result of an improper sales process, agreed to make a $2.5 million payment for the benefit of which the defendants pursued at a time when Shaw’s stock was RehabCare shareholders. In addition, RehabCare and Kindred poised for significant growth. The plaintiffs also alleged that the agreed to waive certain standstill agreements with potential transaction offered substantial benefits to Shaw insiders not higher bidders for the company; lower the merger agreement’s shared with the company’s public shareholders. In December termination fee from $26 million to $13 million to encourage any 2012, the parties reached a settlement with two components. potential higher bidders; eliminate the requirement that Kindred Shaw agreed to make certain additional disclosures to have a three-business day period during which it has the right shareholders of financial analyses indicating a potential share to match any superior proposal; and make certain additional price impact of certain alternative transactions of as much as public disclosures about the proposed merger. The Delaware $19.00 per share versus the status quo. To provide a remedy Court of Chancery granted final approval of the settlement on for Shaw shareholders who believed the company was worth Sept. 8, 2011. more than CB&I was paying for it, the settlement contained a In re Atheros Communications Inc. Shareholder second component – universal appraisal rights for all Shaw Litigation, No. 6124-VCN (Del. Ch.). In this action involving shareholders who properly dissented from the proposed Qualcomm Incorporated’s proposed acquisition of Atheros merger, and the opportunity for Shaw dissenters to pursue that Communications, Inc., for approximately $3.1 billion, Motley remedy on a class-wide basis. The court granted final approval Rice served as co-lead counsel representing investors alleging of the settlement on June 28, 2013. that, among other things, Atheros’ preliminary proxy statement In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 7905- was materially misleading to the company’s shareholders, who CS (Del. Ch. ). Motley Rice represented three public pension were responsible for voting on the proposed acquisition. In funds as court-appointed sole lead counsel in a shareholder March 2011, the Court issued a preliminary injunction delaying class action challenging the $7.2 billion acquisition of Coventry the shareholder vote, ruling that Atheros’ proxy statement was Health Care, Inc., by Aetna, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that materially misleading because, even though the proxy stated the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Coventry’s that the company’s CEO “had not had any discussions with shareholders through a flawed sales process involving a severely Qualcomm regarding the terms of his potential employment,” conflicted financial advisor and at a time when the company was it failed to disclose that he in fact “had overwhelming poised for remarkable growth as a result of recent government reason to believe he would be employed by Qualcomm healthcare reforms. The case settled for improvements to the after the transaction closed.” The proxy also failed to inform deal’s terms and enhanced disclosures. shareholders of an almost entirely contingent $24 million fee to In re Allion Healthcare, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. 5022- the company’s financial adviser, Qatalyst Partners, LLP. cc (Del. Ch.). Motley Rice attorneys served as co-lead counsel In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 16- representing a group of institutional shareholders in their 2011-CA-010616 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct.). Motley Rice served as co- challenge to the going-private buy-out of Allion Healthcare, Inc., lead counsel in litigation challenging the $560 million buyout by private equity firm H.I.G. Capital, LLC, and a group of insider of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. by BI-LO, LLC, achieving a settlement

6 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 32 of 62 CASES

that allows for shareholders to participate in a $9 million URS proposal. Ultimately, URS increased its offer for Washington common fund or $2.5 million opt-in appraisal proceeding. Group to the benefit of minority stockholders. Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. PLATO Learning, Inc., No. In re The DirecTV Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 4581- 5402-VCS (Del. Ch.). The firm’s institutional investor client won a VCP (Del. Ch. ). As court-appointed co-lead counsel, Motley partial preliminary injunction against the proposed acquisition Rice attorneys represented a group of institutional investors of PLATO Learning, Inc., by a private equity company. In its on behalf of the minority shareholders of DirecTV Group. A ruling, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the target settlement was reached and approved by the court on Nov. 30, company’s proxy statement was misleading to its shareholders 2009. It provided for material changes to the merger agreement and omitted material information. The court’s opinion has since and the governing documents of the post-merger DirectTV. been published and has been cited by courts and the legal media. In re Lear Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. 2728-N (Del. State Law Securities Cases Ch.). In this deal case, Motley Rice helped thwart a merger out In re Tremont Group Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. of line with shareholder interests. Motley Rice represented an 09 Civ. 03137 (S.D.N.Y.). Motley Rice represents an individual institutional investor in this case and, along with Delaware co- investor in consolidated litigation regarding investments made counsel, was appointed co-chair of the Plaintiffs’ Executive in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, through a Committee. Motley Rice and its co-counsel conducted variable universal life insurance policy. expedited discovery and the briefing. The court ultimately Brown v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 2:07-cv-03852-DCN (D.S.C.). granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a Motley Rice attorneys served as class counsel in this case, preliminary injunction. In granting the injunction, the court one of the first to interpret the civil liabilities provision of the found a reasonable probability of success in the plaintiffs’ Uniform Securities Act of 2002. The U.S. District Court for the disclosure claim concerning the Lear CEO’s conflict of interest District of South Carolina certified a class of investors with in securing his retirement through the proposed takeover. Lear claims against broker-dealer Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., for its shareholders overwhelmingly rejected the merger. role in allegedly aiding the illegal sale of securities as part of a Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v. Fialkow, No. $66 million Ponzi scheme. A subclass of 38 plaintiffs in this case 2683-VCL (Del. Ch.) (regarding National Home Health Care Corp.). reached a settlement agreement with Schwab under which they This action was brought on behalf of the shareholders of National receive approximately $5.7 million, an amount representing Home Health Care Corporation in response to the company’s their total unrecovered investment losses plus attorneys’ fees. November 2006 announcement that it had entered into a merger agreement with affiliates of Angelo Gordon. The matter settled Opt-Out/Individual Actions prior to trial and was approved on April 18, 2008. The defendants In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 02 Civ. agreed to additional consideration and proxy disclosures for the 5571 (S.D.N.Y.). In this action, Motley Rice represents more than class. 20 foreign institutional investors who were excluded from the Schultze Asset Management, LLC v. Washington Group class. The firm’s clients include the Swedish public pension fund International, Inc., No. 3261-VCN (Del. Ch.). This action followed Första AP-fonden (AP1), one of five buffer funds in the Swedish Washington Group’s announcement that it had agreed to be pay-as-you-go pension system. In light of a recent Supreme acquired by URS Corporation. The action alleged that Washington Court ruling preventing foreign clients from gaining relief, Group and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties Motley Rice has worked with institutional investor plaintiffs to by failing to maximize shareholder value, choosing financial file suit in France. The French action is pending. projections that unfairly undervalued the company and pursuing a flawed decision-making process. Motley Rice represented the parties, which ultimately settled the lawsuit with Washington Group. Washington Group agreed to make further disclosures to its shareholders regarding the proposed alternative transactions it had rejected prior to its accepting URS’s proposal and agreed to make disclosures regarding how the company was valued in the proposed transaction with URS. These additional disclosures prompted shareholders to further question the fairness of the

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 7 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 33 of 62 ACCOLADES FOR THE FIRM

Securities Class Action Services Top 50 International Securities Services 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2014 • 2015

The Plaintiffs’ Hot List The National Law Journal 2006 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016

“Best Law Firm” U.S. News – Best Lawyers® mass tort litigation/class actions-plaintiffs 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017

The Legal 500 United States Litigation editions mass tort and class action: plaintiff representation–toxic tort 2007 • 2009 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016

“Elite Trial Lawyers” The National Law Journal 2014 • 2015

“Most Feared Plaintiffs Firm” Law360 2013 • 2015

For full methodologies and selection criteria, visit www.motleyrice.com/award-methodology Please remember that every case is different. Although they endorse certain lawyers, The Legal 500 United States and Chambers USA and other similar organizations listed above are not Motley Rice clients. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.

8 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 34 of 62 OUR LEGACY:

Ronald L. Motley (1944–2013) PUBLICATIONS: • Ron authored or co-authored more than two dozen EDUCATION: publications, including: J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1971 • “Decades of Deception: Secrets of Lead, Asbestos and B.A., University of South Carolina, 1966 Tobacco” (Trial Magazine, October 1999) Ron Motley fought for greater justice, accountability and • “Asbestos Disease Among Railroad Workers: ‘Legacy of the recourse, and has been widely recognized as one of the most Laggin’ Wagon’” (Trial Magazine, December 1981) accomplished and skilled trial lawyers in the U.S. During a career • “Asbestos and Lung Cancer” (New York State Journal of that spanned more than four decades, his persuasiveness Medicine, June 1980; Volume 80: No.7, New York State Medical before a jury and ability to break new legal and evidentiary Association, New York) ground brought to justice two once-invincible giant industries • “Occupational Disease and Products Liability Claims” (South whose malfeasance took the lives of millions of Americans— Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin, September and October 1976) asbestos and tobacco. Armed with a combination of legal and FEATURED IN: trial skills, personal charisma, nose-to-the-grindstone hard • Shackelford, Susan. “Major Leaguer” (South Carolina Super work and record of success, Ron built Motley Rice into one of Lawyers, April 2008) the nation’s largest plaintiffs’ law firms. • Senior, Jennifer. “A Nation Unto Himself” (The New York Times, Noted for his role in spearheading the historic litigation against March 2004) the tobacco industry, Ron served as lead trial counsel for 26 • Freedman, Michael. “Turning Lead into Gold,” (Forbes, May State Attorneys General in the lawsuits. His efforts to uncover 2001) corporate and scientific wrongdoing resulted in the Master • Zegart, Dan. Civil Warriors: The Legal Siege on the Tobacco Settlement Agreement, the largest civil settlement in U.S. Industry (Delacorte Press, 2000) history and in which the tobacco industry agreed to reimburse • Ansen, David. “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes” (Newsweek, 1999) states for smoking-related health care costs. • Mann, Michael & Roth, Eric. “The Insider” (Blue Lion Entertainment, November 5, 1999) Through his pioneering discovery and collaboration, Ron • Brenner, Marie. “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (Vanity Fair, revealed asbestos manufacturers and the harmful and disabling May 1996) effects of occupational, environmental and household asbestos • Reisig, Robin. “The Man Who Took on Manville” (The American exposure. He represented thousands of asbestos victims and Lawyer, January 1983) achieved numerous trial breakthroughs, including the class actions and mass consolidations of Cimino, et al. v. Raymark, et AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: al. (U.S.D.C. TX); Abate, et al. v. ACandS, et al. (Baltimore); and Ron won widespread honors for his ability to win justice In re Asbestos Personal Injury Cases (Mississippi). for his clients and for his seminal impact on the course of civil litigation. For his trial achievements, BusinessWeek In 2002, Ron once again advanced cutting-edge litigation as lead characterized Ron’s courtroom skills as “dazzling” and The counsel for the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism with National Law Journal ranked him, “One of the most influential a lawsuit filed by more than 6,500 family members, survivors and lawyers in America.” those who lost their lives in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The suit seeks justice and ultimately bankruptcy for al Qaeda’s South Carolina Association for Justice financiers, including many individuals, banks, corporations 2013 Founders’ Award and charities that provided resources and monetary aid. He American Association for Justice also served as lead counsel in numerous individual aviation 2010 Lifetime Achievement Award security liability and damages cases under the In re September 2007 David S. Shrager President’s Award 11 Litigation filed against the aviation and aviation security 1998 Harry M. Philo Trial Lawyer of the Year industries by victims’ families devastated by the security The Trial Lawyer Magazine failures of 9/11. 2012 inducted into Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame Ron brought the landmark case of Oran Almog v. Arab Bank 2011 The Roundtable: America’s 100 Most Influential Trial against the alleged financial sponsors of Hamas and other Lawyers terrorist organizations in Israel and was a firm leader in the The Best Lawyers in America® BP Deepwater Horizon litigation and claims efforts involving 1993–2013 mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs, people and businesses in Gulf Coast communities suffering as personal injury litigation – plaintiffs product liability litigation a result of the oil spill. Two settlements were reached with BP, – plaintiffs one of which is the largest civil class action settlement in U.S. history. Best Lawyers® 2012 Charleston, SC “Lawyer of the Year” mass tort litigation/ Recognized as an AV®-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®, class actions – plaintiffs Ron served on the AAJ Board of Governors from 1977 to 2012 2010 Charleston, SC “Lawyer of the Year” personal injury and was chair of its Asbestos Litigation Group from 1978 to 2012. In 2002, Ron founded the Mark Elliott Motley Foundation, Inc., in loving memory of his son to help meet the health, education and welfare needs of children and young adults in the Charleston, S.C. community.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 9 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 35 of 62 TEAM BIOS: THE FIRM’S MEMBERS Benchmark Plaintiff Joseph F. Rice 2012–2013 National “Litigation Star”: civil rights/human rights, mass tort/product liability, securities LICENSED IN: DC, SC 2012–2013 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: human rights, ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: product liability, securities, toxic tort U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth SC Lawyers Weekly Circuits 2011 Leadership in Law Award U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska and the District The Legal 500 United States of South Carolina 2011–2013 Mass tort and class action: plaintiff representation EDUCATION: – toxic tort J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1979 B.S., University of South Carolina, 1976 Chambers USA Motley Rice co-founder Joe Rice is recognized as a skillful 2007, 2010–2012 Product liability and mass torts: plaintiffs. and innovative negotiator of complex litigation settlements, “...An accomplished trial lawyer and a formidable opponent.” having served as the lead negotiator in some of the largest civil 2008–2013 South Carolina Super Lawyers® list actions our courts have seen in the last 20 years. Corporate 2008 Top 10 South Carolina Super Lawyers list Legal Times reported that national defense counsel and legal 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 Top 25 South Carolina Super Lawyers list scholars described Joe as one of the nation’s “five most feared and respected plaintiffs’ lawyers in corporate America.” As the The Lawdragon™ 500 article notes, “For all his talents as a shrewd negotiator ... Rice 2005–2012 Leading Lawyers in America list – plaintiffs’ has earned most of his respect from playing fair and remaining National Association of Attorneys General humble.” 1998 President’s Award—for his “courage, legal skills and Joe was recognized by some of the nation’s best-regarded dedication to our children and the public health of our nation.” defense lawyers as being “the smartest dealmaker they ever The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids sat across the table from,” Thomson Reuters has reported. 1999 Youth Advocates of the Year Award Professor Samuel Issacharoff of the New York University School ASSOCIATIONS: of Law, a well-known professor and expert in class actions and American Association for Justice complex litigation, has commented that he is “the best strategic South Carolina Association for Justice thinker on the end stages of litigation that I’ve ever seen.” American Bar Association Since beginning to practice law in 1979, Joe has continued South Carolina Bar Association to reinforce his reputation as a skillful negotiator, including Civil Justice Foundation through his involvement structuring some of the most Inner Circle of Advocates significant resolutions of asbestos liabilities on behalf of those International Academy of Trial Lawyers injured by asbestos‐related products. He negotiates for the *Although it endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States is firm’s clients at all levels, including securities and consumer not a Motley Rice client. fraud, anti-terrorism, human rights, environmental, medical drugs and devices, as well as catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. Most recently, Joe has been involved in litigation filed by multiple states, cities and counties alleging deceptive marketing of highly addictive opioid prescription painkillers. In addition, Joe was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. Previously, Joe served as one of the lead negotiators in the $15 billion Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Fraud class action settlement for 2.0-liter vehicles, the largest auto-related consumer class action settlement in U.S. history, as well as the 3.0-liter settlement. He also has led negotiations on behalf of thousands of women in the transvaginal mesh litigation that has five MDLs pending in the state of West Virginia. Joe is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the Lipitor® multidistrict litigation and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation. BP Oil Spill: Joe served as a co-lead negotiator for the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in reaching the two settlements with BP, one of which is the largest civil class action settlement in U.S. history.

10 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 36 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

The Economic and Property Damages Rule 23 Class Action AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Settlement is estimated to make payments totaling between The Lawdragon™ $7.8 billion and $18 billion to class members. Joe was also one 2016 500 Leading Lawyers in America: Plaintiffs’ litigation of the lead negotiators of the $1.028 billion settlement reached Chambers USA between the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and Halliburton 2016 Product Liability: Plaintiffs –Nationwide, Band 2 Energy Services, Inc., for Halliburton’s role in the disaster. Law360 9/11: 2015 “Product Liability MVP” Joe held a crucial role in executing strategic mediations and/or resolutions on behalf of 56 families of 9/11 victims who opted out The Best Lawyers in America® of the government-created September 11 Victim Compensation 2013 “Lawyer of the Year” Charleston, SC: mass tort litigation/ Fund. In addition to providing answers, accountability and class actions – plaintiffs recourse to victims’ families, the resulting settlements with 2007–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions plaintiffs multiple defendants shattered a settlement matrix developed Benchmark Litigation and utilized for decades. The litigation also helped provide 2012–2013 National “Litigation Star”: mass tort/product public access to evidence uncovered for the trial. liability Tobacco: 2012–2016 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: environmental, As lead private counsel for 26 jurisdictions, including numerous mass tort/product liability State Attorneys General, Joe was integral to the crafting and South Carolina Super Lawyers® list negotiating of the landmark Master Settlement Agreement, 2008–2017 Class action/mass torts; Securities litigation; in which the tobacco industry agreed to reimburse states for General litigation smoking-related health costs. This remains the largest civil settlement in U.S. history. SC Lawyers Weekly 2012 Leadership in Law Award Asbestos: University of South Carolina School of Law Alumni Association Joe held leadership and negotiating roles involving the 2011 Platinum Compleat Lawyer Award bankruptcies of several large organizations, including AWI, Federal Mogul, Johns Manville, Celotex, Garlock, W.R. Grace, The Legal 500 United States, Litigation edition Babcock & Wilcox, U.S. Gypsum, Owens Corning and Pittsburgh 2011–2012, 2014–2017 Mass tort and class action: plaintiff Corning. He has also worked on numerous Trust Advisory representation – toxic tort Committees. Today, he maintains a critical role in settlements The National Trial Lawyers involving asbestos manufacturers emerging from bankruptcy 2010 Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ – South Carolina and has been recognized for his work in structuring significant resolutions in complex personal injury litigation for asbestos National Association of Attorneys General liabilities on behalf of victims injured by asbestos-related 1998 President’s Award products. Joe has served as co-chair of Perrin Conferences’ MUSC Children’s Hospital Asbestos Litigation Conference, the largest national asbestos- 2010 Johnnie Dodds Award: in honor of his longtime support of focused conference. the annual Bulls Bay Golf Challenge Fundraiser and continued Joe is often sought by investment funds for guidance on work on behalf of our community’s children litigation strategies to increase shareholder value, enhance University of South Carolina corporate governance reforms and recover assets. He was 2011 Garnet Award: in recognition of Joe and his family for an integral part of the shareholder derivative action against their passion for and devotion to Gamecock athletics Omnicare, Inc., Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder, which resulted in a significant settlement for SC Junior Golf Association Programs shareholders as well as new corporate governance policies for 2011 Tom Fazio Service to Golf Award: in recognition of the corporation. promotional efforts Joe serves on the Board of Advisors for Emory University’s COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, which Dee Norton Lowcountry Children’s Center, Co-chair for facilitates bipartisan discussion of ways to improve the civil inaugural Campaign for the Next Child justice system through the hosting of judicial seminars, bar First Tee of Greater Charleston, Board of Advisors conferences, academic programs, and research. In 1999 and ASSOCIATIONS: 2000, he served on the faculty at Duke University School of Law American Association for Justice as a Senior Lecturing Fellow, and taught classes on the art of American Bar Association negotiating at the University of South Carolina School of Law, American Inns of Court Duke University School of Law and Charleston School of Law. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy In 2013, he and the firm created the Ronald L. Motley Scholarship South Carolina Association for Justice Fund at The University of South Carolina School of Law in * Although they endorse this lawyer, neither The Legal 500 memory and honor of co-founding member and friend, Ron United States nor Professor Samuel Issacharoff are Motley Motley. Rice clients.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 11 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 37 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

John A. Baden IV Kimberly Barone Baden LICENSED IN: SC LICENSED IN: CA, SC ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, U.S. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and U.S. District Court for the Central, Northern and Southern Western District of North Carolina Districts of California and District of South Carolina EDUCATION: EDUCATION: J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 2002 J.D., California Western School of Law, 1999 B.A., College of Charleston, 1996 B.A. cum laude, Clemson University, 1996 John Baden represents clients harmed by asbestos exposure in As a strong advocate for the most defenseless members of individual and mass tort forums, as well as in complex asbestos society, Kimberly Barone Baden seeks accountability and bankruptcies, handling complete case management and compensation for victims of corporate misconduct, medical settlement negotiations for individuals and families suffering negligence and harmful medical drugs. She manages mass tort from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. pharmaceutical litigation through complex personal injury and economic damages cases. Working closely with Joe Rice, John also handles the negotiation and complex case resolution of asbestos bankruptcies, Kimberly represents children with birth defects allegedly caused including development of structured settlements with viable by antidepressants, including Zoloft®, Effexor® and Wellbutrin®; asbestos manufacturers and those emerging from bankruptcy. as well as Zofran® which is used to prevent pregnancy- His work with the bankruptcy courts and settlement trusts related nausea and vomiting. She previously litigated against aims to hold asbestos companies accountable and provide GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil® birth defect litigation. She serves due compensation to asbestos victims. John has lectured on as co-lead counsel for In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Products asbestos bankruptcy issues at a number of legal seminars. Liability Litigation MDL 2657 and is on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability John is involved in the settlement negotiations of medical drug Litigation MDL 2691 and on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee In and device MDLs, including the transvaginal mesh litigation In re re Zoloft (sertraline hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products MDL 2342. She also manages the firm’s pharmaceutical Liability Litigation, MDL 2325. He continues to be involved in litigation regarding Crestor®, Lipitor®, Actos®, Risperdal®, negotiations related to additional TVM manufacturers. John incretin mimetics, and dialysis products GranuFlo® Powder and also played a role in settlement negotiations for In re Avandia NaturaLyte® Liquid acid concentrates. Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1871. Kimberly also represents elderly victims of abuse and neglect, litigating cases for nursing home and assisted living facility John has additionally been actively involved with the firm’s residents. representation of people and businesses in Gulf Coast communities suffering as a result of the BP Deepwater Horizon Kimberly has spoken at numerous seminars, legal gatherings, oil spill. He held a central role in the negotiation process CLEs and conferences across the U.S., including the American involving the two settlements reached with BP, one of which is Association for Justice, Mass Torts Made Perfect and the the largest civil class action settlement in U.S. history. National Business Institute. She has addressed a broad range of topics related to pharmaceutical drugs and elder law litigation, John began his legal career as a litigation trial paralegal for Ron focusing on MDL procedures, birth defects, nursing home Motley in 1997, working with the State Attorneys General on litigation, discovery, trial strategy and mediation. Kimberly is the landmark tobacco litigation primarily in Florida, Mississippi currently the Treasurer of the American Association for Justice’s and Texas. He also supported occupational litigation in several Section on Toxic, Environmental and Pharmaceutical Torts. states, including the exigent trial dockets of Georgia and West Virginia. John served as a judicial intern for Judge Sol Blatt, Jr., Prior to joining Motley Rice, Kimberly worked on the Fen-Phen of the U.S. District Court of South Carolina and Judge Jasper M. diet drug litigation and served as an attorney with the California Cureton of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. District Attorney’s Office in San Diego. Kimberly is recognized ASSOCIATIONS: as an AV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. American Association for Justice AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: South Carolina Association for Justice South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list 2013–2014 Personal injury plaintiff: products; elder law ASSOCIATIONS: American Association for Justice, Treasurer – Section on Toxic, Environmental and Pharmaceutical torts American Bar Association South Carolina Association for Justice

12 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 38 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Frederick C. Baker Michael M. Buchman LICENSED IN: NY, SC LICENSED IN: CT, NY ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, U.S. Supreme Court Tenth and Eleventh Circuits U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and U.S. District Court for the Districts of Connecticut and the District of South Carolina Southern and Eastern Districts of New York EDUCATION: U.S. Court of International Trade J.D. / LL.M., Duke University School of Law, 1993 EDUCATION: B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1985 LL.M., International Antitrust and Trade Law, Fordham A veteran litigator with strong roots in complex litigation, Fred University School of Law, 1993 Baker has worked on a broad range of environmental, medical J.D., The John Marshall Law School, 1992 costs recovery, consumer and products liability cases and B.A. cum laude, Alfred University, 1988 holds numerous leadership roles within the firm. He represents Michael Buchman has more than 20 years of experience, individuals, institutional investors, and governmental entities in primarily litigating antitrust, consumer protection and privacy a wide variety of cases. class actions in trial and appellate courts. Michael has a diverse antitrust background, having represented as lead or co-lead After representing a state government in a case against counsel a variety of plaintiff clients, from Fortune 500 companies poultry integrators alleging that poultry waste polluted natural to individual consumers, in complex cases covering matters resources, Fred was involved with the firm’s representation of such as restraint of trade, price-fixing, generic drug antitrust people and businesses in Gulf Coast communities suffering as issues and anticompetitive “reverse payment” agreements a result of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He held a central between brand name pharmaceutical companies and generic role in the negotiation process involving the two settlements companies. Michael leads Motley Rice’s antitrust team. reached with BP, one of which is the largest civil class action settlement in U.S. history. Michael served as an Assistant Attorney General in the New York State Attorney General’s Office, Antitrust Bureau, after receiving A member of the legal team that litigated the groundbreaking his LL.M. degree in International Antitrust and Trade Law. Also tobacco litigation on behalf of several State Attorneys General, prior to joining Motley Rice, he was a managing partner of the Fred has also participated in the litigation of individual tobacco antitrust department at a New York-based class action law firm. cases, entity tobacco cases and a tobacco class action. Fred He played an active role in resolving two of the largest U.S. currently heads the firm’s tobacco litigation team. multi-billion dollar antitrust settlements since the Sherman Act Fred has served as counsel in a number of class actions, was enacted, In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation including the two class action settlements arising out of the and In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litigation, as 2005 Graniteville train derailment chlorine spill. He has also well as litigated numerous multi-million dollar antitrust cases. been closely involved in the on-going litigation surrounding Today, he represents the largest retailer class representative the statutory direct action settlement reached in the Manville in the $7.2 billion case In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and bankruptcy court and a related West Virginia unfair trade Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720.* practices insurance class action. Michael has more than thirteen years of experience representing Fred began practicing with Motley Rice attorneys in 1994 and consumers, union health and welfare plans, and health insurers chairs the firm’s attorney hiring committee. in “generic drug” litigation such as In re Augmentin Antitrust AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Litigation, In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, In re Ciprofloxacin South Carolina Lawyers Weekly Antitrust Litigation, In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, In re K-Dur 2016 Leadership in Law Award Antitrust Litigation, In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, In re Tamoxifen Antitrust Litigation, In re Toprol XL Antitrust Litigation and In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litigation. He also has experience litigating a large aviation antitrust matter, as well as aviation crash, emergency evacuation and other aviation cases in federal and state court. Michael completed the intensive two-week National Institute for Trial Advocacy National Trial Training program in Boulder, Colo., in 2002. An avid writer, he has authored and co-authored articles on procedure and competition law, including a Task Force on Dealer Terminations for The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on Antitrust and Trade Regulation, entitled Dealer Termination in New York dated June 1,1998 and What’s in a Name - the Diversity Death-Knell for Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London and their Names; Humm v. Lombard World Trade, Inc., Vol. 4, Issue 10 International Insurance Law Review 314 (1996).

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 13 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Michael is active in his community, serving as a member of the Kevin R. Dean Flood and Erosion Committee for the Town of Westport, Ct., and LICENSED IN: GA, MS, SC as pro bono counsel in actions involving the misappropriation ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: of perpetual care monies. He has also coached youth ice U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh hockey teams at Chelsea Piers in New York City. Circuits, U.S District Court for the Middle, Northern and AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Southern Districts of Georgia, Central District of Illinois, New York Metro Super Lawyers® list Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi and District of 2014–2017 Antitrust litigation South Carolina EDUCATION: The Best Lawyers in America® J.D., Cumberland School of Law, 1991 2017–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs B.A., Valdosta State University, 1989 Focusing his litigation efforts on catastrophic injury, products Samuel B. Cothran Jr. liability, and wrongful death cases, Kevin Dean represents General Counsel victims and families affected by hazardous consumer products, occupational and industrial accidents, fires, premise injuries LICENSED IN: NC, SC and other incidents of negligence. ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: Kevin currently represents people allegedly harmed by U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina defective Takata airbags, Volkswagen’s diesel emissions fraud, and District of South Carolina and GM’s misconduct regarding its defective vehicles in In re EDUCATION: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation. He has litigated J.D., cum laude, University of South Carolina School of Law, numerous vehicle defect cases, including against “the Big 1998 Three” automotive manufacturers in cases involving defective M.B.A., Duke University, 1994 brakes, door locks, door latches, seat belts and roll overs. He B.S., summa cum laude, University of South Carolina, 1981 served as trial co-counsel in Guzman v. Ford (2001), the first Sam Cothran creatively addresses the many challenges case brought to trial regarding a defective outside door latch and opportunities inherent in the cutting-edge practice of handle, as well as in the vehicle rollover case Hayward v. Ford a dynamic, multi-jurisdictional law firm. As leader of Motley (2005). He was also a member of the plaintiffs’ litigation team Rice’s legal department, Sam directs and advises the firm’s in the defective seat belt case, Malone v. General Motors management on diverse in-house legal matters regarding Corporation (1998) prior to joining Motley Rice. governmental compliance, contracts and legal defense, as well as labor and employment, marketing, financial and operational He served as lead plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Charleston issues. Firefighter Litigation, a wrongful death and negligence case against Sofa Super Store, contractors and multiple furniture After working for an international accounting firm as a certified manufacturers on behalf of the families of the nine firefighters public accountant and for several Fortune 1,000 companies as a lost in the June 2007 warehouse fire in Charleston, S.C. financial manager, Sam attended law school to complement his background in business management and finance and joined Since the 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, Kevin has Motley Rice attorneys shortly after graduation. been helping people and businesses pursuing litigation, as well as those needing help filing and negotiating their claims. He Recognized as a BV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®, served as a member of the oil spill MDL’s GCCF Jurisdiction & Sam is the author of Dischargeability of Consumer Credit Court Oversight Workgroup and works with victims on claims Card Debt in Bankruptcy After Anastas v. American Savings through the programs established by the two settlements Bank, 48 S.C.L. Rev. 915 (1997). As a law student, Sam served reached with BP. as Managing Editor of the South Carolina Law Review. He was named a Carolina Legal Scholar and awarded both the Order of Kevin’s experience also includes the health insurance fraud and the Coif and Order of the Wig and Robe. post-claims underwriting case Clark v. Security Life Insurance Company, the largest civil RICO case in Georgia history, and Sam is active in his community, serving on the board of Directors Wiggins v. Parsons Nursery, one of the largest environmental for the Dee Norton Lowcountry Children’s Center. and health contamination cases in South Carolina. Kevin also ASSOCIATIONS: served as a County Commissioner on the Early County Georgia American Bar Association Board of Commissioners and still holds the honor of having Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers been the youngest elected commissioner in county history. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Kevin frequently appears in local and national broadcast and South Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants print media discussing legal matters of workplace safety, fire prevention and other products liability, as well as specific casework and efforts for changes and improvements in various industries. Recognized as an AV® rated attorney Martindale- Hubbell®, Kevin co-authored “Dangerous Doors and Loose Latches,” published in Trial Magazine (2004) for the American

14 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 40 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Association for Justice, and authored “The Right to Jury Trial in institution has been held liable for financing terrorism. Michael ERISA Civil Enforcement Actions” published in The American is co-lead counsel in a parallel suit for non-U.S. citizens, Journal of Trial Advocacy (1989). Jesner v. Arab Bank, which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court will decide whether a corporation is AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: immune from suits under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of The Best Lawyers in America ® customary international law. As one of the leading members of 2017–2018 Charleston, S.C. Personal injury litigation – plaintiffs the firm’s antiterrorism and human rights practice, Michael also South Carolina Super Lawyers® list leads the worldwide investigation for liability evidence in the 2015–2017 Personal injury–general: plaintiff; Personal injury– 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism civil action against products: plaintiff; Personal injury–medical malpractice: al Qaeda’s alleged financiers and supporters. In this capacity, plaintiff Michael meets with U.S. and foreign intelligence officers, Benchmark Plaintiff witnesses, and informants, who have already helped him 2012–2013 National “Litigation Star”: mass torts/product gather more than two million pages of documents in numerous liability languages identifying the activities of al Qaeda and its 2012–2013 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: product liability financiers. He is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for this multidistrict litigation filed on behalf of more than 6,500 ASSOCIATIONS: families and survivors of the 9/11 attacks. He also served as a American Association for Justice member of the Plaintiffs’ Committee in In re September 11th Georgia Trial Lawyers Association Litigation, a suit brought against the airline industry alleging South Carolina Association for Justice, Board of Governors– that it failed to detect and prevent the attacks. Circuit 9; Tort & Negligence Chair Southern Trial Lawyers Association Michael’s work with financial transaction litigation includes Attorneys Information Exchange Group, Board of Directors commercial, securities fraud and shareholder derivative cases such as his extensive work on behalf of domestic and foreign investors in In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation. Michael E. Elsner Working with South African human rights lawyer Richard Spoor, LICENSED IN: NY, SC, VA Michael is also leading the firm in its role as consultants in an ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: effort to take on leading global gold producers and seek justice U.S District Court for the Eastern and Southern Districts of for tens of thousands of exploited gold mine workers who are New York suffering from silicosis. Few class actions have been brought EDUCATION: in South Africa, and none have been filed for sick workers. If J.D., University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, approved as a class, the suit would generate an unprecedented 1997 means of recovery for the country and ensure meaningful B.A., John Carroll University, 1993 access to justice for the indigent and rural workers who are Michael Elsner uses the U.S. civil justice system to seek social dying from this entirely preventable yet incurable disease. change and improved protection of Americans at home and Michael began his career with the Manville Personal Injury abroad. He litigates complex civil matters on behalf of people Trust and then practiced complex civil litigation in New York in and businesses victimized by commercial malfeasance, the areas of toxic torts, security, personal injury, bankruptcy, violations of human rights, inadequate security measures and and whistleblower protections prior to joining Motley Rice state-sponsored terrorism, managing cross-border litigation attorneys in 2002. and intricate investigations of infringement and abuse of human rights, multi-layered financial transactions and due diligence. Sharing his experience and insight as a lecturer and consultant, Michael has discussed anti-terrorism and human rights litigation Michael’s understanding of the complex legal challenges of on several national and international news outlets, including international matters is critical to litigating cases involving CNN, MSNBC, NPR and the BBC, as well as international anti- human rights and financial dealings. He uses legal mechanisms money laundering and anti-terrorism industry conferences. to track illicit finances, and his investigations through the maze of international banking and financial regulations continue to AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: uncover violations that have allowed money laundering and Public Justice Foundation terrorist financing. He is building upon legal theories and case 2016 Trial Lawyers of the Year precedents to represent plaintiffs harmed by financial crimes Benchmark Litigation and actions and hold the global institutions and organizations 2016–2017 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: personal Injury, accountable. product Liability, general commercial, professional liability Michael is a lead plaintiffs’ counsel in Linde et al. v. Arab Bank, South Carolina Lawyers Weekly a suit brought on behalf of victims of terrorist attacks in Israel. 2014 Leadership in Law Award In September 2014, a jury found Jordan-based Arab Bank plc liable for financing terrorist activity, including funneling The Lawdragon financial support to top Hamas leaders and to the families of 2014–2015 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America suicide bombers. This verdict marked the first time a financial 2010 Lawdragon™ 3,000

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 15 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 41 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

ASSOCIATIONS: bankruptcy conferences and has been a guest lecturer at the American Association for Justice Georgetown University, George Washington University, George American Bar Association Mason University and the University of Baltimore law schools New York Bar Association on topics relating to civil procedure, mass tort litigation and the South Carolina Bar Association, International Law Committee differences between litigating in Article III and Article I courts. Virginia Bar Association He has been an invited speaker at several judicial conferences National Crime Victims Bar Association on the topic of asbestos litigation. Public Justice Foundation Recognized as a Martindale Hubbell® AV® rated attorney, Nate has served his community for many years through volunteer activities coordinated by Greater D.C. Cares, an organization Nathan D. Finch committed to connecting volunteers with community service LICENSED IN: DC, VA groups. Nate was a member of the Virginia Law Review and the ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: Order of the Coif, and is a former scholarship track and cross U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth country athlete at UVA. and Eleventh Circuits, U.S. District Court for the District of AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Columbia, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Western American Association for Justice District of Wisconsin 2013 Wiedemann & Wysocki Award EDUCATION: J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 1992 Benchmark Litigation B.A., University of Virginia, 1989 2013–2017 Washington, D.C. “Litigation Star”: bankruptcy, With a diverse background in complex civil litigation, Nate general commercial, product liability, securities, white collar Finch brings almost twenty years of trial experience and strong crime negotiation skills to Motley Rice. He represents clients in Washington, D.C., Super Lawyers® list various asbestos, toxic tort, commercial, securities fraud and 2012–2015 Personal injury – products: plaintiff; Personal injury other complex cases. – general: plaintiff; Securities litigation Nate has served as the lead trial attorney for his clients in many Chambers USA federal and state courts and is sought after by co-counsel for 2009–2010 “Top Lawyer”: bankruptcy and restructuring advice on challenging cases and complex legal matters. His thorough knowledge of asbestos and medical issues is an ASSOCIATIONS: asset to the firm’s occupational disease and toxic tort clients. American Association for Justice He has obtained plaintiffs’ verdicts in cases against asbestos The Barristers product manufacturer defendants and cigarette makers. He has extensive experience trying cases involving a wide variety of asbestos-containing products, including gaskets, automotive Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick brakes, floor tiles, joint compounds, and various forms of LICENSED IN: DC, MA, NY, RI insulation. He also has years of experience representing ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: individuals, companies and creditors’ committees in personal U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, injury litigation, mass torts products liability litigation, securities Seventh and Eleventh Circuits; U.S. District Court for the and financial fraud litigation and an array of other complex District of Columbia, District of Massachusetts, District of litigation cases ranging from single plaintiffs’ products liability Rhode Island and Eastern District of Wisconsin cases to high-stakes business disputes. EDUCATION: Prior to joining Motley Rice, Nate was a partner for more J.D., cum laude, American University, 1994 than ten years in a Washington, D.C.-based law firm and B.A., Canisius College, 1991 frequently collaborated with Motley Rice attorneys in trials and Fidelma Fitzpatrick represents people and communities in toxic negotiations to resolve large asbestos product manufacturers’ tort and environmental matters, including property damage bankruptcies. He tried numerous cases in federal district courts and personal injury claims. Her experience with complex civil focusing on the medical and scientific factors associated with litigation has led her to represent other victims of corporate asbestos-related diseases and asbestos exposure. During this malfeasance, including hundreds of women allegedly injured time, he also tried and helped to resolve in favor of his clients by medical devices such as Essure® and pelvic mesh/sling five asbestos bankruptcy cases, each having more than $1 products. billion at stake. In addition, Nate worked closely with Motley In 2017, Fidelma was appointed Lead Counsel of the Plaintiffs’ Rice attorneys on behalf of investors in In re MBNA Securities Executive Committee for the coordinated Essure® litigation in Litigation and In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation. California against Bayer Corp. She also represents hundreds Nate’s understanding of the factual and legal challenges of women allegedly harmed by pelvic mesh/sling products in inherent in complex cases, combined with his trial experience, filed cases against defendants that include American Medical has positioned him as a considerable resource within many Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Inc., and Ethicon. In 2012, practice areas. A frequently invited speaker regarding a variety Fidelma was appointed co-lead counsel of the pelvic mesh MDL of legal matters, he has spoken at many asbestos litigation and In re American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems

16 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 42 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Products Liability Litigation pending in the Southern District of AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: West Virginia. She also holds leadership roles in pelvic mesh National Law Journal state court litigations, including serving as liaison counsel in 2015 Outstanding Women Lawyers the American Medical Systems cases consolidated in Delaware The Lawdragon and the Boston Scientific cases consolidated in Massachusetts. 2014–2017 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America Fidelma was co-lead trial counsel in the billion dollar lead paint The Legal 500 United States pigment case, The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield 2013, 2014 Mass tort and class action: plaintiff representation Company et al., in which Motley Rice represented cities and – toxic tort counties, including San Francisco, Santa Clara, Los Angeles and San Diego, in litigation against national lead paint pigment The National Trial Lawyers manufacturers. In January 2014, the court ruled that three lead 2010–2013 Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ – Rhode Island paint pigment companies had created a public nuisance by Rhode Island Super Lawyers® list concealing the dangers of lead when they campaigned against 2008, 2010–2017 Environmental litigation; Personal injury – its regulation and actively promoted lead for use in homes products: plaintiff; Class action/mass torts despite knowing that it was highly toxic. The $1.15 billion* verdict will be paid to the state’s abatement fund for the removal The Best Lawyers in America® of lead paint pigment from homes throughout California, 2008–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs particularly those occupied by lower-income families in inner- Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly city and community housing. This will help protect the health 2006 Rhode Island Lawyer of the Year and safety of thousands of children. Public Justice Foundation Fidelma held a central role in the state of Rhode Island’s trial 2014 Trial Lawyers of the Year against former corporate manufacturers of lead paint pigment. 2006 Finalist: Trial Lawyers of the Year award She continues to manage cases seeking to hold the lead paint pigment industry accountable for the childhood lead poisoning ASSOCIATIONS: crisis and provide restitution and compensation to affected American Association for Justice children and families. As a result of her work for lead poisoning American Bar Association victims, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court became the first American Civil Liberties Union, Volunteer attorney to recognize the legal rights of poisoned children to sue lead Public Justice Foundation, Rhode Island State Coordinator paint pigment manufacturers. Rhode Island Association for Justice Rhode Island Women’s Bar Association She also played a lead role in representing the community of Tallevast, Florida, in a lawsuit against Lockheed Martin * Please remember that every case is different. Although it Corporation involving the pollution of the community’s endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States is not a Motley groundwater with PCE and TCE. Fidelma is litigating nuclear Rice client. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter contamination cases on behalf of Pennsylvania residents who does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained allege that local nuclear facilities exposed them to hazardous for other clients. levels of toxic or radioactive material in the surrounding air, soil and water. Those cases, involving both personal injuries and Jodi Westbrook Flowers property damage, are pending in federal court. LICENSED IN: SC Fidelma began working with Motley Rice attorneys in 1997 on ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: the Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island lawsuits against U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, the tobacco industry. She serves on the Board of Regents at Fourth, and District of Columbia Circuits; U.S. District Court for Canisius College and frequently speaks on environmental and the District of South Carolina mass tort topics at conferences for federal and state court EDUCATION: judges, attorneys, academic professionals and law students. J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, Carolina Legal PUBLISHED WORKS: Scholar, 1993 “Painting Over Long-Standing Precedent: How the Rhode B.A. magna cum laude, College of Charleston, 1989 island Supreme Court Misapplied Public Nuisance Law in State A veteran of the courtroom, Jodi Westbrook Flowers seeks to v. Lead Industries Association” Roger Williams University Law protect the health, safety and rights of consumers, families, Review (Summer 2010) investors, workers, and victims of crime and terrorism. Jodi has litigated a wide range of cases involving tobacco, asbestos, “Access to Justice: The Use of Contingent Fee Arrangements lead pigment, aviation disasters and vehicle defects, as well as by Public Officials to Vindicate Public Rights”Cardozo J.L. & terrorist financing and human rights violations. In the vehicle Gender (Spring 2008) defect multidistrict litigation, In re General Motors LLC Ignition “Negligence in the Paint: The Case for Applying the Switch Litigation, Jodi works on cases related to economic loss Risk Contribution Doctrine to Lead Litigation” in Pace due to faulty ignition switches installed in more than 14 million Environmental Law Review (Fall 2008) recalled GM vehicles. Previously, she worked to demonstrate the necessary minimum contacts within the U.S. for the

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 17 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 43 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

exercise of personal jurisdiction over Bridgestone Corporation the historic Master Settlement Agreement between the state in the class action for damages allegedly caused by vehicle and attorneys general and the tobacco industry. She developed tire defects, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., ATX, ATX II and expert and whistleblower testimony and synthesized millions of Wilderness Tire Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 00-MDL- pages of documents for trial. She prepared the false-marketing 1373-SEB (S.D.Ind.). She also led a team at Motley Rice in the and child targeting case against the tobacco industry which Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Fraud class action litigation, resulted in restrictions on cartoon ads and the retirement of working on behalf of defrauded consumers in the $15 billion Joe Camel. settlement deal for 2.0-liter vehicles. The settlement was the Jodi has been interviewed by various media outlets, including largest auto-related consumer class action in U.S. history, and U.S. and foreign television, radio and print media. She provides among the fastest reached of its kind. pro bono work on a variety of global, national and community Jodi serves as co-liaison counsel and represents victims in the issues and helped establish the firm’s Charitable Contributions 21st Century Oncology data breach multidistrict litigation. Committee. Jodi handles a variety of cases regarding the state-sponsorship PUBLISHED WORKS: of international terrorism, as well as human rights litigation “Remarks on the GJIL Symposium on Corporate Responsibility involving violations of international law and human rights and the Alien Tort Statute,” Georgetown Journal of International abuses. Jodi now leads the legal team founded by Ron Law, Volume 43–Issue 4, Summer 2012. (43 Geo. J. Int’l. L. 1601) Motley that brought the groundbreaking litigation against the AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: financiers and material supporters of al Qaeda. Representing Public Justice Foundation thousands of family members and survivors of Sept. 11, 2016 Trial Lawyers of the Year 2001, in a pioneering civil action to hold al Qaeda’s sponsors accountable and cut off the terror support pipeline, she serves The Legal 500 United States, Litigation edition on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the In re Terrorist 2016–2017 Mass tort and class action: plaintiff representation Attacks on September 11, 2001 litigation consolidated by the – toxic tort Multidistrict Litigation Panel. She aided 9/11 victims and families The Best Lawyers in America® in their years-long push to pass the Justice Against Sponsors of 2015–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiff Terrorism Act, which became law in 2016. Benchmark Plaintiff Jodi is currently involved in processing claims for the new 2014 Top 150 Plaintiff Women in Litigation: South Carolina Victims’ Compensation Fund for first responders, area 2012–2013 National “Litigation Star”: civil rights/human rights residents, and anyone whose health may have been affected and mass tort/product liability by exposure to environmental toxins released in the terrorist 2012–2014 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: environmental, attacks. She was also an integral member of the Motley Rice human rights, mass tort and securities aviation security litigation team seeking accountability and change in aviation security following the 9/11 attacks. The Lawdragon™ 2010–2017 500 Leading Lawyers in America: Plaintiffs’ litigation Jodi also played a key role in Linde et al. v. Arab Bank PLC, in which a jury found Jordan-based Arab Bank liable for financing ASSOCIATIONS: terrorist activity, including funneling financial support to top American Association for Justice Hamas leaders and to the families of suicide bombers. This South Carolina Association for Justice case marked the first time that a financial institution has been American Bar Association, Center for Human Rights Advisory brought to trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Council South Carolina Bar Association, International Law Committee She served as the lead negotiator in the last hold-out of the Charleston Bar Association individual cases against Libya for the Lockerbie bombing of Daughters of the American Revolution Pan Am Flight 103, and continues to seek justice for victims of The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation Libyan sponsored terrorism during Qadhafi’s reign. Jodi also authored an amicus brief, supporting section 1502 of the Dodd- *Although it endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States is Frank Act, regarding the trade regulation of conflict minerals in not a Motley Rice client. the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Jodi has worked on environmental contamination cases in the Virgin Islands involving leaking gas tanks, and she is currently representing clients in advancing their Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims through the programs established by the two settlements reached with BP. Jodi has served on numerous MDL Executive Committees and subcommittees, and holds several leadership positions within the firm. Jodi began her career applying restitution and fraud theories to the litigation against the tobacco industry which resulted in

18 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 44 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Vincent L. Greene IV ASSOCIATIONS: American Association for Justice LICENSED IN: RI American Civil Liberties Union ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: Rhode Island Association for Justice, Past President U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island Rhode Island Center for Justice, Treasurer EDUCATION: J.D., George Washington University, 1998 *Although it endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States B.A., College of the Holy Cross, 1995 is not a Motley Rice client. Vin Greene works on behalf of victims of lead poisoning, asbestos-related diseases and defective medical products. John E. Herrick He represents children and families poisoned by exposure to lead paint and pigments in trials, negotiations and settlements, LICENSED IN: MD, SC including achieving a rare jury verdict and compensatory ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: damages in 2015 for a Rhode Island woman who suffered U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, District cognitive defects due to lead exposure as a child. Vin’s legal of Maryland, District of South Carolina, Eastern and Western efforts led to his critical role in defeating tort reform legislation Districts of Wisconsin in Rhode Island, utilizing testimony, analysis and grassroots EDUCATION: outreach to push passage of a bill that helped prevent J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1988 childhood lead poisoning without infringing on victims’ rights. B.A., University of South Carolina, 1983 For his numerous efforts and accomplishments, the Childhood John Herrick has spent more than 20 years representing victims Lead Action Project honored him with its Beyond the Call of of asbestos exposure suffering from mesothelioma and other Duty Award in 2001. asbestos-related diseases. As a leader of the firm’s occupational disease practice, John continues to fight for the rights of those Currently, Vin represents workers and families suffering from harmed by asbestos and other occupational diseases and mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases as a result assists in managing the firm’s asbestos litigation teams. A senior of occupational, environmental or household exposure to trial lawyer with years of courtroom experience, John represents asbestos. He has managed asbestos cases and negotiations individuals and families against defendants which manufactured on behalf of hundreds of individuals, including arguing before and sold defective and unreasonably dangerous asbestos- the Supreme Courts of Ohio and Rhode Island, as well as Ohio containing products and equipment, as well as premise owners Appellate Courts. and contractors who specified and installed those products. In addition to his toxic exposure casework, Vin litigates on behalf John has litigated asbestos cases resulting from occupational, of patients who suffered severe health complications caused environmental and household exposure, receiving verdicts in by allegedly defective mesh products, including Composix® hundreds of matters. Most recently, John was lead trial counsel Kugel® Mesh patches and other hernia mesh products, as well in a welding fume verdict for the plaintiff on behalf of a welder as transvaginal mesh. who developed manganism from exposure to welding fumes. Active in the legal community, Vin served in 2015 as President He won the first affirmed jury verdict in the United States for of the Rhode Island Association for Justice. He is the current a domestic, asbestos- exposed mesothelioma victim in the Treasurer for the Rhode Island Center for Justice, a non-profit Marie Granski case and achieved the first verdict in the United law center advocating for workers’ rights and other public States against SCAPA US, the former manufacturer of asbestos- interest issues. Vin began working with Motley Rice attorneys in containing dryer felts. John also worked as lead trial counsel 1997 on the landmark litigation against the tobacco industry and in the Harlow trial group, cited as a top 100 case of the year by medical malpractice cases. Named a Motley Rice member in The National Law Journal, and litigated a personal injury case 2008, Vin is recognized as an AV® rated attorney by Martindale- against a tobacco company for a plaintiff harmed by the use of Hubbell®. asbestos in cigarette filters. AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: John is recognized as an AV® rated attorney by Martindale- The Best Lawyers in America® Hubbell® and frequently serves as a guest speaker at asbestos 2017–2018 Product liability litigation – plaintiffs litigation-related seminars. Rhode Island Super Lawyers® lists AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: 2014–2017 Personal injury – products: plaintiff; Class action/ The Best Lawyers in America® mass torts; Environmental litigation 2018 “Lawyer of the Year” Charleston, SC: Product liability Benchmark Plaintiff litigation – plaintiffs 2012–2014 Rhode Island “Litigation Star”: environmental, 2015–2017 Product liability litigation – plaintiffs medical malpractice, toxic tort The Legal 500 United States The Legal 500 United States, Litigation edition 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 Mass tort and class action: 2010 Mass tort and class action: plaintiff representation – plaintiff representation – toxic tort toxic tort

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 19 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 45 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

ASSOCIATIONS: Mathew P. Jasinski American Association for Justice LICENSED IN: CT, NY American Bar Association ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: American Board of Trial Advocates U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First South Carolina Association for Justice and Second Circuits, U.S. District Court for the District of *Although it endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States is Connecticut and Southern District of New York not a Motley Rice client. EDUCATION: J.D. with high honors, University of Connecticut School of Law, 2006 James M. Hughes, Ph.D. B.A. summa cum laude, University of Connecticut, 2003 LICENSED IN: SC Mathew Jasinski represents consumers, businesses, and ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: governmental entities in class action and complex cases U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Fourth, involving consumer protection, unfair trade practices, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, U.S. District Court for the District of commercial, environmental and securities litigation. South Carolina Mathew currently represents the plaintiffs in several putative EDUCATION: and certified class actions involving such claims as breach J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1993 of contract and unfair trade practices. He has experience in Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago, 1983 complex commercial cases regarding claims of fraud and breach M.A., University of Illinois, Chicago, 1976 of fiduciary duty and has represented an institutional investor in B.A., University of Minnesota, 1975 its efforts to satisfy a judgment obtained against the operator Jim Hughes develops strategic legal arguments, drafts and of a Ponzi scheme. Mathew recently obtained a seven-figure argues motions, and litigates cases involving securities fraud. arbitration award in a case involving secondary liability for an Jim has also represented industrial workers exposed to silica investment advisor’s conduct under the Uniform Securities Act. and asbestos in the workplace, arguing before appellate courts Please remember that every case is different. Any result we in Illinois and Minnesota on behalf of occupational disease achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate victims. He has shared his experience with silica litigation similar results can be obtained for other clients. and product identification at several national conferences, Mathew additionally serves the firm’s appellate group. He has addressing the plaintiff’s perspective and other pertinent worked on numerous appeals before several state and federal issues. appellate courts throughout the country. A published author on several legal and academic themes, Jim’s Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2009, Mathew practiced complex law review article, “Informing South Carolina Capital Juries commercial and business litigation at a large defense firm. About Parole” (44 S.C. Law Review 383, 1993) was cited in 2000 by He began his legal career as a law clerk for Justice David M. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissenting Borden (ret.) of the Connecticut Supreme Court. During law opinion in Ramdass v. Angelone. His reported opinions include school, Mathew served as executive editor of the Connecticut Ison v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Del. 1999), In re Minnesota Law Review and judging director of the Connecticut Moot Court Asbestos Litigation (Minn., 1996), W.R. Grace & Co. v. CSR Ltd., Board. He placed first in various moot court and mock court (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) and In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litigation competitions, including the Boston region mock trial competition (D.V.I. 1995). of the American Association for Justice. As an undergraduate, A former professor of philosophy, Jim began his legal career Mathew served on the board of associate directors for the with the plaintiffs’ bar after clerkships with the South Carolina University of Connecticut’s honors program and was recognized Office of Appellate Defense and a business, employment and with the Donald L. McCullough Award for his student leadership. intellectual property defense firm. He is recognized as an AV® Mathew continues to demonstrate civic leadership in the local rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. Hartford community. He is a member of the board of directors ASSOCIATIONS: for the Hartford Symphony Orchestra and is a commissioner of the Hartford Parking Authority. Previously, Mathew served on the American Association for Justice city’s Charter Revision Commission and its Young Professionals South Carolina Association for Justice Task Force, an organization focused on engaging young professionals and positioning them for future business and community leadership. PUBLISHED WORKS: “On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives” (Jasinski and Ladewig, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 6, Issue 1, March 2008) “Hybrid Class Actions: Bridging the Gap Between the Process Due and the Process that Functions” (Jasinski and Narwold), The Brief, Fall 2009

20 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 46 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: first household asbestos exposure case, and the 2002 West Connecticut Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list Virginia Consolidated Asbestos Trial against Union Carbide 2013–2016 Business litigation; Class action/mass torts; in which unsafe working conditions were found at its plants Appellate throughout the state. In addition to maintaining an active trial schedule, Anne represents Canadian Workers’ Compensation Hartford Business Journal Boards in U.S. courts to recoup benefits they paid Canadian 2009 “Forty Under 40” asbestos victims. ASSOCIATIONS: In addition to asbestos, Anne represents and has secured American Association for Justice settlements for flavoring workers who suffered respiratory American Bar Association ailments and other diseases caused by toxic chemical exposure. Connecticut Bar Association Oliver Ellsworth Inn of Court While in law school, Anne supported the team representing Phi Beta Kappa the State Attorneys General in the historic lawsuit against Big Tobacco, which resulted in the largest civil settlement in U.S. * For full Super Lawyers selection methodology visit: www. history. After graduation, she was a member of the trial team superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html that litigated Falise v. American Tobacco Company. For current year CT data visit: www.superlawyers.com/ connecticut/selection_details.html Well-versed in navigating complex litigation, Anne holds several leadership positions within the firm, managing legal teams associated with occupational disease, toxic exposure Anne McGinness Kearse and severe personal injury. Anne has written several articles of LICENSED IN: DC, SC, WV interest to the plaintiffs’ bar and frequently speaks on asbestos ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: litigation, general product liability, legal ethics and tort reform U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eastern at seminars across the country. She has been published and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, District of South on major legal issues, including forum non conveniens and Carolina and the Southern District of West Virginia defective products abroad, corporate misconduct, medicolegal EDUCATION: aspects of asbestos litigation and mass tort litigation. Anne co- J.D. cum laude, University of South Carolina School of Law, authored the 12th chapter of the book, “Pathology of Asbestos- 1998 Associated Diseases” (Medicolegal Aspects of Asbestos- B.S., Syracuse University, 1983 Related Diseases: A Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Perspective, 3rd ed., With a passion for justice, Anne McGinness Kearse seeks to hold 2014). Edited by Victor L. Roggli, MD; Tim D. Oury, MD, PhD; accountable numerous corporations that put profits before and Thomas A. Sporn, MD, this publication is a comprehensive safety. Through litigation, Anne pursues the implementation of asbestos reference book used by both physicians and attorneys. better safety practices and corporate governance measures Anne served as the 2016-2017 President of the Public Justice for those corporations, as well as just compensation for victims Foundation, a charitable organization focused on protecting of toxic exposure, extreme and life-altering injuries, workplace people and the environment and increasing access to justice. injuries and diseases, severe burns, brain damage, loss of limb She is currently the Immediate Past President for Public Justice and paralysis, and wrongful death resulting from negligence and has been on the Board of Directors since 2010. In 2011, and defective products. Devoted to occupational safety, Anne Anne served on the Executive Board for a local chapter of Safe recently secured a jury verdict against SAR Automation, L.P. for Kids USA, advocating for childhood injury prevention. Anne was $8.8 million* for the wrongful death of a worker who fell at a a University of South Carolina School of Law bronze Compleat Boeing facility leaving behind a widow and two small children. Award recipient in 1998 and is recognized as a BV® rated Anne works closely with victims and their families, often attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. meeting with them in their homes for consultations. She AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: strives to provide each client with personalized attention and The Best Lawyers in America® individual justice, whether the case is part of a class action or 2016 Charleston, S.C. “Lawyer of the Year”: Mass tort stands alone. Anne believes in building relationships with co- litigation/class actions – plaintiffs counsel and often collaborates with other attorneys, including 2011–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs estate and probate counsel, in order to approach each case from a team perspective. The National Trial Lawyers 2010 Top 100 Trial Lawyers™: South Carolina Anne represents workers diagnosed with the devastating disease mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure in the The Legal 500 United States chemical, electric power generation, steel or construction 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016 Mass tort and class action: industries. She also represents victims of household exposure— plaintiff representation – toxic tort children and spouses who developed mesothelioma or other South Carolina Super Lawyers® list asbestos-related diseases after being exposed to asbestos 2013–2017 Class action/mass torts; Personal injury – products: fibers that a family member unwittingly brought home from work plaintiff; Personal injury – general: plaintiff on clothes or belongings. Anne has tried several noteworthy Benchmark Plaintiff asbestos cases, including Cox vs. A&I Company, West Virginia’s 2013 National “Litigation Star”: mass tort/product liability –

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 21 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 47 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

plaintiffs clients, defendants and accidents involving multiple countries. 2012–2014 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: mass tort/product He has also represented people and businesses that need help liability – plaintiffs filing their claims under the new claims programs established 2014 Top 150 Women in Litigation list: South Carolina: mass by the two Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill settlements. tort/product liability – plaintiffs Marlon currently serves as South Carolina State Senator of ASSOCIATIONS: District 42, representing citizens of Charleston and Dorchester Public Justice Foundation, Immediate Past President – Board of Counties. A frequent speaker, Marlon has presented at seminars Directors and conferences across the country, including the Public Funds American Association for Justice, Chair – Committee on Summit, the National Association of State Treasurers, the South Asbestos Education Carolina Black Lawyers’ Association, the National Conference American Bar Association on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) and the South Carolina Association for Justice, Board of Governors; National Association of Securities Professionals (NASP). Chair – Women’s Caucus After five years in commercial banking, Marlon entered the field Litigation Counsel of America Trial Lawyer Honorary Society of law and served as a law clerk to Judge Matthew J. Perry of Order of the Coif the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. His legal work and Order of the Wig and Robe volunteer service also earned him the University of South John Belton O’Neal Inn of Court Carolina School of Law bronze Compleat Award. Martindale- American Inns of Court, James L. Petigru Chapter Hubbell® recognizes Marlon as a BV® rated attorney. * Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Although it Marlon is active in his community and formerly served on the endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States is not a Motley Board of Directors for the Peggy Browning Fund. He has also Rice client. held leadership roles with the University of South Carolina Board of Visitors, the Charleston Black Lawyers Association and Marlon E. Kimpson the South Carolina Election Commission. In 2017, the American Association of Justice Minority Caucus awarded Marlon with LICENSED IN: SC its Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. Soaring Eagle Award reserved for ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: lawyers of color who have made outstanding contributions U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Eastern to the legal profession and paved the way for others. He is a District of Michigan lifetime member of the NAACP and a member of Sigma Pi Phi EDUCATION: Boulé and Omega Psi Phi fraternity. J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1999 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: B.A., Morehouse College, 1991 American Association of Justice Marlon Kimpson represents victims of corporate malfeasance, 2017 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. Soaring Eagle Award from investors in securities fraud cases to people injured or killed in catastrophic incidents. Building upon the firm’s The Best Lawyers in America® relationships with unions and governmental entities, Marlon 2015–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs represents individuals, state and municipality pension funds, Benchmark Plaintiff multi-employer plans, unions and other institutional investors in 2012 National “Litigation Star”: mass tort/product liability securities fraud class actions and mergers and acquisition cases 2012–2014 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: environmental, to help recover assets and improve corporate governance. mass tort, securities Marlon has worked on shareholder derivative litigation and Coastal Conservation League on mergers and acquisitions cases that include: In re Atheros 2016 Coastal Stewardship Award Communications, Inc., Shareholder Litigation; In re Celera Corporation Shareholder Litigation; In re RehabCare Group, United Food and Commercial Workers Inc. Shareholders Litigation; In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc., 2016 Legislative Activist of the Year Shareholder Litigation; and In re Big Lots, Inc., Shareholder ASSOCIATIONS: Litigation. He also represents World Acceptance shareholders American Association for Justice and in 2017 helped secure a proposed settlement to resolve South Carolina Association for Justice claims that the corporation misled investors about its lending National Association of Public Pension Attorneys practices and its compliance with federal law in Epstein v. World American Bar Association Acceptance Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-01606-MGL. National Bar Association In addition to securities fraud litigation, Marlon supports the State of South Carolina in litigation alleging deceptive marketing of highly addictive opioid prescription painkillers by Purdue Pharma Inc. He has also represented victims of catastrophic personal injury, asbestos exposure, and aviation disasters. He has litigated commercial and charter aviation cases with

22 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 48 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Gregg S. Levin Joshua Littlejohn LICENSED IN: DC, MA, SC LICENSED IN: SC ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; U.S. District Court and Eleventh Circuits for the District of Colorado, District of South Carolina U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, District of EDUCATION: Massachusetts, and the Eastern District of Michigan J.D., Charleston School of Law, 2007 EDUCATION: B.A., University of North Carolina at Asheville, 1999 J.D., Vanderbilt University School of Law, 1987 With a broad base of experience in complex litigation—including B.A., University of Rochester, 1984 securities fraud, corporate governance, SEC whistleblower, With more than two decades of legal experience, Gregg Levin medical malpractice, and catastrophic injury—Josh Littlejohn represents domestic and foreign institutional investors and union plays a key role on the Motley Rice securities litigation team, pension funds in corporate governance, directorial misconduct particularly cases involving healthcare. and securities fraud matters. His investigative, research and Josh represents public pension funds, unions and institutional writing skills have supported Motley Rice as lead or co-lead investors in both federal and state courts. He also represents counsel in numerous securities and shareholder derivative people with catastrophic injuries, victims of medical malpractice cases against Dell, Inc., UBS AG and Cintas Corporation. Gregg and corporate whistleblowers. Josh works directly with clients manages complaint and brief writing for class action deal cases, and has been involved in all aspects of the litigation process, shareholder derivative suits and securities fraud class actions. including case evaluation, fact and expert discovery, resolution Prior to joining Motley Rice, Gregg was an associate with Grant and trial. & Eisenhofer in Delaware, where he represented institutional Among other complex securities matters, Josh has been investors in securities fraud actions and shareholder derivative involved in litigation against Wells Fargo, 3D Systems actions in federal and state courts across the country, including Corporation, St. Jude Medical; Pharmacia Corporation and the WorldCom, Telxon and Global Crossing cases. He also NPS Pharmaceuticals. Josh has also been involved in the served as corporate counsel to a Delaware Valley-based retail groundbreaking securities fraud litigation against NASDAQ corporation from 1996-2003, where he handled corporate and the New York Stock Exchange, among other defendants, compliance matters and internal investigations. related to high frequency trading or “HFT.” Appearing in the media to discuss a variety of securities matters, Early in his career at Motley Rice, Josh worked on discovery in Gregg has also presented in educational forums, including at the mass tort litigation involving Merck & Co., Inc.’s drug Vioxx. Ethics and Transparency in Corporate America Webinar held by the National Association of State Treasurers. AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list PUBLISHED WORKS: 2013–2017 Securities litigation; Class action/mass torts; Gregg is a published author on corporate governance and General litigation accountability issues, having written significant portions of the treatise Shareholder Activism Handbook (Aspen Publishers, ASSOCIATIONS: November 2005), as well as several other articles of interest to American Bar Association institutional investors, including: South Carolina Association for Justice • “In re Cox Communications: A Suggested Step in the Wrong Direction” (Bank and Corporate Governance Law Reporter, Robert J. McConnell September 2005) • “Does Corporate Governance Matter to Investment Returns?” LICENSED IN: MA, RI (Corporate Accountability Report, September 23, 2005) ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: • “In re Walt Disney Co. Deriv. Litig. and the Duty of Good U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, District of Faith under Delaware Corporate Law” (Bank and Corporate Rhode Island Governance Law Reporter, September 2006) EDUCATION: • “Proxy Access Takes Center Stage: The Second Circuit’s J.D., Suffolk University School of Law, 1987 Decision in American Federation of State County and A.B., Brown University, 1979 Municipal Employees, Employees Pension Plan v. American Bob McConnell’s practice concentrates on lead pigment International Group, Inc.” (Bloomberg Law Reports, February litigation, childhood lead poisoning cases, groundwater and soil 5, 2007) contamination cases and other toxic environmental litigation. He • “Investor Litigation in the U.S. -- The System is Working” represents victims seeking corporate accountability as a result of (Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter, February 2007) personal injury, property damage and economic loss as a result of negligent environmental practices. Bob was a member of the trial team in the landmark trial on behalf of the state of Rhode Island against corporate defendants from the lead paint industry. He secured the largest lead paint poisoning

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 23 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 49 of 62 TEAM BIOS: settlement in Rhode Island on behalf of a child and continues to Donald A. Migliori represent children injured by lead poisoning against property owners, governmental agencies and lead pigment companies. He LICENSED IN: MA, MN, NY, RI, SC also played a leading role in a statewide lobbying effort to defeat ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: legislation that would have denied lead-poisoned children and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First and Fourth Circuits, U.S. their families the right to seek justice. Through testimony, analysis District Court for the District of Rhode Island, District of and grassroots outreach, he helped the Rhode Island legislature Massachusetts and Northern, Southern and Eastern Districts pass a bill helping to prevent childhood lead poisoning without of New York infringing on victims’ rights. EDUCATION: M.A./J.D., Syracuse University, 1993 In 2005, he successfully argued the precedent-setting case A.B., Brown University, 1988 Thomas v. Mallett 285 Wis 2d 236 as part of the Motley Rice Building upon his experience in complex asbestos cases, the trial team applying risk contribution theory to the lead paint historic tobacco lawsuits and 9/11 litigation, Don Migliori is a industry before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. More recently, multifaceted litigator who can navigate both the courtroom Bob represented more than 100 residents of Tiverton, R.I., in an and the negotiating table. He represents victims of defective environmental contamination lawsuit against a major New England medical devices and drugs, occupational diseases, terrorism, utility company. aviation disasters, antitrust, and securities and consumer fraud With more than two decades of experience in asbestos litigation, in mass torts and other cutting-edge litigation that spans the Bob also represents victims of asbestos exposure suffering from country. mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. He has Don serves in leadership roles for a number of multi-district managed large consolidation trials in several states including litigations, including playing a key role in negotiations on behalf Maryland, Mississippi and West Virginia. of tens of thousands of women allegedly harmed by pelvic After beginning his career as a teacher, Bob earned a law degree mesh/sling products and serving as co-liaison counsel in the and clerked for the Honorable Donald F. Shea of the Rhode Island N.J. Bard pelvic mesh litigation in Atlantic County. .Hundreds Supreme Court. He joined Motley Rice attorneys on the tobacco of cases have been filed in federal and states courts against litigation team representing multiple state attorneys general, multiple defendants. which resulted in the historic Master Settlement Agreement He is also co-lead counsel for In re Ethicon Physiomesh between the states and the tobacco industry. Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, Highly active in the Rhode Island community, Bob serves as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for In re Bard board vice chairman of The Institute for the Study and Practice of IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, as well as the Depuy® Nonviolence, an organization that seeks to promote nonviolence Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR™ and Pinnacle® Hip Implant MDLs. among young people in Rhode Island’s inner cities. He is also a Don has litigated against both Ethicon, a Johnson & Johnson board member for the George Wiley Center, which advocates for subsidiary, and C.R. Bard previously in pelvic mesh litigation the rights of low income Rhode Island citizens, and the Fund for and also against C.R. Bard in the Composix® Kugel® hernia mesh Community Progress, an organization that supports 26 grassroots multidistrict litigation, In re Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products organizations working for long-term community change. Liability Litigation, the first MDL before the federal court of Rhode Island. Don also serves as co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel and Bob frequently speaks about lead paint litigation to local and liaison counsel in the federal MDL, and as liaison counsel for regional groups such as the Rhode Island Bar Association and the the Composix® Kugel® Mesh lawsuits consolidated in Rhode Northeast Conference of Attorneys General. He is recognized as Island state court on behalf of thousands of individuals alleging an AV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. injury by the hernia repair patch. AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Don played a central role in the extensive discovery, mediations The Best Lawyers in America® and settlements of more than 50 cases of 9/11 aviation liability 2009–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs and damages against numerous defendants. He represented Rhode Island Super Lawyers® lists families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks who 2008–2017 Plaintiff: Class action/mass torts; Environmental opted out of the Victim Compensation Fund to seek greater litigation; Personal injury: general answers, accountability and recourse, and served as liaison counsel for all wrongful death and personal injury cases in the Benchmark Plaintiff 9/11 aviation security litigation. Additionally, he manages anti- 2012–2014 Rhode Island “Litigation Star”: environmental and terrorism litigation associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a toxic tort lead attorney of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, The Legal 500 United States a groundbreaking case designed to bankrupt the financiers of 2015 Mass tort and class action: plaintiff representation – al Qaeda. toxic tort Don contributed his experience in connection with the ASSOCIATIONS: commencement of and strategy for shareholder derivative American Association for Justice litigation brought on behalf Chiquita Brands International, American Bar Association Inc., alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties *Although it endorses this lawyer, The Legal 500 United States is not a Motley Rice client. 24 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 50 of 62 TEAM BIOS: by paying bribes to terrorist organizations in violation of U.S. William H. Narwold and Columbian law. He also served as trial counsel for PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund in a securities case LICENSED IN: CT, DC, NY, SC against Forest Laboratories, Inc., and was involved in the initial ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: liability discovery and trial strategy in an ongoing securities U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, fraud class action involving Household International, Inc. Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C., and Federal Circuits, U.S. District Court for the Don began working with Motley Rice attorneys in 1997 on behalf District of Colorado, District of Connecticut, Eastern District of of the State Attorneys General in the historic lawsuit against Michigan, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, District Big Tobacco, resulting in the largest civil settlement in U.S. of South Carolina history. He tried several noteworthy asbestos cases on behalf EDUCATION: of mesothelioma victims, including the state of Indiana’s first J.D. cum laude, University of Connecticut School of Law, 1979 contractor liability verdict and first premises liability verdict B.A., Colby College, 1974 for wrongful exposure to asbestos. He continues to manage Bill Narwold has advocated for corporate accountability asbestos cases and actively litigates mesothelioma lawsuits and fiduciary responsibility for nearly 40 years, representing and individual tobacco cases in the courtroom. consumers, governmental entities, unions and institutional Don is a frequent speaker at legal seminars across the investors. He litigates complex securities fraud, shareholder country and has appeared on numerous television and radio rights and consumer fraud lawsuits, as well as matters involving programs, as well as in print media to address legal issues unfair trade practices, antitrust violations and whistleblower/ related to terrorist financing, aviation security, class action qui tam claims. litigation, premises liability and defective medical devices. A Bill leads Motley Rice’s securities and consumer fraud litigation “Distinguished Practitioner in Residence” at Roger Williams teams and False Claim Act practice. He is also active in the firm’s University School of Law for the 2010-2011 academic year, Don appellate practice. His experience includes being involved in taught mass torts as an adjunct professor for more than 10 more than 200 appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. years. Don is an AV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. Courts of Appeal and multiple state courts. AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2004, Bill directed corporate, The Best Lawyers in America® securities, financial, and other complex litigation on behalf 2011–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs of private and commercial clients for 25 years at Cummings Rhode Island Super Lawyers® lists & Lockwood in Hartford, Connecticut, including 10 years as 2009–2017 Class action/mass torts; Personal Injury – products: managing partner. Prior to his work in private practice, he plaintiff; Aviation and aerospace served as a law clerk for the Honorable Warren W. Eginton of 2012–2013 Top 10 Rhode Island Super Lawyers lists the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut from 1979-1981. The National Trial Lawyers Bill often acts as an arbitrator and mediator both privately and 2010–present Top 100 Trial Lawyers™: Rhode Island through the American Arbitration Association. He is a frequent speaker on legal matters, including class actions. Named one Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly of 11 lawyers “who made a difference” by The Connecticut 2011 Lawyers of the Year Law Tribune, Bill is recognized as an AV® rated attorney by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Martindale-Hubbell®. 2011 Lawyers of the Year Bill has served the Hartford community with past involvements Benchmark Plaintiff including the Greater Hartford Legal Assistance Foundation, 2012–2014 Rhode Island “Litigation Star”: human rights and Lawyers for Children America, and as President of the product liability Connecticut Bar Foundation. For more than twenty years, Bill served as a Director and Chairman of Protein Sciences 2010 Lawdragon™ 3,000 Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company in Meriden, Providence Business News Connecticut. 2005 Forty Under 40 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: ASSOCIATIONS: The Best Lawyers in America® American Association for Justice, Board of Governors; former 2013, 2017 Hartford, Conn. “Lawyer of the Year”: Litigation– Executive Committee member Banking and Finance American Bar Association 2005–2018 Litigation–Banking and finance, mergers and Rhode Island Association for Justice, former President acquisitions, securities The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation Connecticut Super Lawyers® and New England Super Lawyers® lists 2009–2016 Securities litigation; Class action/mass torts 2008 The Best of the U.S. list Connecticut Bar Foundation 2008 Legal Services Leadership Award

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 25 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 51 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

ASSOCIATIONS: • In re Allion Healthcare, Inc. Shareholders Litigation ($4 million American Bar Association payment to shareholders*) Connecticut Bar Foundation, Past President • In re RehabCare Group, Inc., Shareholders Litigation ($2.5 Taxpayers Against Fraud million payment, modification of merger agreement, and University of Connecticut Law School Foundation, past Board additional disclosures to shareholders*) of Trustees member • In re Atheros Communications Shareholder Litigation (preliminary injunction delaying shareholder vote and requiring additional disclosures to shareholders in $3.1 billion merger*) William S. Norton • Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. PLATO Learning, Inc. LICENSED IN: MA, NY, SC (preliminary injunction requiring additional disclosures to ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: shareholders in $143 million private-equity buyout*) U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Second, • In re The Shaw Group Shareholders Litigation (class-wide, opt- Third and Fourth Circuits; U.S. District Court for the District of in appraisal right and additional disclosures to shareholders in Colorado, Northern District of Illinois, District of Massachusetts, $3 billion merger*) Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and District of South Other Securities, Consumer Fraud, and Commercial Litigation Carolina Bill has also represented clients in a wide variety of securities, EDUCATION: consumer fraud, and commercial litigation, including the following J.D., Boston University School of Law, 2004 cases: B.A./B.S. magna cum laude, University of South Carolina, 2001 • Class action on behalf of satellite retailers against EchoStar Bill Norton litigates securities fraud, corporate governance, Corporation, resulting in settlement valued at approximately and other complex class-action and commercial litigation. Bill $83 million* has represented public retirement systems, union pension • Class action on behalf of bondholders concerning alleged funds, investment companies, banks, and other institutional and Ponzi scheme, resulting in $7.8 million recovery* individual investors before federal, state, and appellate courts • Class action against DirecTV regarding early cancellation fees throughout the country. He also has experience representing • Litigation on behalf of a German bank concerning investments whistleblowers who report violations of the law to the U.S. in mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations Securities and Exchange Commission under the Dodd-Frank • Federal and state lawsuits regarding variable life insurance Whistleblower Program. investments funneled to the Madoff Ponzi scheme Federal Securities Fraud Litigation • Litigation on behalf of real-estate investors regarding luxury Bill is a member of the litigation teams representing institutional real estate development investors as lead counsel in litigation involving Advanced Micro Prior to joining Motley Rice, Bill practiced securities and commercial Devices, Inc.; Investment Technology Group, Inc.; GNC Holdings, litigation in the New York office of an international law firm. While Inc.; and Medtronic, Inc. He also played a key role in the following attending law school, Bill served as an Editor of the Boston cases: University Law Review and was a G. Joseph Tauro Distinguished Scholar. He served as a law clerk in the United States Attorney’s • Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp. ($131 million recovery*) Office for the District of Massachusetts, represented asylum • City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc. ($62 seekers at Greater Boston Legal Services, and studied law at the million recovery*) University of Oxford. Prior to law school, Bill worked for the United • Hill v. State Street Corporation ($60 million recovery*) States Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina and • City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System with the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program of Charleston v. Hospira, Inc. ($60 million recovery*) through a grant program. Bill graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the • In re Hewlett-Packard Company Securities Litigation ($57 University of South Carolina Honors College. Bill is recognized as million recovery*) an AV®-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®. • Ross v. Career Education Corporation ($27.5 million recovery*) Shareholder Derivative Litigation AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Bill was a member of the teams that litigated the following cases: South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list 2013–2017 Securities litigation; Class action/mass torts; General • Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder ($16.7 litigation million payment to the company and significant corporate governance reforms*) ASSOCIATIONS: • In re Walgreen Co. Derivative Litigation (corporate governance Federal Bar Association reforms ensuring compliance with Controlled Substances American Bar Association Act*) American Association for Justice Merger and Acquisition Litigation New York State Bar Association Bill has represented institutional shareholders in litigation South Carolina Bar Association concerning corporate mergers and acquisitions, including the Charleston County Bar Association following cases:

26 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 52 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Lance Oliver Michael J. Pendell LICENSED IN: AL, DC, FL, SC LICENSED IN: CT, NY ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Fifth and U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Southern the Eleventh Circuits; U.S. District Court for the District of and Eastern Districts of New York Columbia, and the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida EDUCATION: EDUCATION: J.D., summa cum laude, Albany Law School, 2007 J.D., Duke University School of Law, 2004 B.A., cum laude, Emerson College, 2000 B.A., Samford University, 2001 Michael Pendell focuses his practice on representing people Lance Oliver focuses his practice on class actions, mass affected by corporate wrongdoing, including whistleblowers, torts and other complex litigation. He represents institutional and people harmed by tobacco and dangerous pelvic mesh investors in securities fraud class actions and merger and devices. He also represents pension fund trustees and other acquisition litigation, and has experience in trial and appellate institutional investors in securities, consumer fraud, and other courts, as well as arbitration and mediation. His recent complex class actions. experience includes: Michael has been involved in the firm’s representation of • Serving as trial counsel representing individual smokers and personal injury clients, including representing people allegedly families of deceased smokers against tobacco manufacturers harmed by tobacco products and thousands alleging harm by in the Engle-progeny litigation pending in Florida dangerous medical devices. He serves as trial counsel in the • Litigating and resolving shareholders’ breach of fiduciary duty Engle-progeny litigation pending in Florida for smokers and claims in In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Shareholder Litigation families of deceased smokers against tobacco manufacturers. • Serving as co-class counsel in Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, In transvaginal mesh litigation, he represents women implanted et al. v. Pharmacia Corp., et al., a securities fraud class action with Ethicon Gynecare Prolift transvaginal mesh devices and that settled for $164 million dollars* who claim serious injuries and complications from the devices. • Litigating and resolving shareholders’ breach of fiduciary duty Michael also has experience representing institutional and claims in In re Rehabcare Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, individual investors in claims involving common law fraud which resulted in creating a $2.5 million settlement fund for pursuant to state securities laws. He played a central role on Rehabcare shareholders* the litigation team that obtained a seven-figure arbitration Lance has devoted a substantial amount of time to litigating award in a case involving secondary liability for an investment securities fraud class actions and played a key role in advisor’s conduct under the Uniform Securities Act. Michael documenting and administering the following class action also represents clients in complex commercial cases regarding settlements: In re Select Medical Corp. Sec. Litig. (settled for claims of fraud, breach of contract, and tortuous interference, $5 million*); In re NPS Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig. (settled for $15 as well as representing whistleblowers in multiple cases million*); In re MBNA Sec. Litig. (settled for $25 million*); In re involving the False Claims Act, including litigation filed against Dell Sec. Litig. (settled for $40 million*). Afognak Native Corp., alleging regulatory violations related to Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2007, Lance served as an the Small Business Administration. associate in the Washington, D.C., office of a national law firm, Michael, along with other Motley Rice attorneys, represented where he worked on complex products liability litigation at a union pension fund as co-lead counsel in a securities fraud both the trial and appellate levels. Lance also has experience in class action to recoup losses against a telecom provider SEC whistleblower actions. that allegedly provided false information regarding its Lance is an active member of the National Conference on Public financial results, causing artificially inflated stock prices that Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) and the International subsequently plummeted when the truth was made known. The Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP). After graduating settlement is pending court approval. from Duke Law School, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Prior to joining Motley Rice. Michael served as an associate with James Hughes Hancock of the U.S. District Court, Northern a Connecticut-based law firm, where he first gained experience District of Alabama. He is recognized as an AV® rated attorney in both federal and state courts in such areas as commercial by Martindale-Hubbell®. and construction litigation, media and administrative law, AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: personal injury defense and labor and employment matters. He South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list previously taught business law to BA and MBA candidates as an 2013–2017 Securities litigation; Class action/mass torts adjunct professor at Albertus Magnus College. The National Trial Lawyers Michael served as a legal intern for the Honorable Randolph F. 2016 Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ South Carolina Treece of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and as a law clerk for the Major Felony Unit of the Albany ASSOCIATIONS: County District Attorney’s Office. He served as the executive American Bar Association editor for the New York State Bar Association Government Law & Policy Journal and senior editor for the Albany Law Review, which published his 2008 article entitled, “How Far is Too Far?

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 27 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 53 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

The Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Education As an Assistant U.S. Attorney early in her career, Mary litigated State’s Battle Against Unfunded Mandates.” civil cases and prosecuted federal white-collar crimes, bank AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: and securities fraud, mail and wire fraud, drug trafficking and counterfeiting. During her appointment, she also served on the Connecticut Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list U.S. Department of Justice’s Organized Crime and Racketeering 2013–2016 Securities litigation; Business litigation; Personal Strike Force, prosecuting high-profile criminal cases of bank injury – products: plaintiff and securities fraud and related mail and wire fraud, including ASSOCIATIONS: a large investigation of a bank and securities fraud scheme that American Association for Justice resulted in the federal takeover of banks, savings and loans Connecticut Bar Association throughout the Midwest. New York State Bar Association In 1987, Mary was selected as a White House Fellow and * Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For assigned to the U.S. Attorney General, where she worked as the full Super Lawyers selection methodology visit: www. Special Assistant for Criminal Affairs. In this role, she reviewed superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html high security prosecutions, prepared Foreign Intelligence For CT-specific methodology visit: www.superlawyers.com/ Surveillance Act Requests, attended foreign legal summits with connecticut/selection_details.html the Attorney General and worked on international prisoner and evidence exchanges. During this time, she also taught trial technique at the U.S. Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute Mary F. Schiavo and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy. Her work LICENSED IN: DC, FL, MD, MO, SC earned her an appointment as the Assistant U.S. Secretary of ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: Labor in 1989, where she led the Office of Labor Management U.S. Supreme Court Standards, supervising union elections and investigations on EDUCATION: election and financial irregularities. J.D., New York University School of Law, 1980 (Root-Tilden A frequent on-air contributor or consultant for several networks, Scholar) Mary has appeared on CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox News, NBC, BBC, the M.A., The Ohio State University, 1977 (University Fellow) History Channel and Discovery Channel. Named by Glamour B.A. cum laude, Harvard University, 1976 magazine as a 1997 Woman of the Year, 1987 Working Woman of A CNN Analyst and former U.S. Department of Transportation the Year and a Top Ten College Student in 1975, she has spoken Inspector General, Mary Schiavo seeks accountability and about aviation safety on 20/20, 60 Minutes, Good Morning industry change from corporations, institutions and the America, Larry King Live, Nancy Grace, Nightline, Oprah, The government so that they may meet their obligation to protect O’Reilly Factor, Today, and Your World with Neil Cavuto, among the safety and security of the traveling public. With years others. Mary is the author of Flying Blind, Flying Safe, a New of experience in transportation litigation, Mary represents York Times bestseller, and was featured in Time magazine for victims and their families suffering from negligence of airline, exposing the poor safety and security practices of the airlines automotive, commercial trucking, motorcoach and rail and the failures of the federal government to properly regulate companies. the aviation industry. She contributed to Aviation Security A leader of the firm’s aviation team, Mary has represented Management (Volume One, 2008) and Supply Chain Security passengers and crew of most major U.S. air crashes, as well (Volumes One and Two, 2010). as pilots and passengers on private or charter planes. She Mary received her pilot’s license soon after her driver’s license, represents passengers, pilots, flight attendants and select and later completed private and commercial flight training owners and operators. Her experience with major, complex at The Ohio State University. She returned to The Ohio State aviation litigation includes more than 50 cases on behalf of the University as the McConnell Aviation Chair and professor from family members of the passengers and crew of all the planes 1998-2002 and as the Enarson Professor of Public Policy from hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001. 1997-1998. She has also served as a practitioner in residence Mary has held numerous government appointments under at the New York University School of Law, and is currently three U.S. Presidents, including that of Inspector General of a member of the Board of Directors for the Lowcountry SC the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 to 1996. Under chapter of the American Red Cross. Mary’s direction, the agency investigated air safety, crimes AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: and disasters; secured more than 1,000 criminal convictions; The Best Lawyers in America® and exposed billions of dollars of fraud, waste and abuse of 2017 Charleston, S.C. “Lawyer of the Year”: Mass tort taxpayer money. She testified before Congress multiple times litigation/class actions – plaintiffs on transportation safety, security, budgeting and infrastructure. 2010–2018 Mass tort litigation/class actions – plaintiffs In recognition of her work combating the use of bogus aircraft parts worldwide, Mary was honored by Aviation Week with its National Law Journal Aviation Laurel Award in 1992 and 1995 and was inducted into 2015 Outstanding Women Lawyers the Aviation Laurel Hall of Fame in 1997.

28 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 54 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Aviation Week A South Carolina native and active in the community, Carmen 1997 Inducted to the Aviation Laureates Hall of Fame is currently a College of Charleston alumni board member. She 1992, 1995 Aviation Laurel Award in recognition of her work also proudly served on the Board of the South Carolina chapter combating the use of bogus aircraft parts of Make-A-Wish for many years, fundraising and promoting the Benchmark Plaintiff organization’s mission, as well as serving as a “wish-granter” 2014 Top 150 Women in Litigation list: South Carolina – mass for selected families and has served as a board member for the tort, securities, aviation nonprofit organization Charleston County Friends of the Library. 2012–2014 South Carolina “Litigation Star”: mass tort, AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: securities, aviation The Best Lawyers in America® 2012–2013 National “Litigation Star”: mass tort/product 2018 Charleston, S.C. Personal injury litigation–plaintiffs; liability Product liability litigation–plaintiffs ASSOCIATIONS: South Carolina Super Lawyers® list American Association for Justice 2015–2017 Personal injury plaintiff: products; Class action/ American Bar Association, First Female Assembly Delegate, mass torts House of Delegates 1986–1989 South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list International Society of Air Safety Investigators, affiliate 2013–2014 Personal injury plaintiff: products; Class action/ member mass torts International Air and Transportation Safety Bar Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America, Charleston Regional Business Journal Chair of Legislation 2013 Forty Under 40 ASSOCIATIONS: Carmen S. Scott American Association for Justice, Exchange Advisory Committee LICENSED IN: SC American Bar Association EDUCATION: South Carolina Association for Justice J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1999 South Carolina Women Lawyers Association B.A., College of Charleston, 1996 With a focus on women’s products, Carmen Scott represents victims of harmful medical drugs and devices, medical Fred Thompson III negligence, and corporate misconduct. LICENSED IN: SC Carmen helps lead Motley Rice’s mass tort pharmaceutical ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: litigation by managing complex personal injury and economic U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth recovery damages cases. She has been on the forefront of Circuit, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina national contraceptive litigation involving products such as EDUCATION: Xarelto® and Essure®, and previously litigated Nuvaring®, Yaz® J.D. with distinction, Duke University School of Law, 1979 and Yasmin®. She served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee B.A. cum laude, Yale University, 1973 in In re NuvaRing Products Liability Litigation, serves as co- With decades of diverse experience in personal injury, lead counsel in In re Mirena Product Liability state court commercial and toxic tort law, Fred Thompson represents consolidation in New Jersey, and is co-chair of the AAJ Mirena® people harmed by negligence, product defects or misconduct. IUD Litigation Group. She was also appointed to the Plaintiffs’ As a leader of the medical litigation team, Fred manages cases Steering Committee for the multidistrict litigation In re Power related to defective medical devices, harmful pharmaceutical Morcellator Products Liability Litigation and In re Johnson & drugs, medical malpractice, and nursing home abuse. Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices His work has led to his appointment to numerous leadership and Products Liability Litigation. Carmen currently represents positions, including: clients in a variety of drug product matters in state and federal • Co-lead coordinating counsel for the pelvic mesh lawsuits courts, including talcum powder. consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2005 and concentrating her efforts of West Virginia on the medical practice area, Carmen represented numerous • Plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel for the Mirena® IUD multidistrict clients in jury trials, working on products liability, personal litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of injury and business cases for both plaintiffs and defendants. New York Carmen is a frequent speaker on medical litigation and topics • Plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel for the federal Digitek® involving women’s products, regularly lecturing at both legal consolidation seminars and public advocacy events on such issues as • Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee member for the Medtronic Sprint plaintiffs’ rights in medical negligence and dangerous drug Fidelis® defibrillator lead cases. She has been quoted in numerous national media outlets • Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee member for the Avandia® and publications, including The Associated Press, NBC News federal multidistrict litigation New York, Marie Claire and MotherJones. • Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee member for the Trasylol® federal multidistrict litigation

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 29 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 55 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

• Chairman of the American Association for Justice’s Digitek® Andrew also has an extensive background in software Litigation Group development, primarily in the healthcare industry, where he • Co-chairman of the AAJ Kugel® Mesh Litigation Group designed and developed software to ensure compliance with Fred is also active with the firm’s consumer fraud, commercial government regulations. and economic damage litigation. He has represented clients in litigation involving bond issues and securities fraud in federal, state and bankruptcy forums as well as through alternative Elizabeth A. Camputaro dispute resolution. Additionally, Fred has practiced commercial LICENSED IN: SC transaction work, including contracting, corporate, partnership ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: and limited liability company formation, and capital acquisitions. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal and Fourth Circuits; U.S. Recognized as an AV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; U.S. District Court for Fred frequently speaks on medical litigation topics at legal the District of South Carolina seminars throughout the country. He co-authored “Composix® EDUCATION: Kugel® Mesh: A Primer” for the Spring 2008 AAJ Section on J.D. magna cum laude, Charleston School of Law, 2008 Toxic, Environmental & Pharmaceutical Torts newsletter. Fred B.A., Columbia College, 2004 serves his local community as a Board Member for the East Elizabeth Camputaro focuses her practice on securities fraud Cooper Community Outreach organization. class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Elizabeth has been working with Motley Rice since 2013, overseeing teams that AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: assist the firm’s securities practice group through the discovery The Best Lawyers in America® and trial phases of class action litigation. She is currently 2018 Charleston, S.C. Mass tort litigation: class actions– a member of the litigation teams representing institutional plaintiffs investors as lead counsel in securities fraud class actions filed ASSOCIATIONS: against Medtronic, Inc., and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Among American Association for Justice other complex securities fraud and shareholder derivative matters, Elizabeth has been involved in litigation against State Street Corporation, Sprint Nextel Corporation and Advanced ADDITIONAL SECURITIES LITIGATORS Micro Devices. Prior to joining Motley Rice, Elizabeth served as a judicial law Andrew P. Arnold clerk for the Honorable Deadra L. Jefferson, Ninth Judicial Circuit. While in law school, Elizabeth was a member of the LICENSED IN: NY, SC Federal Courts Law Review, contributed over 100 hours of pro EDUCATION: bono service, and served as a judicial extern for the Honorable J.D., with honors, University of North Carolina School of Law, Thomas L. Hughston, Ninth Judicial Circuit. 2013 B.A., with highest honors, University of North Carolina at Active in her community, Elizabeth has served as an Election Chapel Hill, 2002 Commissioner for Beaufort and Summerville municipalities, Andrew Arnold represents institutional investors and individuals Beaufort County Council Library Board Trustee, and international in complex securities, corporate governance and shareholder missionary with Project Medishare and One World Health. litigation. ASSOCIATIONS: He concentrates his practice on investigating and developing American Bar Association securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative lawsuits, South Carolina Bar Association merger and acquisition litigation, and consumer fraud. He Charleston Bar Association joined Motley Rice co-founder Joe Rice in negotiations in the Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Fraud class action for consumers whose vehicles were allegedly designed to bypass regulations. Sara O. Couch The $15 billion settlement for 2.0-liter vehicles is the largest LICENSED IN: FL, SC consumer auto-related consumer class action in U.S. history, EDUCATION: and among the fastest reached of its kind. J.D., University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013 Prior to joining Motley Rice, Andrew practiced commercial A.B., Duke University, 2009 litigation and investor-state dispute settlement in the Sara Couch represents institutional investors, government Washington, D.C. office of a large international law firm. He was entities and consumers in securities and consumer fraud recognized on the 2014 Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll for litigation. Sara also assists in the litigation of individual tobacco serving 100 pro bono hours in the D.C. area. While attending cases. the University of North Carolina School of Law, Andrew was Prior to joining Motley Rice, Sara served as a law clerk with the a member of the North Carolina Law Review and served as North Carolina Department of Justice, where she researched a judicial intern for the North Carolina Court of Appeals and and drafted briefs and memoranda regarding the False Claims as a research assistant for Professor Thomas Lee Hazen, a Act and Stark Law for the North Carolina Medicaid Civil prominent securities regulation scholar.

30 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 56 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Enforcement Division. She also investigated allegations of Annie E. Kouba healthcare fraud and presented findings to the division. LICENSED IN: SC During law school Sara was a certified student practitioner ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: with the University of North Carolina Civil Litigation Clinic. As a U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina student practitioner, Sara represented clients in administrative EDUCATION: hearings, obtaining successful outcomes and needed relief. She J.D., University of North Carolina School of Law, 2016 also represented several inmates in an action against the North M.S.W., University of North Carolina School of Social Work, Carolina prison system, conducting depositions and assisting 2016 in obtaining a preliminary injunction against the prison. B.A., magna cum laude, Lenoir-Rhyne University, 2012 While attending the University of North Carolina School of Annie Kouba represents institutional investors in securities Law, Sara competed in the Kilpatrick Townsend 1L Mock Trial fraud and shareholder litigation as well as public clients and Competition and was awarded best oral advocate during government entities. the preliminary round. She was a staff member of the First Annie’s work includes helping Biogen shareholders in their Amendment Law Review and was a member of the Carolina Law fight to recover losses associated with the pharmaceutical Ambassadors. company’s allegedly dangerous drug Tecfidera. Sara also volunteered with Legal Aid of North Carolina, assisting She also assists in litigation filed by the Cherokee Nation advocates for Children’s Services with a school-to-prison against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and pipeline project by researching education policy issues, North other federal agencies related to the False Claims Act. She has Carolina case law and education data to be used in education additional experience in qui tam whistleblower litigation. litigation. Sara completed a total of 50 hours of pro bono service while a student at UNC School of Law. Prior to joining Motley Rice, Annie interned with the North Carolina Department of Justice in the Health and Human Services An avid rower, Sara was a varsity member of the NCCA Division where she drafted criminal briefs for the N.C. Court of Division-I Duke University’s rowing team and is a classically- Appeals and N.C. Supreme Court, and assisted the president of trained pianist. the American Association of Public Welfare Attorneys. She also interned with the EMILY’s List Political Opportunity Program and has worked as a voir dire consultant. Max N. Gruetzmacher Annie concentrated in Community, Management, and Policy LICENSED IN: SC Practice at the University of North Carolina’s School of ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: Social Work Master’s program where she specialized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina intersection of public policy and the law. Through a practicum EDUCATION: with the program, Annie interned with the Compass Center J.D., Marquette University Law School, 2008 for Women and Families in the Financial Literacy Education B.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004 Program, where she served as a certified counselor with The Max Gruetzmacher focuses his practice on securities and Benefit Bank. consumer fraud, representing large public pension funds, While pursuing her studies at the University of North Carolina unions and other institutional investors in securities and School of Law, Annie served as a published staff member on consumer fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. the First Amendment Law Review and as vice president of the Max has represented numerous clients in a variety of complex Carolina Public Interest Law Organization. She also participated civil litigation matters. He has substantial experience managing in the Pro Bono Program there, through which she prepared tax litigation discovery efforts and shaping e-discovery strategy, returns for low-income citizens and researched and provided including drafting and negotiating sophisticated e-discovery social work policy and legal perspective related to minors’ protocols. Max is proficient in the use of predictive coding and rights after sexual assault for a guidebook from the NC Coalition other advanced analytic technologies and workflows. Against Sexual Assault. Previously, he served as a legal intern during law school for the ASSOCIATIONS: Wisconsin State Public Defender, Appellate Division, where he American Association for Justice, Political Action Committee aided in appellate criminal defense and handled legal research Task Force and appellate brief writing projects. South Carolina Association for Justice ASSOCIATIONS: South Carolina Bar Association Charleston County Bar Association

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 31 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 57 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Rebecca E. Jacobs Christopher F. Moriarty LICENSED IN: SC LICENSED IN: SC EDUCATION: ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: J.D. with honors, Charleston School of Law, 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits; U.S. B.A., Furman University, 2010 District Court for the District of Colorado, the Northern District Rebecca Jacobs focuses her practice on securities and consumer of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of fraud litigation. Rebecca has been working with Motley Rice South Carolina since 2015, managing teams that help further complex securities EDUCATION: litigation through discovery and research. Rebecca was a J.D., Duke University School of Law, 2011 member of the team that represented institutional investors as M.A., Trinity College, University of Cambridge, 2007 lead counsel in In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, which B.A., Trinity College, University of Cambridge, 2003 reached a $140 million settlement for shareholders*. She has Christopher Moriarty litigates securities fraud, corporate also contributed to discovery in securities fraud litigation against governance, and other complex class action litigation in the St. Jude Medical, Inc., and is currently a member of the team U.S. and counsels institutional investors on opportunities to representing investors in In re Conn’s, Inc. Securities Litigation. seek recovery in securities-related actions in both the U.S. and Rebecca worked as a legal assistant and paralegal in Charleston internationally. while pursuing a law degree. She has also completed numerous Christopher was a member of the litigation teams representing pro bono hours with programs including Volunteer Income Tax investors as lead counsel in the following notable actions: Assistance as well as Adult Guardianship Assistance and Monitoring. • In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-03851 (S.D.N.Y.) ASSOCIATIONS: ($140 million recovery*) (sole lead counsel); South Carolina Women Lawyers Association • City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., 11 South Carolina Bar Association Civ. 4655 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.) ($62 million recovery*) (sole lead Charleston County Bar Association counsel); • Hill v. State Street Corp., No. 09-cv-12136-GAO (D. Mass.) ($60 million recovery*) (co-lead counsel); Meredith B. Miller • In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Securities Litigation, No. 11-cv-1404 LICENSED IN: SC, TX (RNBx) (C.D. Cal.) ($57 million recovery*) (co-lead counsel); ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: • Första AP-Fonden and Danske Invest Management A/S v. St. U.S. District Court for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Jude Medical, Inc., No. Civil No. 12-3070 (JNE/HB) (D. Minn.) Western Districts of Texas ($39.25 million recovery*) (co-lead counsel); EDUCATION: • Ross v. Career Education Corp., No. 12-cv-00276 (N.D. Ill.) ($27.5 J.D., University of Texas School of Law, 2011 million recovery*) (co-lead counsel). B.A., with distinction, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Christopher currently represents investors in the following 2008 actions: KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corp., No. Meredith Miller represents public pension funds, unions and 15-cv-02393-MGL (D.S.C.); KBC Asset Management NV v. Aegerion other institutional investors in both federal and state courts. She Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 14-cv-10105-MLW (D. Mass.); In re Conn’s, also represents victims of medical malpractice. Meredith works Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-00548 (KPE) (S.D. Tex.); and directly with clients and is typically involved in the initial case Martin v. GNC Holdings, Inc., No. 15-cv-01522-NBF (W.D. Pa.). evaluation, discovery, and various motions. Christopher also represents investors in shareholder derivative Meredith is a member of the team representing investors in litigation, including in In re Walgreen Co. Derivative Litigation, securities fraud class actions filed against Advanced Micro No. 13-cv-05471 (N.D. Ill.) (seeking corporate governance reforms Devices, Barrick Gold and SAC Capital. She is also part of the team to ensure compliance with the Controlled Substances Act*), and bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty against current and whistleblowers in proceedings before the U.S. Securities and former directors of Lululemon for failing to investigate potential Exchange Commission. insider trades allegedly made by the company’s founder and While in law school, Christopher was a member of the Moot former chairman. Court Board, served as an Executive Editor of the Duke Journal Prior to joining Motley Rice, Meredith gained trial and settlement of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, and taught a course on experience as an associate at a Dallas, Texas, law firm working constitutional law to LL.M. students. Christopher has also drafted in business and construction litigation. While attending the amicus curiae briefs in numerous constitutional law cases before University of Texas School of Law, she clerked for an Austin the U.S. Supreme Court (which has cited his work) and the federal firm, represented victims in court as a student attorney inthe courts of appeal. UT Law Domestic Violence Clinic and was a Staff Editor of the Christopher was called to the Bar in England and Wales by the Review of Litigation journal. During her undergraduate and law Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. school career, Meredith studied abroad in Paris, France, Geneva, Switzerland and Puebla, Mexico. PUBLISHED WORKS: “Supreme Court Rules That Securities Act Time Bar Is Not ASSOCIATIONS: Subject to American Pipe Tolling” (American Bar Association, Charleston County Bar Association October 2017) 32 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 58 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: Laura is a member of the team leading a proposed class South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list action alleging that Investment Technology Group (ITG) 2016–2017 Securities litigation defrauded shareholders by concealing the actions that led ASSOCIATIONS: to a regulatory sanction fine levied against it by the SEC. The South Carolina Association for Justice fine announcement, made in August 2015, allegedly resulted in American Bar Association stockholders suffering a loss of more than 23 percent in share South Carolina Bar Association value. The $20.3 million sanction is considered the largest fine Charleston County Bar Association levied by the SEC against a private securities trading forum, otherwise known as a dark pool. Prior to joining Motley Rice, Laura worked in commercial Meghan S. B. Oliver litigation, handling trial and appellate litigation, arbitration LICENSED IN: DC, SC, VA and mediation. Laura served as law clerk to Justice Robert J. ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: Callahan of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Laura began her U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina career as a certified public accountant. EDUCATION: J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2004 B.A. with distinction, University of Virginia, 2000 Ann K. Ritter Meghan Oliver’s practice includes work on securities fraud Senior Counsel and Securities Case cases, antitrust litigation, general commercial litigation, and Coordination Manager consumer fraud litigation. LICENSED IN: SC She is actively involved in two class actions against the U.S. ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: pending in federal district court in D.C., one alleging that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third and Eleventh Circuits the IRS charged unauthorized user fees for the issuance and EDUCATION: renewal of preparer tax identification numbers Steele( v. United J.D., University of Tennessee, 1982 States, Case No. 1:14-cv-1523-RCL), and one alleging that the B.S., Florida State University, 1980 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts charges more for As Senior Counsel for Motley Rice, Ann Ritter plays a key role PACER services than is authorized by statute (Nat’l Veterans on Motley Rice’s securities team, which represents domestic Legal Services Program v. United States, Case No. 16-745-ESH). and foreign institutional investors in complex cases involving Meghan also spends her time on securities fraud class actions, shareholder rights, corporate governance, securities and including currently In re Technology Group, Inc. Securities consumer fraud. She possesses more than 25 years of Litigation, No. 15 Civ. 6369 (JFK), and in the past, cases involving experience in complex litigation involving matters as varied as Medtronic, Inc., Hospira, Inc. and several others. securities, products liability and consumer protection. She has also worked on several antitrust matters, including Ann serves as a frequent speaker on legal topics such as In re North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation, In re Libor- worker safety, shareholder rights and corporate governance. Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, and generic In 2007, she addressed leading German institutional investors drug cases involving “reverse payment” agreements. as a keynote speaker on the impact of U.S. class actions at the Deutsche Schutzvereinigung für Wertpapierbesitz e. V. Practical Prior to joining Motley Rice, Meghan worked as a business Workshop for institutional investors in Frankfurt, Germany. litigation and antitrust associate in Washington, D.C. There, she assisted in the trial of a multidistrict litigation antitrust case and After earning a Bachelor of Science degree from Florida State assisted in multiple corporate internal investigations. She is a University, Ann pursued a law degree from the University member of Phi Beta Kappa. of Tennessee. She is the co-author of Asbestos in Schools, published by the National School Boards Association. Ann ASSOCIATIONS: previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Tobacco American Bar Association Deposition and Trial Testimony Archives (DATTA) Project and currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Board of Laura W. Ray the South Carolina Special Olympics, the Advisory Board of the Medical University of South Carolina Hollings Cancer Center LICENSED IN: CT and the Advisory Board of The University of Mississippi School EDUCATION: of Law. She is recognized as a BV® rated attorney by Martindale- J.D. with High Honors, University of Connecticut School of Hubbell®. Law, 1989 B.S.B.A. magna cum laude, Boston University, 1983 ASSOCIATIONS: Laura Ray handles complex securities litigation for victims of South Carolina Association for Justice corporate wrongdoing, including institutional investors and union pension funds.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 33 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 59 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Lisa M. Saltzburg William P. Tinkler LICENSED IN: SC, CO LICENSED IN: SC ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Fifth Circuits; U.S. U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina District Court for the District of South Carolina EDUCATION: EDUCATION: J.D., Stanford Law School, 2006 J.D. cum laude, University of South Carolina School of Law, B.A. with high distinction, University of California, Berkeley, 2010 2003 B.A., Emory University, 2005 Lisa Saltzburg represents individuals, government entities and William Tinkler works with public pension funds, unions and institutional clients in complex securities and consumer fraud other institutional investors to help secure governance reforms actions, public client litigation, and a variety of other consumer and achieve recoveries through strategic and targeted litigation. and commercial matters. Lisa represents the State of South He handles a wide range of complex cases, including securities Carolina in litigation targeting alleged deceptive marketing and consumer fraud litigation and shareholder derivative suits. practices that contributed to the opioid crisis. She is part of the Before joining Motley Rice, William clerked with the Honorable BP Oil Spill litigation team, and helped people and businesses R. Bryan Harwell of the U.S. District Court for the District of South in Gulf Coast communities file claims through the new claims Carolina and served as a staff attorney for the South Carolina programs established by the two settlements reached with BP. Court of Appeals. His work with trial and appellate judges on Lisa also serves on the trial team for the Florida Engle tobacco a diverse array of legal issues gave him valuable experience litigation. in numerous areas of the law, as well as in legal research and Prior to joining Motley Rice, Lisa was an associate attorney writing. Additionally, he worked with several South Carolina for a nonprofit advocacy organization, where she worked law firms and the Charleston County Public Defender’s office through law and policy to protect the environmental interests before his admission to the Bar. of the Southeast. She drafted briefs and other filings in While in law school, William served as the Peer Review Editor for South Carolina’s federal and state courts and worked with the South Carolina Law Review. During this time, he developed administrative agencies to prepare for hearings and mediation the Peer Reviewed Scholarship Marketplace, a consortium of sessions. Lisa also served for two years as a judicial clerk for legal journals committed to incorporating peer review in their the Honorable Karen J. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for article selection process. William was honored with the CALI the Fourth Circuit, where she developed valuable legal research award for Federal Practice. In 2010, he was selected as a “Next and writing skills and gained experience involving a wide range Generation Leader” by the American Constitution Society and of issues arising in civil and criminal cases. served as President of his law school’s chapter. He was also a Lisa held multiple positions in environmental organizations member of the Order of the Wig and Robe. during law school, handling a broad array of constitutional, Active in his community, William, an Eagle Scout, has served jurisdictional and environmental issues. She also served as as a Unit Commissioner with the Boy Scouts of America and an editor of the Stanford Law Review and as an executive participated in the Big Brothers, Big Sisters mentoring program. editor of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal. A member of numerous organizations and societies, including the Stanford Environmental Law Society, Lisa attended the National Institute for Trial Advocacy’s week-long Trial Advocacy College at the University of Virginia. AWARDS AND ACCOLADES: South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list 2016 Securities litigation, Class action/mass torts, Personal injury–products: plaintiff

34 Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 60 of 62 TEAM BIOS:

Erin Casey Williams LICENSED IN: SC ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and District of South Carolina EDUCATION: J.D., University of Illinois College of Law, 2014 B.S. with honors, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011 Erin Casey Williams protects the interests of institutional investors and consumers through complex securities litigation. Erin is a member of Motley Rice’s litigation teams representing investors in securities fraud class action cases. She supports the firm’s efforts in matters involving Qualcomm Incorporated and Investment Technology Group, Inc. Erin assisted in the development of deposition strategies and completed discovery with the Motley Rice securities team before joining the firm in 2017. Her previous experience includes litigating claims involving medical malpractice, wrongful death, personal injury and complex family law matters at a Charleston, S.C., law firm. She also researched and drafted memoranda regarding construction defects, insurance defense, and tort liability for a national litigation support agency. While pursuing her law degree, Erin interned for the Federal Defender Program in Chicago in addition to working as a judicial extern for the Honorable Michael T. Mason of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She served as an associate editor of the University of Illinois Law Review and the Community Service Chair of the Women’s Law Society. ASSOCIATIONS: American Bar Association South Carolina Bar Association South Carolina Association for Justice South Carolina Women Lawyers Association Charleston County Bar Association

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Motley Rice LLC • Attorneys at Law 35 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 61 of 62

SECURITIES LITIGATION worker’s compensation law office, where she managed trust and operating accounts and provided information technology PROFESSIONAL STAFF support. Ellie Kimmel Evelyn’s diverse background in information technology, EDUCATION: management, programming and analysis adds great depth to B.A., University of South Florida, 1993 the resources provided to Motley Rice clients. Business Analyst Ellie Kimmel began working with Motley Rice attorneys in 2000. Prior to her work with the securities litigation Joshua Welch team, she was a founding member of the firm’s Central Research EDUCATION: Unit and also supervised the firm’s file management. She M.B.A., The Citadel, 2017 currently completes securities research and client portfolio B.S. with honors , The College of Charleston, 2015 analysis for the firm’s securities cases. As a Financial Analyst with the securities litigation team, Joshua Ellie has a diverse background that includes experience in Welch is responsible for monitoring client portfolios, analyzing education as well as the banking industry. She began her career investor losses, and conducting research on companies facing in banking operations, where she served as an operations allegations of securities fraud. He also assists in submitting manager and business analyst in corporate banking support claims for securities class action settlements. for 14 years. She then spent seven years teaching high school Joshua holds a Master of Business Administration degree from economics, Latin and history before joining Motley Rice. The Citadel, where he worked as a graduate assistant. As an undergraduate, he double-majored in Accounting and Business Evelyn Richards Administration. EDUCATION: A.S., Computer Technology, Trident Technical College, 1995 Paolo Duarte Gomez J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, 1989 EDUCATION: B.A., English Literature and Religion, University of Virginia, 1986 B.B.A. cum laude, Georgia Southern University, 2017 Evelyn Richards joined Motley Rice in 2007. As a law clerk for Paolo tracks and monitors client portfolios and transactions the Securities and Consumer Fraud practice group, she plays while performing loss analysis and researching any allegations a key role in supporting the securities litigation team through of fraud as a Financial Analyst for the securities fraud litigation editing, cite-checking and Shepardizing complaints, briefs, and team. other legal documents. She also trains support staff on how to use The Bluebook. Prior to joining Motley Rice, Paolo was a Risk Manager/Analyst for an investment fund, and worked with a team to evaluate Evelyn has over fifteen years of experience in the legal field. and track the fund’s risk exposure. While earning a Bachelor As an Assistant Solicitor for the Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office, of Business Administration in Finance, Paolo tutored other she prosecuted child abuse and neglect and criminal cases. students in finance and accounting courses and worked as She also worked as a programmer/analyst for a few years. Prior a research assistant performing a cost-benefit analysis of a to joining Motley Rice, Evelyn worked as an administrator for transportation system for Georgia Southern University. He has a large telecom, corporate and litigation firm, supervising all also served as a translator for the Organization of American office operations, including human resources and accounting States in Honduras and, in addition to English and Spanish, procedures. She also served as office manager for a small speaks fluent French.

www.motleyrice.com 1 800.768.4026 28 BRIDGESIDE BLVD. MT. PLEASANT, SC 29464 SC | RI | CT | NY | WV | DC | LA | MO

William H. Narwold (CT, DC, NY, SC) is the attorney responsible for this communication. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. PD: 12.07.2017 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-5 Filed 01/23/18 Page 62 of 62

www.motleyrice.com 1 800.768.4026 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 149

Exhibit 6 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 149

5 Liaison Counsel

12 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 OAKLAND DIVISION

16 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of 17 all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

18 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF KATHERINE LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF 19 v. CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION 20 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, AND EXPENSES 21 RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. SU, Date: Feb. 27, 2018 22 Time: 2:00 p.m. Defendants. Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor 23 Judge: The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 149

1 I, Katherine Lubin, declare as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 2 1. I am a partner at the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (“Lieff

3 Cabraser”). I am submitting this declaration in support of my firm’s application for an award of 4 attorneys’ fees and expenses/charges (“expenses”) in connection with services rendered in the 5 above-entitled action (the “Action”). 6 2. This firm is Liaison counsel of record for plaintiffs. 7 3. The information in this declaration regarding the firm’s time and expenses is 8 9 taken from time and expense reports and supporting documentation prepared and/or maintained

10 by the firm in the ordinary course of business. These reports (and backup documentation where

11 necessary) were reviewed in connection with the preparation of this declaration. The purpose of 12 this review was to confirm both the accuracy of the entries in the reports as well as the necessity 13 for, and reasonableness of, the time and expenses committed to the litigation. As a result of this 14 review, reductions were made to both time and expenses in the exercise of billing judgment. As 15 16 a result of this review and the adjustments made, I believe that the time reflected in the firm’s 17 lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought as set forth in this declaration

18 are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and

19 resolution of the litigation. In addition, I believe that the expenses are all of a type that would 20 normally be charged to a fee-paying client in the private legal marketplace. 21 4. After the reductions referred to above, the number of hours spent on this litigation 22 by my firm is 143.30. A breakdown of the lodestar is provided in Exhibit A. The lodestar 23 24 amount for attorney/professional staff time based on the firm’s 2017 rates is $65,569.00. The 25 hourly rates shown in Exhibit A are the usual and customary rates set by the firm for each 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 149

1 individual in 2017 (with the exception of Associate Rosemarie Maliekel, who left the firm in

2 2015 and therefore her 2015 hourly rate is reflected). 3 5. Attached as Exhibit B is a task-based summary of the work performed by each 4 attorney and professional staff member who performed services in this Action. 5 6. My firm seeks an award of $19,035.42 in expenses and charges in connection 6 with the prosecution of the litigation. These expenses and charges are summarized by category 7 8 in Exhibit C.

9 7. The following is additional information regarding certain of these expenses:

10 (a) Filing, Witness and Other Fees: $5.00. These expenses have been paid to 11 the Court for filing fees. The vendors who were paid for these services are set forth in Exhibit 12 D. 13 (b) Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $283.18. During the 14 15 prosecution of this case, the firm paid for work-related meals in connection with hosting 16 depositions.

17 (c) Duplicating/printing: $17,558.80. In connection with this case, the firm

18 made 87,794 in-house black and white copies/prints, charging $0.20 per page for a total of 19 $17,558.80, mainly in preparation of courtesy copies for the Court. Each time an in-house copy 20 machine or printer is used, our billing system requires that a case or administrative billing code 21 be entered and that is how the copies/prints were identified as related to this case. 22 23 (d) Online Legal and Factual Research: $86.50. The firm conducted 24 electronic research using databases maintained by vendors such as PACER and/or LexisNexis.

25 These databases were used to obtain access to Court documents, and for legal research. This 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 149

1 expense represents the expense incurred by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP for use of

2 these services in connection with this litigation. 3 8. The expenses pertaining to this case are reflected in the books and records of this 4 firm. These books and records are prepared from receipts, expense vouchers, check records and 5 other documents and are an accurate record of the expenses. 6 9. The identification and background of my firm and its partners is attached hereto 7 8 as Exhibit E.

9 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 10 22nd day of January, 2018, at San Francisco, California. 11

12 Katherine Lubin 13 14

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 149

Exhibit A Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 149

1 EXHIBIT A

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 3 Inception through January 12, 2018

4 NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR 5 Steven Fineman P 0.60 $900.00 $540.00 6 Joy Kruse P 6.60 $850.00 $5,610.00 7 Sharon Lee P 21.00 $650.00 $13,650.00

8 Katherine Lubin Benson P 29.20 $510.00 $14,892.00

9 Rosemarie Maliekel A 6.00 $395.00 $2,370.00

10 Fawad Rahimi PL 1.80 $375.00 $675.00

11 Richard Texier PL 39.20 $360.00 $14,112.00

Brian Troxel PL 11.60 $360.00 $4,176.00 12 Alexander Zane PL 13.10 $360.00 $4,716.00 13 Rami Bata PL 14.20 $340.00 $4,828.00 143.30 $65,569.00 14 TOTAL 15 Partner (P) 16 Associate (A) 17 Paralegal (PL)

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 149

Exhibit B Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 149

1 EXHIBIT B

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 3 Inception through January 12, 2018

4 Categories: (1) Factual Investigation (6) Client/Shareholder Communications 5 (2) Discovery (Fact & Expert) (7) Litigation Strategy & Analysis (8) Settlement Negotiations, Stipulation, Plan of 6 (3) Briefs, Pretrial Motions & Legal Research Allocation (9) Appeal 7 (4) Court Appearances (5) Initial or Amended Complaint (10) Trial Preparation 8 (11) Case Management

9 Cumulative Cumulative 10 Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Hours Rate Lodestar Steven 11 Fineman P 0.60 0.60 $900.00 $540.00 Joy Kruse P 1.60 0.20 4.80 6.60 $850.00 $5,610.00 12 Sharon Lee P 1.50 0.30 5.50 0.90 12.80 21.00 $650.00 $13,650.00 Katherine Lubin 13 Benson P 2.50 10.40 13.90 2.40 29.20 $510.00 $14,892.00 Rosemarie 14 Maliekel A 4.00 2.00 6.00 $395.00 $2,370.00 Fawad Rahimi PL 1.80 1.80 $375.00 $675.00 15 Richard Texier PL 10.80 12.50 15.90 39.20 $360.00 $14,112.00 16 Brian Troxel PL 0.10 11.50 11.60 $360.00 $4,176.00 Alexander 17 Zane PL 0.80 1.10 11.20 13.10 $360.00 $4,716.00 Rami Bata PL 14.20 14.20 $340.00 $4,828.00 18 TOTAL: - 15.20 26.80 18.20 6.60 0.90 0.60 0.20 143.30 $ 65,569.00

19 Partner (P) 20 Associate (A) Paralegal (PL) 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 149

Exhibit C Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 149

1 EXHIBIT C

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 3 Inception through January 12, 2018

4 CATEGORY AMOUNT 5 Filing, Witness and Other Fees $5.00 6 Work-Related Transportation, Hotels & Meals $283.18 Long-Distance Telephone, Facsimile and 7 Conference Calling $31.45 Postage $5.60 8 Messenger, Overnight Delivery $1,064.89 9 Duplicating In-House Black and White: (87,794 pages at 10 $0.20 per page) $17,558.80 11 Online Legal and Factual Research $86.50 TOTAL $19,035.42 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 149

Exhibit D Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 149

1 EXHIBIT D

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 3

4 Filing, Witness and Other Fees: $5.00

5 DATE VENDOR PURPOSE April 30, 2014 Clerk of the Court Certificate of Good Standing for pro hac 6 vice application

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 149

Exhibit E

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 149

1 EXHIBIT E

2 Hatamian, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 3 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Firm Resume 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR 28 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. LUBIN FILED ON BEHALF OF LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

1495908.3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 149

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: 415.956.1000 Telephone: 212.355.9500 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 Facsimile: 212.355.9592

222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 2101 Fourth Avenue Nashville, TN 37201 Suite 1900 Telephone: 615.313.9000 Seattle, WA 98121-2315 Facsimile: 615.313.9965 Telephone: 206.739.9059

Email: [email protected] Website: www.lieffcabraser.com

FIRM PROFILE:

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a seventy-attorney, AV-rated law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle. We have a diversified practice, successfully representing plaintiffs in the fields of personal injury and mass torts, securities and financial fraud, employment discrimination and unlawful employment practices, product defect, consumer protection, antitrust and intellectual property, environmental and toxic exposures, False Claims Act, digital privacy and data security, and human rights. Our clients include individuals, classes or groups of persons, businesses, and public and private entities.

Lieff Cabraser has served as Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Lead or Class Counsel in state and federal coordinated, multi-district, and complex litigation throughout the United States. With co-counsel, we have represented clients across the globe in cases filed in American courts.

Lieff Cabraser is among the largest firms in the United States that only represent plaintiffs. Described by The American Lawyer as “one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms,” Lieff Cabraser enjoys a national reputation for professional integrity and the successful prosecution of our clients’ claims. We possess sophisticated legal skills and the financial resources necessary for the handling of large, complex cases, and for litigating against some of the nation’s largest corporations. We take great pride in the leadership roles our firm plays in many of this country’s major cases, including those resulting in landmark decisions and precedent-setting rulings.

1043044.1 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 149

Lieff Cabraser has litigated and resolved thousands of individual lawsuits and hundreds of class and group actions, including some of the most important civil cases in the United States over the past four decades. We have assisted our clients in recovering over $118 billion in verdicts and settlements. Twenty-six cases were resolved for over $1 billion; another 42 have resulted in verdicts or settlements at or in excess of $100 million.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years through 2016 (the last year their “Hot List” awards were given), and we are a member of its “Plaintiffs’ Hot List Hall of Fame.” In compiling its list, The National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looks for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” In 2014, The National Law Journal separately recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the 50 Leading Plaintiffs Firms in America.

From 2011 through 2016, U.S. News and Best Lawyers selected Lieff Cabraser as a national “Law Firm of the Year.” For 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015, we were recognized in the category of Mass Torts Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs. For 2013, the publications selected our firm as the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ law firm in the category of Employment Law – Individuals. For 2016, we were again recognized in the category of Mass Torts Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs. Only one law firm in each practice area receives the “Law Firm of the Year” designation.

In 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser to its “Top 10 Plaintiff Firms in America” list, the National Law Journal chose our firm as one of nine “Elite Trial Lawyers” nationwide, and Law360 selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the “Top 50 Law Firms Nationwide for Litigation.” The publication separately noted that our firm “persists as a formidable agency of change, producing world class legal work against some of the most powerful corporate players in the world today.” In 2017, Law360 named Lieff Cabraser one of six “California Powerhouse” firms for litigation, the only plaintiffs’ firm so honored. Law360 also singled out Lieff Cabraser for 2017 Practice Group of the Year awards in the categories of Consumer Protection and Digital Privacy/Data Protection.

CASE PROFILES:

I. Personal Injury and Products Liability Litigation

A. Current Cases

1. In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2151 (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Toyota injury cases in federal court representing individuals injured, and families of loved ones who died, in Toyota unintended acceleration accidents. The complaints charge that Toyota took no action despite years of complaints that its vehicles accelerated suddenly and could not be stopped by proper application of the brake pedal. The complaints further allege that Toyota breached its duty to manufacture and sell safe

1043044.1 - 2 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 149

automobiles by failing to incorporate a brake override system and other readily available safeguards that could have prevented unintended acceleration.

In December 2013, Toyota announced its intention to begin to settle the cases. In 2014, Lieff Cabraser played a key role in turning Toyota’s intention into a reality through assisting in the creation of an innovative resolution process that has settled scores of cases in streamlined, individual conferences. The settlements are confidential. Before Toyota agreed to settle the litigation, plaintiffs’ counsel overcame significant hurdles in the challenging litigation. In addition to defeating Toyota’s motion to dismiss the litigation, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel demonstrated that the highly-publicized government studies that denied unintended acceleration, or attributed it to mechanical flaws and driver error, were flawed and erroneous.

2. Individual General Motors Ignition Switch Defect Injury Lawsuits, MDL No. 2543 (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represents over 100 persons injured nationwide, and families of loved ones who died, in accidents involving GM vehicles sold with a defective ignition switch. Without warning, the defect can cause the car’s engine and electrical system to shut off, disabling the air bags. For over a decade GM was aware of this defect and failed to inform government safety regulators and public. The defect has been has been implicated in the deaths of over 300 people in crashes where the front air bags did not deploy. On August 15, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the GM ignition switch litigation in federal court.

3. Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Blood Filter Injuries, In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2641 (D. Ariz.). Inferior Vena Cava blood filters or IVC filters are small, basket-like medical devices that are inserted into the inferior vena cava, the main blood vessel that returns blood from the lower half of the body to the heart. Tens of thousands of patients in the U.S. are implanted with IVC filters in order to provide temporary protection from pulmonary embolisms. However, these devices have resulted in multiple complications including device fracture, device migration, perforation of various organs, and an increased risk for venous thrombosis. Due to these complications, patients may have to undergo invasive device removal surgery or suffer heart attacks, hemorrhages, or other major injuries. We represent injured patients and their families in individual personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits against IVC filter manufacturers, and Lieff Cabraser attorney Wendy R. Fleishman serves on the Plaintiffs Executive Committee in the IVC Filter cases in the federal multidistrict litigation.

1043044.1 - 3 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 149

4. Injury and Death Lawsuits Involving Wrongful Driver Conduct and Defective Tires, Transmissions, Cars and/or Vehicle Parts (Seat Belts, Roof Crush, Defective seats, and Other Defects). Lieff Cabraser has an active practice prosecuting claims for clients injured, or the families of loved ones who have died, by wrongful driver conduct and by unsafe and defective vehicles, tires, restraint systems, seats, and other automotive equipment. The firm also represent clients in actions involving fatalities and serious injuries from tire and transmission failures as well as rollover accidents (and defective roofs, belts, seat back and other parts) as well as defective transmissions and/or shifter gates that cause vehicles to self-shift from park or false park into reverse. Our attorneys have received awards and recognition from California Lawyer magazine (Lawyer of the Year Award), the Consumer Attorneys of California, and the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association for their dedication to their clients and outstanding success in vehicle injury cases.

5. In Re: Abilify (Aripiprazole) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2734 (N.D. Fla.). We represent clients who have incurred crippling financial losses and pain and suffering from compulsive gambling caused by the drug Abilify. In May 2016 the FDA warned that Abilify can lead to damaging compulsive behaviors, including uncontrollable gambling. The gambling additions can be so severe that patients lose their homes, livelihoods, and marriages. The $6+ billion a year-earning drug was prescribed for nearly 9 million patients in 2014 alone. In December 2016, Lieff Cabraser partner Lexi Hazam was appointed by the court overseeing the nationwide Abilify gambling injuries MDL litigation to the Plaintiffs Executive Committee and Co-Chairs the Science and Expert Sub- Committee for the nationwide Abilify MDL litigation. Discovery in the case is ongoing.

6. In re Engle Cases, No. 3:09-cv-10000-J-32 JBT (M.D. Fl.). Lieff Cabraser represents Florida smokers, and the spouses and families of loved ones who died, in litigation against the tobacco companies for their 50-year conspiracy to conceal the hazards of smoking and the addictive nature of cigarettes.

On February 25th, 2015, a settlement was announced of more than 400 Florida smoker lawsuits against the major cigarette companies Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and Lorillard Tobacco Company. As a part of the settlement, the companies will collectively pay $100 million to injured smokers or their families.

Lieff Cabraser attorneys tried over 20 cases in Florida federal court against the tobacco industry on behalf of individual smokers or their estates, and with co-counsel obtained over $105 million in judgments for

1043044.1 - 4 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 149

our clients. Two of the jury verdicts Lieff Cabraser attorneys obtained in the litigation were ranked by The National Law Journal as among the Top 100 Verdicts of 2014.

7. In re Takata Airbag Litigation, MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fl.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the national litigation against Takata Corporation. Nearly 34 million vehicles, mostly manufactured prior to 2009, have been recalled worldwide due to defective and dangerous airbags manufactured by Japanese-based Takata Corporation. This is the largest automotive recall in U.S. history. At least 20 deaths and more than 130 injuries have been linked to the airbag defect. The recalled Takata airbags contain a propellant that may cause the airbag to explode upon impact in an accident, shooting metal casing debris towards drivers and passengers. The complaints charge that the company knew of defects in its airbags a decade ago, after conducting secret tests of the products that showed dangerous flaws. Rather than alert federal safety regulators to these risks, Takata allegedly ordered its engineers to delete the test data. In November 2017, the U.S. District Court in Florida granted final approval to an aggregate settlement of $741 with Toyota, BMW, Subaru and Mazda over claims relating to vehicles containing dangerous and defective Takata airbags, linked to more than 100 injuries and 17 deaths worldwide.

8. Stryker Metal Hip Implant Litigation, MDL No. 2441 (D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser represents over 60 hip replacement patients nationwide who received the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II modular hip implant systems. Wendy Fleishman serves on the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee of the multidistrict litigation cases. These patients have suffered tissue damage and have high metal particle levels in their blood stream. For many patients, the Stryker hip implant failed necessitating painful revision surgery to extract and replace the artificial hip.

On November 3, 2014, a settlement was announced in the litigation against Stryker Corporation for the recall of its Rejuvenate and ABG II artificial hip implants. Under the settlement, Stryker will provide a base payment of $300,000 to patients that received the Rejuvenate or ABG II hip systems and underwent revision surgery by November 3, 2014, to remove and replace the devices. Stryker’s liability is not capped. It is expected that the total amount of payments under the settlement will far exceed $1 billion dollars. Payments under the settlement program are projected for disbursement at the end of 2015.

9. DePuy Metal Hip Implants Litigation, MDL No. 2244 (N.D. Tex.). Lieff Cabraser represents nearly 200 patients nationwide who received the ASR XL Acetabular and ASR Hip Resurfacing systems manufactured by DePuy Orthopedics, a unit of Johnson & Johnson. In 2010, DePuy

1043044.1 - 5 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 149

Orthopedics announced the recall of its all-metal ASR hip implants, which were implanted in approximately 40,000 U.S. patients from 2006 through August 2010. The complaints allege that DePuy Orthopedics was aware its ASR hip implants were failing at a high rate, yet continued to manufacture and sell the device. In January 2011, in In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products, MDL No. 2197, the Court overseeing all DePuy recall lawsuits in federal court appointed Lieff Cabraser attorney Wendy R. Fleishman to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the organization and coordination of the litigation. In July 2011, in the coordinated proceedings in California state court, the Court appointed Lieff Cabraser attorney Robert J. Nelson to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

In 2013, Johnson & Johnson announced its agreement to pay at least $2.5 billion to resolve thousands of defective DePuy ASR hip implant lawsuits. Under the settlement, J&J offers to pay a base award of $250,000 to U.S. citizens and residents who are more than 180 days from their hip replacement surgery, and prior to August 31, 2013, had to undergo revision surgery to remove and replace their faulty DePuy hip ASR XL or ASR resurfacing hip. The $250,000 base award payment will be adjusted upward or downward depending on medical factors specific to each patient. Lieff Cabraser also represents nearly 100 patients whose DePuy Pinnacle artificial hips containing a metal insert called the Ultamet metal liner have prematurely failed.

10. Mirena Litigation. A widely-used, plastic intrauterine device (IUD) that releases a hormone into the uterus to prevent pregnancy, Mirena is manufactured by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. Lieff Cabraser represents patients who have suffered serious injuries linked to the IUD. These injuries include uterine perforation (the IUD tears through the cervix or the wall of the uterus), ectopic pregnancy (when the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity), pelvic infections and pelvic inflammatory disease, and thrombosis (blood clots).

11. Birth Defects Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents children and their parents who have suffered birth defects as a result of problematic pregnancies and improper medical care, improper prenatal genetic screening, ingestion by the mother of prescription drugs during pregnancy which had devastating effects on their babies. These birth defects range from heart defects, physical malformations, and severe brain damage associated with complex emotional and developmental delays. Taking of antidepressants during pregnancy has been linked to multiple types of birth defects, neonatal abstinence syndrome from experiencing withdrawal of the drug, and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN).

1043044.1 - 6 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 22 of 149

12. Vaginal Surgical Mesh Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents more than 300 women nationwide who have been seriously injured as a result of polypropylene vaginal surgical mesh implantation as a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. Manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, AMS, Bard, Caldera, Coloplast, and others, these products have been linked to serious side effects including erosion into the vaginal wall or other organs, infection, internal organ damage, and urinary problems. As of early 2016, the firm is in all phases of litigation and settlement on these cases.

13. Xarelto Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents patients prescribed Xarelto sold in the U.S. by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The complaints charge that Xarelto, approved to prevent blood clots, is a dangerous and defective drug because it triggers in certain patients uncontrolled bleeding and other life-threatening complications. Unlike Coumadin, an anti-clotting drug approved over 50 years ago, the concentration of Xarelto in a patient’s blood cannot be reversed in the case of overdose or other serious complications. If a Xarelto patient has an emergency bleeding event -- such as from a severe injury or major brain or GI tract bleeding -- the results can be fatal.

14. Benicar Litigation, MDL No. 2606 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represents patients prescribed the high blood pressure medication Benicar who have experienced chronic diarrhea with substantial weight loss, severe gastrointestinal problems, and the life-threatening conditions of sprue- like enteropathy and villous atrophy in litigation against Japan-based Daiichi Sankyo, Benicar’s manufacturer, and Forest Laboratories, which marketed Benicar in the U.S.

The complaints allege that Benicar was insufficiently tested and not accompanied by adequate instructions and warnings to apprise consumers of the full risks and side effects associated with its use. Lieff Cabraser attorney Lexi J. Hazam serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the nationwide Benicar MDL litigation and was appointed Co-Chair of the Benicar MDL Plaintiffs’ Science and Experts Committee. Plaintiffs recently filed motions to compel defense to produce additional discovery. The judge ruled with plaintiffs in the fall of 2015. In August 2017, a settlement with Daiichi Sankyo Inc. and Forest Laboratories Inc. valued at $300 million covering approximately 2,300 Benicar injury cases in both state and federal courts was announced.

15. Risperdal Litigation. In 2013, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the manufacture of the antipsychotic prescription drugs Risperdal and Invega, entered into a $2.2 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice for over promoting the drugs. The government alleged that J&J and Janssen knew Risperdal

1043044.1 - 7 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 149

triggered the production of prolactin, a hormone that stimulates breast development (gynecomastia) and milk production.

Lieff Cabraser represents parents whose sons developed abnormally large breasts while prescribed Risperdal and Invega in lawsuits charging that Risperdal is a defective and dangerous prescription drug and seeking monetary damages for the mental anguish and physical injuries the young men suffered. As of 2017, our firm is still filing new Risperdal cases in federal court in the Central District of California.

16. Power Morcellators Litigation, MDL No. 2652 (D. Kan.). Lieff Cabraser represents women who underwent a hysterectomy (the removal of the uterus) or myomectomy (the removal of uterine fibroids) in which a laparoscopic power morcellator was used. In November 2014, the FDA warned surgeons that they should avoid the use of laparoscopic power morcellators for removing uterine tissue in the vast majority of cases due to the risk of the devices spreading unsuspected cancer. Based on current data, the FDA estimates that 1 in 350 women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for the treatment of fibroids have an unsuspected uterine sarcoma, a type of uterine cancer that includes leiomyosarcoma.

17. In re New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc. Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2419 (D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser represents patients injured or killed by a nationwide fungal meningitis outbreak in 2012. More than 14,000 patients across the U.S. were injected with a contaminated medication that caused the outbreak. The New England Compounding Center (“NECC”) in Framingham, Massachusetts, manufactured and sold the drug – an epidural steroid treatment designed to relieve back pain. The contaminated steroid was sold to patients at a number of pain clinics. Nearly 800 patients developed fungal meningitis, and more than 70 patients died.

Lieff Cabraser is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the multi-district litigation, and our attorneys act as federal-state liaison counsel. In May 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved a $200 million partial settlement for victims of the outbreak. Bellwether trials against remaining defendants commenced in 2016. Lieff Cabraser is expected to play a lead role in the bellwether trials.

B. Successes

1. Multi-State Tobacco Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Louisiana and Illinois, several additional states, and 21 cities and counties in California, in litigation against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other cigarette manufacturers. The suits were part of the landmark $206 billion settlement announced in November 1998 between the tobacco industry and the states’ attorneys

1043044.1 - 8 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 24 of 149

general. The states, cities and counties sought both to recover the public costs of treating smoking-related diseases and require the tobacco industry to undertake extensive modifications of its marketing and promotion activities in order to reduce teenage smoking. In California alone, Lieff Cabraser’s clients were awarded an estimated $12.5 billion to be paid through 2025.

2. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.). Lieff Cabraser represented patients who suffered heart attacks or strokes, and the families of loved ones who died, after having been prescribed the arthritis and pain medication Vioxx. In individual personal injury lawsuits against Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, our clients allege that Merck falsely promoted the safety of Vioxx and failed to disclose the full range of the drug’s dangerous side effects. In April 2005, in the federal multidistrict litigation, the Court appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, which has the responsibility of conducting all pretrial discovery of Vioxx cases in federal court and pursuing all settlement options with Merck. In August 2006, Lieff Cabraser was co- counsel in Barnett v. Merck, which was tried in the federal court in New Orleans. Lieff Cabraser attorneys Don Arbitblit and Jennifer Gross participated in the trial, working closely with attorneys Mark Robinson and Andy Birchfield. The jury reached a verdict in favor of Mr. Barnett, finding that Vioxx caused his heart attack, and that Merck’s conduct justified an award of punitive damages. In November 2007, Merck announced it had entered into an agreement with the executive committee of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee as well as representatives of plaintiffs’ counsel in state coordinated proceedings. Merck paid $4.85 billion into a settlement fund for qualifying claims.

3. In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 926 (N.D. Ala.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and was one of five members of the negotiating committee which achieved a $4.25 billion global settlement with certain defendants of the action. This was renegotiated in 1995, and is referred to as the Revised Settlement Program (“RSP”). Over 100,000 recipients have received initial payments, reimbursement for the explanation expenses and/or long term benefits.

4. Fen-Phen (“Diet Drugs”) Litigation. Since the recall was announced in 1997, Lieff Cabraser has represented individuals who suffered injuries from the “Fen-Phen” diet drugs fenfluramine (sold as Pondimin) and/or dexfenfluramine (sold as Redux). The firm served as counsel for the plaintiff who filed the first nationwide class action lawsuit against the diet drug manufacturers alleging that they had failed to adequately warn physicians and consumers of the risks associated with the drugs. In In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine / Fenfluramine /

1043044.1 - 9 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 149

Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.), the Court appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser to the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee which organized and directed the Fen-Phen diet drugs litigation in federal court. In August 2000, the Court approved a $4.75 billion settlement offering both medical monitoring relief for persons exposed to the drug and compensation for persons with qualifying damage. Lieff Cabraser represented over 2,000 persons that suffered valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or other problems (such as needing echocardiogram screening for damage) due to and/or following exposure to Fen-Phen and obtained more than $350 million in total for clients in individual cases and/or claims. The firm continues to represent persons who suffered valvular heart disease due to Fen-Phen and received compensation under the Diet Drugs Settlement who now require heart value surgery. These persons may be eligible to submit a new claim and receive additional compensation under the settlement.

5. In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2299 (W.D. La.). Lieff Cabraser represents 90 diabetes patients who developed bladder cancer after exposure to the prescription drug pioglitazone, sold as Actos by Japan-based Takeda Pharmaceutical Company and its American marketing partner, Eli Lilly.

Lieff Cabraser is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Actos MDL. In 2014, Lieff Cabraser served on the trial team in the case of Allen v. Takeda, working closely with lead trial counsel in federal court in Louisiana. The jury awarded $9 billion in punitive damages, finding that Takeda and Lilly failed to adequately warn about the bladder cancer risks of Actos and had acted with wanton and reckless disregard for patient safety. The trial judge reduced the punitive damage award but upheld the jury’s findings of misconduct, and ruled that a multiplier of 25 to 1 for punitive damages was justified.

In April 2015, Takeda agreed to settle all bladder cancer claims brought by Type 2 diabetes patients who took Actos prior to December 1, 2011 and who were diagnosed with bladder cancer on or before April 28, 2015 and were represented by counsel by May 1, 2015. The settlement amount is $2.4 billion. Average payments of about $250,000 per person will be increased for more severe injuries.

6. Yaz and Yasmin Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented women prescribed Yasmin and Yaz oral contraceptives who suffered blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, strokes, and heart attacks, as well as the families of loved ones who died suddenly while taking these medications. The complaints alleged that Bayer, the manufacturer of Yaz and Yasmin, failed to adequately warn patients and physicians of the increased risk of serious

1043044.1 - 10 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 149

adverse effects from Yasmin and Yaz. The complaints also charged that these oral contraceptives posed a greater risk of serious side effects than other widely available birth control drugs. To date, Bayer has announced settlements of 7,660 claims – totaling $1.6 billion – in the Yaz birth control lawsuits.

7. Sulzer Hip and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation. In December 2000, Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., announced the recall of approximately 30,000 units of its Inter-Op Acetabular Shell Hip Implant, followed in May 2001 with a notification of failures of its Natural Knee II Tibial Baseplate Knee Implant. In coordinated litigation in California state court, In re Hip Replacement Cases, JCCP 4165, Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Co-Lead Counsel. In the federal litigation, In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1410, Lieff Cabraser played a significant role in negotiating a revised global settlement of the litigation valued at more than $1 billion. The revised settlement, approved by the Court in May 2002, provided patients with defective implants almost twice the cash payment as under an initial settlement. On behalf of our clients, Lieff Cabraser objected to the initial settlement.

8. In re Bextra/Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1699 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Elizabeth J. Cabraser chaired the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) charged with overseeing all personal injury and consumer litigation in federal courts nationwide arising out of the sale and marketing of the COX-2 inhibitors Bextra and Celebrex, manufactured by Pfizer, Inc. and its predecessor companies Pharmacia Corporation and G.D. Searle, Inc.

Under the global resolution of the multidistrict tort and consumer litigation announced in October 2008, Pfizer paid over $800 million to claimants, including over $750 million to resolve death and injury claims.

In a report adopted by the Court on common benefit work performed by the PSC, the Special Master stated:

[L]eading counsel from both sides, and the attorneys from the PSC who actively participated in this litigation, demonstrated the utmost skill and professionalism in dealing with numerous complex legal and factual issues. The briefing presented to the Special Master, and also to the Court, and the development of evidence by both sides was exemplary. The Special Master particularly wishes to recognize that leading counsel for both sides worked extremely hard to minimize disputes, and when they arose, to make sure that they were raised with a

1043044.1 - 11 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 149

minimum of rancor and a maximum of candor before the Special Master and Court.

9. In re Guidant Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1708 (D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee in litigation in federal court arising out of the recall of Guidant cardiac defibrillators implanted in patients because of potential malfunctions in the devices. At the time of the recall, Guidant admitted it was aware of 43 reports of device failures, and two patient deaths. Guidant subsequently acknowledged that the actual rate of failure may be higher than the reported rate and that the number of associated deaths may be underreported since implantable cardio- defibrillators are not routinely evaluated after death. In January 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the action. Guidant’s settlements of defibrillator-related claims will total $240 million.

10. In re Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., “Albuterol” Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1013 (D. Wyo.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a class action lawsuit against Copley Pharmaceutical, which manufactured Albuterol, a bronchodilator prescription pharmaceutical. Albuterol was the subject of a nationwide recall in January 1994 after a microorganism was found to have contaminated the solution, allegedly causing numerous injuries including bronchial infections, pneumonia, respiratory distress and, in some cases, death. In October 1994, the District Court certified a nationwide class on liability issues. In re Copley Pharmaceutical, 161 F.R.D. 456 (D. Wyo. 1995). In November 1995, the District Court approved a $150 million settlement of the litigation.

11. In re Telectronics Pacing Systems Inc., Accufix Atrial “J” Leads Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1057 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser served on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a nationwide products liability action alleging that defendants placed into the stream of commerce defective pacemaker leads. In April 1997, the District Court re-certified a nationwide class of “J” Lead implantees with subclasses for the claims of medical monitoring, negligence and strict product liability. A summary jury trial, utilizing jury instructions and interrogatories designed by Lieff Cabraser, occurred in February 1998. A partial settlement was approved thereafter by the District Court but reversed by the Court of Appeals. In March 2001, the District Court approved a renewed settlement that included a $58 million fund to satisfy all past, present and future claims by patients for their medical care, injuries, or damages arising from the lead.

12. Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler, No. BC 332487 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). In March 2007, the jury returned a $54.4 million verdict, including $50 million in

1043044.1 - 12 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 149

punitive damages, against DaimlerChrysler for intentionally failing to cure a known defect in millions of its vehicles that led to the death of Richard Mraz, a young father. Mr. Mraz suffered fatal head injuries when the 1992 Dodge Dakota pickup truck he had been driving at his work site ran him over after he exited the vehicle believing it was in park. The jury found that a defect in the Dodge Dakota’s automatic transmission, called a park-to-reverse defect, played a substantial factor in Mr. Mraz’s death and that DaimlerChrysler was negligent in the design of the vehicle for failing to warn of the defect and then for failing to adequately recall or retrofit the vehicle.

For their outstanding service to their clients in Mraz and advancing the rights of all persons injured by defective products, Lieff Cabraser partners Robert J. Nelson, the lead trial counsel, received the 2008 California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) Award in the field of personal injury law, and were also selected as finalists for attorney of the year by the Consumer Attorneys of California and the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

In March 2008, a Louisiana-state jury found DaimlerChrysler liable for the death of infant Collin Guillot and injuries to his parents Juli and August Guillot and their then 3-year-old daughter, Madison. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. The jury found that a defect in the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s transmission, called a park-to-reverse defect, played a substantial factor in Collin Guillot’s death and the severe injuries suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Guillot and their daughter. Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel in the trial.

13. Craft v. Vanderbilt University, Civ. No. 3-94-0090 (M.D. Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel of a certified class of over 800 pregnant women and their children who were intentionally fed radioactive iron isotopes without consent while receiving prenatal care at the Vanderbilt University hospital as part of a study on iron absorption during pregnancy. The women were not informed of the nature and risks of the study. Instead, they were told that the solution they were fed was a “vitamin cocktail.” In the 1960’s, Vanderbilt conducted a follow-up study to determine the health effects of the plaintiffs’ prior radiation exposure. Throughout the follow-up study, Vanderbilt concealed from plaintiffs the fact that they had been involuntarily exposed to radiation, and that the purpose of the follow-up study was to determine whether there had been an increased rate of childhood cancers among those exposed in utero. Vanderbilt also did not inform plaintiffs of the results of the follow-up study, which revealed a disproportionately high incidence of cancers among the children born to the women fed the radioactive iron.

The facts surrounding the administration of radioactive iron to the pregnant women and their children in utero only came to light as a result

1043044.1 - 13 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 149

of U.S. Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary’s 1993 disclosures of government- sponsored human radiation experimentation during the Cold War. Defendants’ attempts to dismiss the claims and decertify the class were unsuccessful. 18 F. Supp.2d 786 (M.D. Tenn. 1998). The case was settled in July 1998 for a total of $10.3 million and a formal apology from Vanderbilt.

14. Simply Thick Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented parents whose infants died or suffered gave injuries linked to Simply Thick, a thickening agent for adults that was promoted to parents, caregivers, and health professional for use by infants to assist with swallowing. The individual lawsuits alleged that Simply Thick when fed to infants caused necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a life-threatening condition characterized by the inflammation and death of intestinal tissue. In 2014, the litigation was resolved on confidential terms.

15. Medtronic Infuse Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented patients who suffered serious injuries from the off-label use of the Infuse bone graft, manufactured by Medtronic Inc. The FDA approved Infuse for only one type of spine surgery, the anterior lumbar fusion. Many patients, however, received an off-label use of Infuse and were never informed of the off-label nature of the surgery. Serious complications associated with Infuse included uncontrolled bone growth and chronic pain from nerve injuries. In 2014, the litigation was settled on confidential terms.

16. Wright Medical Hip Litigation. The Profemur-Z system manufactured by Wright Medical Technology consisted of three separate components: a femoral head, a modular neck, and a femoral stem. Prior to 2009, Profemur-Z hip system included a titanium modular neck adapter and stem which was implanted in 10,000 patients. Lieff Cabraser represented patients whose Profemur-Z hip implant fractured, requiring a revision surgery. In 2013 and 2014, the litigation was resolved on confidential terms.

17. In re Zimmer Durom Cup Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2158 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel for patients nationwide injured by the defective Durom Cup manufactured by Zimmer Holdings. First sold in the U.S. in 2006, Zimmer marketed its ‘metal-on- metal’ Durom Cup implant as providing a greater range of motion and less wear than traditional hip replacement components. In July 2008, Zimmer announced the suspension of Durom sales. The complaints charged that the Durom cup was defective and led to the premature failure of the implant. In 2011 and 2012, the patients represented by Lieff Cabraser settled their cases with Zimmer on favorable, confidential terms.

18. Luisi v. Medtronic, No. 07 CV 4250 (D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser represented over seven hundred heart patients nationwide who were

1043044.1 - 14 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 30 of 149

implanted with recalled Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads manufactured by Medtronic Inc. Plaintiffs charge that Medtronic has misrepresented the safety of the Sprint Fidelis leads and a defect in the device triggered their receiving massive, unnecessary electrical shocks. A settlement of the litigation was announced in October 2010.

19. Blood Factor VIII And Factor IX Litigation., MDL No. 986 (D. Il.) Working with counsel in Asia, Europe, Central and South America and the Middle East, Lieff Cabraser represented over 1,500 hemophiliacs worldwide, or their survivors and estates, who contracted HIV and/or Hepatitis C (HCV), and Americans with hemophilia who contracted HCV, from contaminated and defective blood factor products produced by American pharmaceutical companies. In 2004, Lieff Cabraser was appointed Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel of the “second generation” Blood Factor MDL litigation presided over by Judge Grady in the Northern District of Illinois. The case was resolved through a global settlement signed in 2009.

20. In Re Yamaha Motor Corp. Rhino ATV Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2016 (W.D. Ky.) Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in the litigation in federal court and Co-Lead Counsel in coordinated California state court litigation arising out of serious injuries and deaths in rollover accidents involving the Yamaha Rhino. The complaints charged that the Yamaha Rhino contained numerous design flaws, including the failure to equip the vehicles with side doors, which resulted in repeated broken or crushed legs, ankles or feet for riders. Plaintiffs alleged also that the Yamaha Rhino was unstable due to a narrow track width and high center of gravity leading to rollover accidents that killed and/or injured scores of persons across the nation. On behalf of victims and families of victims and along with the Center for Auto Safety, and the San Francisco Trauma Foundation, Lieff Cabraser advocated for numerous safety changes to the Rhino in reports submitted to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). On March 31, 2009, the CPSC, in cooperation with Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A., announced a free repair program for all Rhino 450, 660, and 700 models to improve safety, including the addition of spacers and removal of a rear only anti-sway bar.

21. Advanced Medical Optics Complete MoisturePlus Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented consumers nationwide in personal injury lawsuits filed against Advanced Medical Optics arising out of the May 2007 recall of AMO’s Complete MoisturePlus Multi-Purpose Contact Lens Solution. The product was recalled due to reports of a link between a rare, but serious eye infection, Acanthamoeba keratitis, caused by a parasite and use of AMO’s contact lens solution. Though AMO promoted Complete MoisturePlus Multi-Purpose as “effective against the

1043044.1 - 15 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 31 of 149

introduction of common ocular microorganisms,” the complaints charged that AMO’s lens solution was ineffective and vastly inferior to other multipurpose solutions on the market. In many cases, patients were forced to undergo painful corneal transplant surgery to save their vision and some have lost all or part of their vision permanently. The patients represented by Lieff Cabraser resolved their cases with AMO on favorable, confidential terms.

22. Gol Airlines Flight 1907 Amazon Crash. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and represents over twenty families whose loved ones died in the Gol Airlines Flight 1907 crash. On September 29, 2006, a brand-new Boeing 737-800 operated by Brazilian air carrier Gol plunged into the Amazon jungle after colliding with a smaller plane owned by the American company ExcelAire Service, Inc. None of the 149 passengers and six crew members on board the Gol flight survived the accident.

The complaint charged that the pilots of the ExcelAire jet were flying at an incorrect altitude at the time of the collision, failed to operate the jet's transponder and radio equipment properly, and failed to maintain communication with Brazilian air traffic control in violation of international civil aviation standards. If the pilots of the ExcelAire aircraft had followed these standards, the complaint charged that the collision would not have occurred.

At the time of the collision, the ExcelAire aircraft’s transponder, manufactured by Honeywell, was not functioning. A transponder transmits a plane’s altitude and operates its automatic anti-collision system. The complaint charged that Honeywell shares responsibility for the tragedy because it defectively designed the transponder on the ExcelAire jet, and failed to warn of dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of the transponder. The cases settled after they were sent to Brazil for prosecution.

23. Comair CRJ-100 Commuter Flight Crash in Lexington, Kentucky. A Bombardier CRJ-100 commuter plane operated by Comair, Inc., a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, crashed on August 27, 2006 shortly after takeoff at Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, killing 47 passengers and two crew members. The aircraft attempted to take off from the wrong runway. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained substantial economic recoveries in a settlement of the case.

24. In re ReNu With MoistureLoc Contact Lens Solution Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1785 (D. S.C.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in federal court litigation arising out of Bausch & Lomb’s 2006 recall of its ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens solution. Consumers who developed Fusarium keratitis, a rare and

1043044.1 - 16 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 32 of 149

dangerous fungal eye infection, as well as other serious eye infections, alleged the lens solution was defective. Some consumers were forced to undergo painful corneal transplant surgery to save their vision; others lost all or part of their vision permanently. The litigation was resolved under favorable, confidential settlements with Bausch & Lomb.

25. Helios Airways Flight 522 Athens, Greece Crash. On August 14, 2005, a Boeing 737 operating as Helios Airways flight 522 crashed north of Athens, Greece, resulting in the deaths of all passengers and crew. The aircraft was heading from Larnaca, Cyprus to Athens International Airport when ground controllers lost contact with the pilots, who had radioed in to report problems with the air conditioning system. Press reports about the official investigation indicate that a single switch for the pressurization system on the plane was not properly set by the pilots, and eventually both were rendered unconscious, along with most of the passengers and cabin crew.

Lieff Cabraser represented the families of several victims, and filed complaints alleging that a series of design defects in the Boeing 737-300 contributed to the pilots’ failure to understand the nature of the problems they were facing. Foremost among those defects was a confusing pressurization warning “horn” which uses the same sound that alerts pilots to improper takeoff and landing configurations. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained substantial economic recoveries in a settlement of the case.

26. Legend Single Engine “Turbine Legend” Kit Plane Crash. On November 19, 2005, a single engine “Turbine Legend” kit plane operated by its owner crashed shortly after takeoff from a private airstrip in Tucson, Arizona, killing both the owner/pilot and a passenger. Witnesses report that the aircraft left the narrow runway during the takeoff roll and although the pilot managed to get the plane airborne, it rolled to the left and crashed.

Lieff Cabraser investigated the liability of the pilot and others, including the manufacturer of the kit and the operator of the airport from which the plane took off. The runway was 16 feet narrower than the minimum width recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration. Lieff Cabraser represented the widow of the passenger, and the case was settled on favorable, confidential terms.

27. Manhattan Tourist Helicopter Crash. On June 14, 2005, a Bell 206 helicopter operated by Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. fell into the East River shortly after taking off for a tourist flight over New York City. The pilot and six passengers were immersed upside-down in the water as the helicopter overturned. Lieff Cabraser represented a passenger on the helicopter and the case was settled on favorable, confidential terms.

1043044.1 - 17 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 33 of 149

28. U.S. Army Blackhawk Helicopter Tower Collision. Lieff Cabraser represented the family of a pilot who died in the November 29, 2004 crash of a U.S. Army Black Hawk Helicopter. The Black Hawk was flying during the early morning hours at an altitude of approximately 500 feet when it hit cables supporting a 1,700 foot-tall television tower, and subsequently crashed 30 miles south of Waco, Texas, killing both pilots and five passengers, all in active Army service. The tower warning lights required by government regulations were inoperative. The case was resolved through a successful, confidential settlement.

29. Air Algerie Boeing 737 Crash. Together with French co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented the families of several passengers who died in the March 6, 2003 crash of a Boeing 737 airplane operated by Air Algerie. The aircraft crashed soon after takeoff from the Algerian city of Tamanrasset, after one of the engines failed. All but one of the 97 passengers were killed, along with six crew members. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained economic recoveries in a settlement of the case.

30. In re Baycol Products Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn.). Baycol was one of a group of drugs called statins, intended to reduce cholesterol. In August 2001, Bayer A.G. and Bayer Corporation, the manufacturers of Baycol, withdrew the drug from the worldwide market based upon reports that Baycol was associated with serious side effects and linked to the deaths of over 100 patients worldwide. In the federal multidistrict litigation, Lieff Cabraser served as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) and the Executive Committee of the PSC. In addition, Lieff Cabraser represented approximately 200 Baycol patients who suffered injuries or family members of patients who died allegedly as a result of ingesting Baycol. In these cases, our clients reached confidential favorable settlements with Bayer.

31. United Airlines Boeing 747 Disaster. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel on behalf of the passengers and families of passengers injured and killed in the United Airlines Boeing 747 cargo door catastrophe near Honolulu, Hawaii on February 24, 1989. Lieff Cabraser organized the litigation of the case, which included claims brought against United Airlines and The Boeing Company.

Among other work, Lieff Cabraser developed a statistical system for settling the passengers' and families’ damages claims with certain defendants, and coordinated the prosecution of successful individual damages trials for wrongful death against the non-settling defendants.

32. Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines Airbus Disaster. Lieff Cabraser represented the families of passengers who were on Aeroflot- Russian International Airlines Flight SU593 that crashed in Siberia on

1043044.1 - 18 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 34 of 149

March 23, 1994. The plane was en route from Moscow to Hong Kong. All passengers on board died.

According to a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, the pilot’s two children entered the cockpit during the flight and took turns flying the plane. The autopilot apparently was inadvertently turned off during this time, and the pilot was unable to remove his son from the captain’s seat in time to avert the plane’s fatal dive.

Lieff Cabraser, alongside French co-counsel, filed suit in France, where Airbus, the plane’s manufacturer, was headquartered. The families Lieff Cabraser represented obtained substantial economic recoveries in settlement of the action.

33. Lockheed F-104 Fighter Crashes. In the late 1960s and extending into the early 1970s, the United States sold F-104 Star Fighter jets to the German Air Force that were manufactured by Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in California. Although the F-104 Star Fighter was designed for high-altitude fighter combat, it was used in Germany and other European countries for low-level bombing and attack training missions.

Consequently, the aircraft had an extremely high crash rate, with over 300 pilots killed. Commencing in 1971, the law firm of Belli Ashe Ellison Choulos & Lieff filed hundreds of lawsuits for wrongful death and other claims on behalf of the widows and surviving children of the pilots.

Robert Lieff continued to prosecute the cases after the formation of our firm. In 1974, the lawsuits were settled with Lockheed on terms favorable to the plaintiffs. This litigation helped establish the principle that citizens of foreign countries could assert claims in United States courts and obtain substantial recoveries against an American manufacturer, based upon airplane accidents or crashes occurring outside the United States.

II. Securities and Financial Fraud

A. Current Cases

1. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as lead counsel for court-appointed lead plaintiff, Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (“HMEPS”), in this securities fraud class action against BofI Holding, Inc. and certain of its senior officers. The action charges defendants with issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about BofI’s business, operations, and performance. In September 2016, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended

1043044.1 - 19 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 35 of 149

complaint in November 2016 in order to remedy the few claims that had been dismissed. In May 2017, the court denied in significant part defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint.

2. Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al., No. 1:16-cv-112-GMS (D. Del.). Lieff Cabraser serves as lead counsel for the court-appointed lead plaintiff, a group of Lord Abbett funds, in this securities fraud class action arising under the PSLRA against Navient, certain of Navient’s senior officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain of Navient’s public debt offerings. The consolidated actions allege that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that (i) Navient’s loan-servicing practices violated applicable federal regulations and jeopardized a contingency collection contract with the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”); (ii) the Company had an increased number of higher-risk borrowers who were not repaying their loans and Navient failed to properly account for this increased risk of loss in its reported financial results; (iii) Navient’s operating structure was inefficient as a result of its spin-off from Sallie Mae; and (iv) a significant portion of the Company’s low-rate credit facilities were at risk of being reduced or eliminated. A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in September 2016 and the parties have since fully briefed defendants’ motion to dismiss.

3. Normand, et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., No. 1:16-cv- 00212-LAK-JLC (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser, together with co-counsel, represents a proposed class of holders of American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) (negotiable U.S. securities representing ownership of publicly traded shares in a non-U.S. corporation), for which BNY Mellon served as the depositary bank. Plaintiffs allege that under the contractual agreements underlying the ADRs, BNY Mellon was responsible for “promptly” converting cash distributions (such as dividends) received for ADRs into U.S. dollars for the benefit of ADR holders, and was required to act without bad faith. Plaintiffs allege that, instead, when doing the ADR cash conversions, BNY Mellon used the range of exchange rates available during the trading session in a manner that was unfavorable for ADR holders, and in doing so, improperly skimmed profits from distributions owed and payable to the class. In September 2016, the court denied, in substantial part, defendant’s motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs have since filed a consolidated amended complaint. The case is currently in discovery.

4. In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-05541 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co- Lead Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiffs Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado and The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System in this consolidated shareholder derivative action alleging that, since at least

1043044.1 - 20 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 36 of 149

2011, the Board and executive management of Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”) knew or consciously disregarded that Wells Fargo employees were illicitly creating millions of deposit and credit card accounts for their customers, without those customers’ consent, in an attempt to drive up “cross-selling,” i.e., selling complementary Wells Fargo banking products to prospective or existing customers. Revelations regarding the scheme, and the defendants’ knowledge or blatant disregard of it, have deeply damaged Wells Fargo’s reputation and cost it millions of dollars in regulatory fines and lost business. In May 2017, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.

5. In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Securities And Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 12-2389 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser is counsel for two individual investor class representatives in the securities class litigation arising under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) concerning Facebook’s initial public offering in May 2012. In December 2013, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint. The parties subsequently engaged in discovery and briefing.

In December 2015, the court granted the investors’ motion for class certification. The litigation is ongoing.

B. Successes

1. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corp., Case No. 11cv10230 (MLW) (D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser served as co- counsel for a nationwide class of institutional custodial clients of State Street, including public pension funds and ERISA plans, who allege that defendants deceptively charged class members on FX trades done in connection with the purchase and sale of foreign securities. The complaint charged that between 1999 and 2009, State Street consistently incorporated hidden and excessive mark-ups or mark-downs relative to the actual FX rates applicable at the times of the trades conducted for State Street’s custodial FX clients.

State Street allegedly kept for itself, as an unlawful profit, the “spread” between the prices for foreign currency available to it in the FX marketplace and the rates it charged to its customers. Plaintiffs sought recovery under Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Law and common law tort and contract theories. On November 2, 2016, U.S. District Senior Judge Mark L. Wolf granted final approval to a $300 million settlement of the litigation.

2. Janus Overseas Fund, et al. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10086-JSR (S.D.N.Y.); Dodge & Cox

1043044.1 - 21 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 37 of 149

Global Stock Fund, et al. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10111-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented certain Janus and Dodge & Cox funds and investment managers in these individual actions against Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras (“Petrobras”), related Petrobras entities, and certain of Petrobras’s senior officers and directors for misrepresenting and failing to disclose a pervasive and long-running scheme of bribery and corruption at Petrobras. As a result of the misconduct, Petrobras overstated the value of its assets by billions of dollars and materially misstated its financial results during the relevant period. The actions charged defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The action recently settled on confidential terms favorable to plaintiffs.

3. The Regents of the University of California v. American International Group, No. 1:14-cv-01270-LTS-DCF (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented The Regents of the University of California in this individual action against American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) and certain of its officers and directors for misrepresenting and omitting material information about AIG’s financial condition and the extent of its exposure to the subprime mortgage market. The complaint charged defendants with violations of the Exchange Act, as well as common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The litigation settled in 2015.

4. Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. v. Celera Corp., 3:13-cv-03248- WHA (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented a group of affiliated funds investing in biotechnology companies in this individual action arising from misconduct in connection with Quest Diagnostics Inc.’s 2011 acquisition of Celera Corporation. Celera, Celera’s individual directors, and Credit Suisse were charged with violations of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duty. In February 2014, the Court denied in large part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2014, the plaintiffs settled with Credit Suisse for a confidential amount. After the completion of fact and expert discovery, and prior to a ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs settled with the Celera defendants in January 2015 for a confidential amount.

5. The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Sec. Corp., No. CGC- 10-501610 (Cal. Super. Ct.); The Charles Schwab Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc., No. CGC-10-503206 (Cal. Super. Ct.); The Charles Schwab Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc., No. CGC-10-503207 (Cal. Super. Ct.); and The Charles Schwab Corp. v. Banc of America Sec. LLC, No. CGC-10-501151 (Cal. Super. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser, along with co-counsel, represents Charles Schwab in four separate individual securities actions against certain issuers and sellers of mortgage-backed

1043044.1 - 22 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 38 of 149

securities (“MBS”) for materially misrepresenting the quality of the loans underlying the securities in violation of California state law. Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of Charles Schwab, suffered significant damages by purchasing the securities in reliance on defendants’ misstatements. The court largely overruled defendants’ demurrers in January 2012. Settlements have been reached with dozens of defendants for confidential amounts.

6. Honeywell International Inc. Defined Contribution Plans Master Savings Trust. v. Merck & Co., No. 14-cv 2523-SRC-CLW (S.D.N.Y.); Janus Balanced Fund v. Merck & Co., No. 14-cv-3019- SRC-CLW (S.D.N.Y.); Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund v. Merck & Co., No. 14-cv-2027-SRC-CLW (S.D.N.Y.); Nuveen Dividend Value Fund (f/k/a Nuveen Equity Income Fund), on its own behalf and as successor in interest to Nuveen Large Cap Value Fund (f/k/a First American Large Cap Value Fund) v. Merck & Co., No. 14- cv-1709-SRC-CLW (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented certain Nuveen, Lord Abbett, and Janus funds, and two Honeywell International trusts in these individual actions against Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) and certain of its senior officers and directors for misrepresenting the cardiovascular safety profile and commercial viability of Merck’s purported “blockbuster” drug, VIOXX. The actions charged defendants with violations of the Exchange Act. The action settled on confidential terms.

7. In re First Capital Holdings Corp. Financial Products Securities Litigation, MDL No. 901 (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action brought to recover damages sustained by policyholders of First Capital Life Insurance Company and Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company policyholders resulting from the insurance companies’ allegedly fraudulent or reckless investment and financial practices, and the manipulation of the companies’ financial statements. This policyholder settlement generated over $1 billion in restored life insurance policies. The settlement was approved by both federal and state courts in parallel proceedings and then affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on appeal.

8. In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Foreign Exchange Transactions Litigation, MDL 2335 (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as co-lead class counsel for a proposed nationwide class of institutional custodial customers of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”). The litigation stemmed from alleged deceptive overcharges imposed by BNY Mellon on foreign currency exchanges (FX) that were done in connection with custodial customers’ purchases or sales of foreign securities. Plaintiffs alleged that for more than a decade, BNY Mellon consistently charged its custodial customers

1043044.1 - 23 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 149

hidden and excessive mark-ups on exchange rates for FX trades done pursuant to “standing instructions,” using “range of the day” pricing, rather than the rates readily available when the trades were actually executed.

In addition to serving as co-lead counsel for a nationwide class of affected custodial customers, which included public pension funds, ERISA funds, and other public and private institutions, Lieff Cabraser was one of three firms on Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee tasked with managing all activities on the plaintiffs’ side in the multidistrict consolidated litigation. Prior to the cases being transferred and consolidated in the Southern District of New York, Lieff Cabraser defeated, in its entirety, BNY Mellon’s motion to dismiss claims brought on behalf of ERISA and other funds under California’s and New York’s consumer protection laws.

The firm’s clients and class representatives in the consolidated litigation included the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio, and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund.

In March 2015, a global resolution of the private and governmental enforcement actions against BNY Mellon was announced, in which $504 million will be paid back to BNY Mellon customers ($335 million of which is directly attributable to the class litigation).

On September 24, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted final approval to the settlement. Commenting on the work of plaintiffs’ counsel, Judge Kaplan stated, “This really was an extraordinary case in which plaintiff’s counsel performed, at no small risk, an extraordinary service. They did a wonderful job in this case, and I’ve seen a lot of wonderful lawyers over the years. This was a great performance. They were fought tooth and nail at every step of the road. It undoubtedly vastly expanded the costs of the case, but it’s an adversary system, and sometimes you meet adversaries who are heavily armed and well financed, and if you’re going to win, you have to fight them and it costs money. This was an outrageous wrong committed by the Bank of New York Mellon, and plaintiffs’ counsel deserve a world of credit for taking it on, for running the risk, for financing it and doing a great job.”

9. In re Broadcom Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. CV 06- 3252-R (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Lead Counsel in a shareholders derivative action arising out of stock options backdating in Broadcom securities. The complaint alleged that defendants intentionally manipulated their stock option grant dates between 1998 and 2003 at the expense of Broadcom and Broadcom shareholders. By making it seem as if stock option grants occurred on dates when Broadcom stock was trading at a comparatively low per share

1043044.1 - 24 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 40 of 149

price, stock option grant recipients were able to exercise their stock option grants at exercise prices that were lower than the fair market value of Broadcom stock on the day the options were actually granted. In December 2009, U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real granted final approval to a partial settlement in which Broadcom Corporation’s insurance carriers paid $118 million to Broadcom. The settlement released certain individual director and officer defendants covered by Broadcom’s directors’ and officers’ policy.

Plaintiffs’ counsel continued to pursue claims against William J. Ruehle, Broadcom’s former Chief Financial Officer, Henry T. Nicholas, III, Broadcom’s co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer, and Henry Samueli, Broadcom’s co-founder and former Chief Technology Officer. In May 2011, the Court approved a settlement with these defendants. The settlement provided substantial consideration to Broadcom, consisting of the receipt of cash and cancelled options from Dr. Nicholas and Dr. Samueli totaling $53 million in value, plus the release of a claim by Mr. Ruehle, which sought damages in excess of $26 million.

Coupled with the earlier $118 million partial settlement, the total recovery in the derivative action was $197 million, which constitutes the third- largest settlement ever in a derivative action involving stock options backdating.

10. In re Scorpion Technologies Securities Litigation I, No. C-93- 20333-EAI (N.D. Cal.); Dietrich v. Bauer, No. C-95-7051-RWS (S.D.N.Y.); Claghorn v. Edsaco, No. 98-3039-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in class action suits arising out of an alleged fraudulent scheme by Scorpion Technologies, Inc., certain of its officers, accountants, underwriters and business affiliates to inflate the company’s earnings through reporting fictitious sales. In Scorpion I, the Court found plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence of liability under Federal securities acts against the accounting firm Grant Thornton for the case to proceed to trial. In re Scorpion Techs., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22294 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 1996). In 1988, the Court approved a $5.5 million settlement with Grant Thornton. In 2000, the Court approved a $950,000 settlement with Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. In April 2002, a federal jury in San Francisco, California returned a $170.7 million verdict against Edsaco Ltd. The jury found that Edsaco aided Scorpion in setting up phony European companies as part of a scheme in which Scorpion reported fictitious sales of its software to these companies, thereby inflating its earnings. Included in the jury verdict, one of the largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2002, was $165 million in punitive damages. Richard M. Heimann conducted the trial for plaintiffs.

1043044.1 - 25 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 41 of 149

On June 14, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston commented on Lieff Cabraser’s representation: “[C]ounsel for the plaintiffs did a very good job in a very tough situation of achieving an excellent recovery for the class here. You were opposed by extremely capable lawyers. It was an uphill battle. There were some complicated questions, and then there was the tricky issue of actually collecting anything in the end. I think based on the efforts that were made here that it was an excellent result for the class. . . [T]he recovery that was achieved for the class in this second trial is remarkable, almost a hundred percent.”

11. In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 11-cv- 05386-WHA (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as local counsel for Lead Plaintiff Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (“MissPERS”) and the class of investors it represented in this securities class action lawsuit arising under the PSLRA. The complaint charged Diamond Foods and certain senior executives of the company with violations of the Exchange Act for knowingly understating the cost of walnuts Diamond Foods purchased in order to inflate the price of Diamond Foods’ common stock. In January 2014, the Court granted final approval of a settlement of the action requiring Diamond Foods to pay $11 million in cash and issue 4.45 million common shares worth $116.3 million on the date of final approval based on the stock’s closing price on that date.

12. Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Fund and Merrill Lynch Global Value Fund v. McKesson HBOC, No. 02-405792 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as counsel for two Merrill Lynch sponsored mutual funds in a private lawsuit alleging that a massive accounting fraud occurred at HBOC & Company (“HBOC”) before and following its 1999 acquisition by McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”). The funds charged that defendants, including the former CFO of McKesson HBOC, the name McKesson adopted after acquiring HBOC, artificially inflated the price of securities in McKesson HBOC, through misrepresentations and omissions concerning the financial condition of HBOC, resulting in approximately $135 million in losses for plaintiffs. In a significant discovery ruling in 2004, the California Court of Appeal held that defendants waived the attorney-client and work product privileges in regard to an audit committee report and interview memoranda prepared in anticipation of shareholder lawsuits by disclosing the information to the U.S. Attorney and SEC. McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Supr. Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1229 (2004). Lieff Cabraser’s clients recovered approximately $145 million, representing nearly 104% of damages suffered by the funds. This amount was approximately $115-120 million more than the Merrill Lynch funds would have recovered had they participated in the federal class action settlement.

1043044.1 - 26 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 42 of 149

13. Informix/Illustra Securities Litigation, No. C-97-1289-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented Richard H. Williams, the former Chief Executive Officer and President of Illustra Information Technologies, Inc. (“Illustra”), and a class of Illustra shareholders in a class action suit on behalf of all former Illustra securities holders who tendered their Illustra preferred or common stock, stock warrants or stock options in exchange for securities of Informix Corporation (“Informix”) in connection with Informix’s 1996 purchase of Illustra. Pursuant to that acquisition, Illustra stockholders received Informix securities representing approximately 10% of the value of the combined company. The complaint alleged claims for common law fraud and violations of Federal securities law arising out of the acquisition. In October 1999, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Breyer approved a global settlement of the litigation for $136 million, constituting one of the largest settlements ever involving a high technology company alleged to have committed securities fraud. Our clients, the Illustra shareholders, received approximately 30% of the net settlement fund.

14. In re Qwest Communications International Securities and “ERISA” Litigation (No. II), No. 06-cv-17880-REB-PAC (MDL No. 1788) (D. Colo.). Lieff Cabraser represented the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado, Denver Employees’ Retirement Plan, San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, and over thirty BlackRock managed mutual funds in individual securities fraud actions (“opt out” cases) against Qwest Communications International, Inc., Philip F. Anschutz, former co- chairman of the Qwest board of directors, and other senior executives at Qwest. In each action, the plaintiffs charged defendants with massively overstating Qwest’s publicly-reported growth, revenues, earnings, and earnings per share from 1999 through 2002. The cases were filed in the wake of a $400 million settlement of a securities fraud class action against Qwest that was announced in early 2006. The cases brought by Lieff Cabraser’s clients settled in October 2007 for recoveries totaling more than $85 million, or more than 13 times what the clients would have received had they remained in the class.

15. In re AXA Rosenberg Investor Litigation, No. CV 11-00536 JSW (N.D. Cal). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a class of institutional investors, ERISA-covered plans, and other investors in quantitative funds managed by AXA Rosenberg Group, LLC and its affiliates (“AXA”). Plaintiffs alleged that AXA breached its fiduciary duties and violated ERISA by failing to discover a material computer error that existed in its system for years, and then failing to remedy it for months after its eventual discovery in 2009. By the time AXA disclosed the error in 2010, investors had suffered losses and paid substantial investment management fees to AXA. After briefing motions to dismiss and working

1043044.1 - 27 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 43 of 149

with experts to analyze data obtained from AXA relating to the impact of the error, Lieff Cabraser reached a $65 million settlement with AXA that the Court approved in April 2012.

16. In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1565 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser served as outside counsel for the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System for the City of New York, New York City Police Pension Fund, and New York City Fire Department Pension Fund in this multidistrict litigation arising from fraud in connection with NCFE’s issuance of notes backed by healthcare receivables. The New York City Pension Funds recovered more than 70% of their $89 million in losses, primarily through settlements achieved in the federal litigation and another NCFE-matter brought on their behalf by Lieff Cabraser.

17. BlackRock Global Allocation Fund v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., No. 2:08-cv-519 (D. N.J.); Nuveen Balanced Municipal and Stock Fund v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., No. 2:08-cv-518 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represented multiple funds of the investment firms BlackRock Inc. and Nuveen Asset Management in separate, direct securities fraud actions against Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Electronics Ltd., Covidien Ltd, Covidien (U.S.), L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, and Frank E. Walsh, Jr. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in a massive criminal enterprise that combined the theft of corporate assets with fraudulent accounting entries that concealed Tyco’s financial condition from investors. As a result, plaintiffs purchased Tyco common stock and other Tyco securities at artificially inflated prices and suffered losses upon disclosures revealing Tyco’s true financial condition and defendants’ misconduct. In 2009, the parties settled the claims against the corporate defendants (Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Electronics Ltd., Covidien Ltd., and Covidien (U.S.). The litigation concluded in 2010. The total settlement proceeds paid by all defendants were in excess of $57 million.

18. Kofuku Bank and Namihaya Bank v. Republic New York Securities Corp., No. 00 CIV 3298 (S.D.N.Y.); and Kita Hyogo Shinyo- Kumiai v. Republic New York Securities Corp., No. 00 CIV 4114 (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented Kofuku Bank, Namihaya Bank and Kita Hyogo Shinyo-Kumiai (a credit union) in individual lawsuits against, among others, Martin A. Armstrong and HSBC, Inc., the successor-in- interest to Republic New York Corporation, Republic New York Bank and Republic New York Securities Corporation for alleged violations of federal securities and racketeering laws. Through a group of interconnected companies owned and controlled by Armstrong—the Princeton Companies—Armstrong and the Republic Companies promoted and sold promissory notes, known as the “Princeton Notes,” to more than eighty of

1043044.1 - 28 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 44 of 149

the largest companies and financial institutions in Japan. Lieff Cabraser’s lawsuits, as well as the lawsuits of dozens of other Princeton Note investors, alleged that the Princeton and Republic Companies made fraudulent misrepresentations and non-disclosures in connection with the promotion and sale of Princeton Notes, and that investors’ monies were commingled and misused to the benefit of Armstrong, the Princeton Companies and the Republic Companies. In December 2001, the claims of our clients and those of the other Princeton Note investors were settled. As part of the settlement, our clients recovered more than $50 million, which represented 100% of the value of their principal investments less money they received in interest or other payments.

19. Alaska State Department of Revenue v. America Online, No. 1JU-04-503 (Alaska Supr. Ct.). In December 2006, a $50 million settlement was reached in a securities fraud action brought by the Alaska State Department of Revenue, Alaska State Pension Investment Board and Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation against defendants America Online, Inc. (“AOL”), Time Warner Inc. (formerly known as AOL Time Warner (“AOLTW”)), Historic TW Inc. When the action was filed, the Alaska Attorney General estimated total losses at $70 million. The recovery on behalf of Alaska was approximately 50 times what the state would have received as a member of the class in the federal securities class action settlement. The lawsuit, filed in 2004 in Alaska State Court, alleged that defendants misrepresented advertising revenues and growth of AOL and AOLTW along with the number of AOL subscribers, which artificially inflated the stock price of AOL and AOLTW to the detriment of Alaska State funds.

The Alaska Department of Law retained Lieff Cabraser to lead the litigation efforts under its direction. “We appreciate the diligence and expertise of our counsel in achieving an outstanding resolution of the case,” said Mark Morones, spokesperson for the Department of Law, following announcement of the settlement.

20. Allocco v. Gardner, No. GIC 806450 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represented Lawrence L. Garlick, the co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Remedy Corporation and 24 other former senior executives and directors of Remedy Corporation in a private (non-class) securities fraud lawsuit against Stephen P. Gardner, the former Chief Executive Officer of Peregrine Systems, Inc., John J. Moores, Peregrine’s former Chairman of the Board, Matthew C. Gless, Peregrine’s former Chief Financial Officer, Peregrine’s accounting firm Arthur Andersen and certain entities that entered into fraudulent transactions with Peregrine. The lawsuit, filed in California state court, arose out of Peregrine’s August 2001 acquisition of Remedy. Plaintiffs charged that they were induced to exchange their Remedy stock for Peregrine stock on the basis of false and

1043044.1 - 29 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 45 of 149

misleading representations made by defendants. Within months of the Remedy acquisition, Peregrine began to reveal to the public that it had grossly overstated its revenue during the years 2000-2002, and eventually restated more than $500 million in revenues.

After successfully defeating demurrers brought by defendants, including third parties who were customers of Peregrine who aided and abetted Peregrine’s accounting fraud under California common law, plaintiffs reached a series of settlements. The settling defendants included Arthur Andersen, all of the director defendants, three officer defendants and the third party customer defendants KPMG, British Telecom, Fujitsu, Software Spectrum and Bindview. The total amount received in settlements was approximately $45 million.

21. In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 06-cv-4130-DGT-AKT (E.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a shareholders’ derivative action against the board of directors and numerous officers of Cablevision. The suit alleged that defendants intentionally manipulated stock option grant dates to Cablevision employees between 1997 and 2002 in order to enrich certain officer and director defendants at the expense of Cablevision and Cablevision shareholders. According to the complaint, Defendants made it appear as if stock options were granted earlier than they actually were in order to maximize the value of the grants. In September 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $34.4 million settlement of the action. Over $24 million of the settlement was contributed directly by individual defendants who either received backdated options or participated in the backdating activity.

22. In re Media Vision Technology Securities Litigation, No. CV-94- 1015 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit which alleged that certain Media Vision’s officers, outside directors, accountants and underwriters engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the company’s earnings and issued false and misleading public statements about the company’s finances, earnings and profits. By 1998, the Court had approved several partial settlements with many of Media Vision’s officers and directors, accountants and underwriters which totaled $31 million. The settlement proceeds have been distributed to eligible class members. The evidence that Lieff Cabraser developed in the civil case led prosecutors to commence an investigation and ultimately file criminal charges against Media Vision’s former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The civil action against Media Vision’s CEO and CFO was stayed pending the criminal proceedings against them. In the criminal proceedings, the CEO pled guilty on several counts, and the CFO was convicted at trial. In October 2003, the Court granted Plaintiffs’

1043044.1 - 30 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 46 of 149

motions for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the class against the two defendants in the amount of $188 million.

23. In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation, No. C-94- 2817-VRW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Liaison Counsel for the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and the class they represented. Prior to 2001, the Court approved $19 million in settlements. In May 2001, the Court approved an additional settlement of $12 million, which, combined with the earlier settlements, provided class members an almost complete return on their losses. The settlement with the company included multi- million dollar contributions by the former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

Commenting in 2001 on Lieff Cabraser’s work in Cal Micro Devices, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated, “It is highly unusual for a class action in the securities area to recover anywhere close to the percentage of loss that has been recovered here, and counsel and the lead plaintiffs have done an admirable job in bringing about this most satisfactory conclusion of the litigation.” One year later, in a related proceeding and in response to the statement that the class had received nearly a 100% recovery, Judge Walker observed, “That’s pretty remarkable. In these cases, 25 cents on the dollar is considered to be a magnificent recovery, and this is [almost] a hundred percent.”

24. In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-99- 1729-WHA (N.D. Cal.). Following a competitive bidding process, the Court appointed Lieff Cabraser as Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the class of investors. The complaint alleged that Network Associates improperly accounted for acquisitions in order to inflate its stock price. In May 2001, the Court granted approval to a $30 million settlement.

In reviewing the Network Associates settlement, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup observed, “[T]he class was well served at a good price by excellent counsel . . . We have class counsel who’s one of the foremost law firms in the country in both securities law and class actions. And they have a very excellent reputation for the conduct of these kinds of cases . . .”

25. In re FPI/Agretech Securities Litigation, MDL No. 763 (D. Haw., Real, J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel for investors defrauded in a “Ponzi-like” limited partnership investment scheme. The Court approved $15 million in partial, pretrial settlements. At trial, the jury returned a $24 million verdict, which included $10 million in punitive damages, against non-settling defendant Arthur Young & Co. for its knowing complicity and active and substantial assistance in the marketing and sale of the worthless limited partnership offerings. The

1043044.1 - 31 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 47 of 149

Appellate Court affirmed the compensatory damages award and remanded the case for a retrial on punitive damages. In 1994, the Court approved a $17 million settlement with Ernst & Young, the successor to Arthur Young & Co.

26. Nguyen v. FundAmerica, No. C-90-2090 MHP (N.D. Cal., Patel, J.), 1990 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶¶ 95,497, 95,498 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in this securities/RICO/tort action seeking an injunction against alleged unfair “pyramid” marketing practices and compensation to participants. The District Court certified a nationwide class for injunctive relief and damages on a mandatory basis and enjoined fraudulent overseas transfers of assets. The Bankruptcy Court permitted class proof of claims. Lieff Cabraser obtained dual District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval of settlements distributing over $13 million in FundAmerica assets to class members.

27. In re Brooks Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06 CA 11068 (D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser served as Court-Appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and co-plaintiff Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System in a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Brooks Automation securities. Plaintiffs charged that Brooks Automation, its senior corporate officers and directors violated federal securities laws by backdating company stock options over a six-year period, and failed to disclose the scheme in publicly filed financial statements. Subsequent to Lieff Cabraser’s filing of a consolidated amended complaint in this action, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice filed complaints against the Company’s former C.E.O., Robert Therrien, related to the same alleged practices. In October 2008, the Court approved a $7.75 million settlement of the action.

28. In re A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 2:11-ml-2302-GW- (CWx) (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff in this securities class action that charged defendants with materially misrepresenting A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd.’s financial results and business prospects in violation of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court approved a $3.675 million settlement in August 2013.

29. Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger Securities Cases. In two cases—DiNapoli, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 10 CV 5563 (S.D. N.Y.) and Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 11-cv- 07779 PKC (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser sought recovery on a direct, non-class basis for losses that a number of public pension funds and mutual funds incurred as a result of Bank of America’s alleged

1043044.1 - 32 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 48 of 149

misrepresentations and concealment of material facts in connection with its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Lieff Cabraser represented the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, the Public Employees’ Retirement Association of Colorado, and fourteen mutual funds managed by Charles Schwab Investment Management. Both cases settled in 2013 on confidential terms favorable for our clients.

30. Albert v. Alex. Brown Management Services; Baker v. Alex. Brown Management Services (Del. Ch. Ct.). In May 2004, on behalf of investors in two investment funds controlled, managed and operated by Deutsche Bank and advised by DC Investment Partners, Lieff Cabraser filed lawsuits for alleged fraudulent conduct that resulted in an aggregate loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. The suits named as defendants Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries Alex. Brown Management Services and Deutsche Bank Securities, members of the funds’ management committee, as well as DC Investments Partners and two of its principals. Among the plaintiff-investors were 70 high net worth individuals. In the fall of 2006, the cases settled by confidential agreement.

III. Employment Discrimination and Unfair Employment Practices

A. Current Cases

1. Kennicott v. Sandia National Laboratories, No. 17-cv-188 (D.N.M.). Lieff Cabraser represents female employees in a gender a discrimination class action lawsuit against Sandia National Laboratories, a major defense contractor for the United States Department of Energy. Sandia’s research focuses on nuclear weapons and other security technologies with major facilities in California and New Mexico. The lawsuit alleges that Sandia discriminates against female employees with respect to compensation, promotion, and performance evaluation. Plaintiffs contend that Sandia has implemented its policies despite knowing of their discriminatory effect—and that when women complain of gender discrimination, Sandia retaliates against them. With its work shrouded in secrecy, the defense industry has not been held accountable for gender inequity and a hostile environment for women. This lawsuit seeks to change the policies and practices that perpetuate gender discrimination, as well as to compensate women whose careers have suffered because of this discrimination. The lawsuit alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and has received significant media coverage.

2. Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, No. 10-6950 (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleges that Goldman Sachs has engaged in systemic and

1043044.1 - 33 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 49 of 149

pervasive discrimination against its female professional employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint charges that, among other things, Goldman Sachs pays its female professionals less than similarly situated males, disproportionately promotes men over equally or more qualified women, and offers better business opportunities and professional support to its male professionals. In 2012, the Court denied defendant’s motion to strike class allegations. On March 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV issued a recommendation against certifying the class. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending before U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres.

3. Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-01483 (W.D. Wash.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent a former female Microsoft technical professional in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all current and former female technical professionals employed by Microsoft in the U.S. since September 16, 2009. The complaint alleges that Microsoft has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against female employees in technical and engineering roles with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment. The unchecked gender bias that pervades Microsoft’s corporate culture has resulted in female technical professionals receiving less compensation than similar men, the promotion of men over equally or more qualified women, and less favorable performance evaluation of female technical professionals compared to male peers. Microsoft’s continuing policy, pattern, and practice of sex discrimination against female technical employees, the complaint alleges, violates federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 27, 2017. The motion seeks certification of a class of female employees who worked in the Engineering or I/T Operations Professions and in stock levels 59-67 from September 16, 2012 to the present.

4. Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, No. C13-0119 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents former Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) technical support employees who filed a nationwide class action lawsuit charging that HP failed to pay them and other former and current technical support employees for all overtime hours worked in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law. The complaint charges that HP has a common practice of misclassifying its technical support workers as exempt and refusing to pay them overtime. On

1043044.1 - 34 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 50 of 149

February 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a FSLA overtime action.

5. Kassman v. KPMG, LLP, Case No. 11-03743 (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in a gender discrimination class and collective action lawsuit alleging that KPMG has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against its female Client Service and Support Professionals in pay and promotion, discrimination based on pregnancy, and chronic failure to properly investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination and harassment. The complaint alleges violations of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York Executive Law § 296, and the New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. For purposes of the Equal Pay Act claim, plaintiffs represent a conditionally-certified collective of over 1,300 female Client Service and Support Professionals who have opted in to the lawsuit. In addition to bringing the Title VII and New York statutory claims on their own behalf, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former exempt female Client Service and Support Professionals, including Associates, Senior Associates, Managers, Senior Managers, and Managing Directors in KPMG’s Tax and Advisory functions.

6. Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corporation, No. 2:14-cv-00956 (D. Conn.). In 2005, Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) settled for $24 million a nationwide class and collective action lawsuit alleging that CSC misclassified thousands of its information technology support workers as exempt from overtime pay in violation of in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law. Notwithstanding that settlement, a complaint filed on behalf of current and former CSC IT workers in 2014 by Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel alleges that CSC misclassifies many information technology support workers as exempt even though they perform primarily nonexempt work. Plaintiffs are current and former CSC System Administrators assigned the primary duty of the installation, maintenance, and/or support of computer software and/or hardware for CSC clients. On June 9, 2015, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective action. Since then, more than 1,000 System Administrators have opted into the case. On June 30, 2017, the Court granted plaintiffs motion for certification of Rule 23 classes for System Administrators in California and Connecticut.

On December 20, 2017, a jury in federal court in Connecticut ruled that Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), which recently merged with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services to form DXC Technology (NYSE: DXC), wrongly and willfully denied overtime pay to approximately 1,000 current and former technology support workers around the country. After deliberating over two days, the Connecticut jury unanimously rejected

1043044.1 - 35 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 51 of 149

CSC’s claim that its System Administrators in the “Associate Professional” and “Professional” job titles are exempt under federal, Connecticut and California law, ruling instead that the workers should have been classified as nonexempt and paid overtime. The jury found CSC’s violations to be willful, triggering additional damages. The misclassifications were made despite the fact that, in 2005, CSC paid $24 million to settle similar claims from a previous group of technical support workers. The case will next proceed to a damages phase, where the court will determine how much CSC owes each class member.

7. Senne v. Major League Baseball, No. 14-cv-00608 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents current and former Minor League Baseball players employed under uniform player contracts in a class and collective action seeking unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws. The complaint alleges that Major League Baseball (“MLB”), the MLB franchises, and other defendants paid minor league players a uniform monthly fixed salary that, in light of the hours worked, amounts to less than the minimum wage and an unlawful denial of overtime pay.

8. Jang v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 15-03719-NC (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents certain former DuPont employees in a breach of contract action alleging that DuPont unlawfully terminated employees’ unvested stock options. DuPont’s standard stock option award contract states that unvested options will continue to vest in accordance with their vesting schedule. In practice, however, DuPont unilaterally cancelled unvested stock options one year from employees’ termination, regardless of whether the options had vested. The complaint was filed on August 15, 2015. DuPont filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins on November 19, 2015. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral argument was held on April 21, 2017. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision.

B. Successes

1. Butler v. Home Depot, No. C94-4335 SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented a class of approximately 25,000 female employees and applicants for employment with Home Depot’s West Coast Division who alleged gender discrimination in connection with hiring, promotions, pay, job assignment, and other terms and conditions of employment. The class was certified in January 1995. In January 1998, the Court approved a $87.5 million settlement of the action that included comprehensive injunctive relief over the term of a five-year Consent Decree. Under the terms of the settlement, Home Depot modified its hiring, promotion, and compensation practices to ensure that interested

1043044.1 - 36 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 52 of 149

and qualified women were hired for, and promoted to, sales and management positions.

On January 14, 1998, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston commented that the settlement provides “a very significant monetary payment to the class members for which I think they should be grateful to their counsel. . . . Even more significant is the injunctive relief that’s provided for . . .” By 2003, the injunctive relief had created thousands of new job opportunities in sales and management positions at Home Depot, generating the equivalent of over approximately $100 million per year in wages for female employees.

In 2002, Judge Illston stated that the injunctive relief has been a “win/win . . . for everyone, because . . . the way the Decree has been implemented has been very successful and it is good for the company as well as the company’s employees.”

2. Rosenburg v. IBM, No. C 06-0430 PJH (N.D. Cal.). In July 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $65 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former technical support workers for IBM seeking unpaid overtime. The settlement constitutes a record amount in litigation seeking overtime compensation for employees in the computer industry. Plaintiffs alleged that IBM illegally misclassified its employees who install or maintain computer hardware or software as “exempt” from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws.

3. Satchell v. FedEx Express, No. C 03-2659 SI; C 03-2878 SI (N.D. Cal.). In 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $54.9 million settlement of the race discrimination class action lawsuit by African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express. The settlement requires FedEx to reform its promotion, discipline, and pay practices. Under the settlement, FedEx will implement multiple steps to promote equal employment opportunities, including making its performance evaluation process less discretionary, discarding use of the “Basic Skills Test” as a prerequisite to promotion into certain desirable positions, and changing employment policies to demonstrate that its revised practices do not continue to foster racial discrimination. The settlement, covering 20,000 hourly employees and operations managers who have worked in the western region of FedEx Express since October 1999, was approved by the Court in August 2007.

4. Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, No. C03-2817 SI (N.D. Cal.). In April 2005, the Court approved a settlement, valued at approximately $50 million, which requires the retail clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch to provide monetary benefits of $40 million to the class of Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants and employees who charged the company with discrimination. The

1043044.1 - 37 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 53 of 149

settlement included a six-year period of injunctive relief requiring the company to institute a wide range of policies and programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel and prosecuted the case with a number of co-counsel firms, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

5. Giles v. Allstate, JCCP Nos. 2984 and 2985. Lieff Cabraser represented a class of Allstate insurance agents seeking reimbursement of out-of- pocket costs. The action settled for approximately $40 million.

6. Calibuso v. Bank of America Corporation, Merrill Lynch & Co., No. CV10-1413 (E.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for female Financial Advisors who alleged that Bank of America and Merrill Lynch engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination with respect to business opportunities and compensation. The complaint charged that these violations were systemic, based upon company-wide policies and practices. In December 2013, the Court approved a $39 million settlement. The settlement included three years of programmatic relief, overseen by an independent monitor, regarding teaming and partnership agreements, business generation, account distributions, manager evaluations, promotions, training, and complaint processing and procedures, among other things. An independent consultant also conducted an internal study of the bank’s Financial Advisors’ teaming practices.

7. Frank v. United Airlines, No. C-92-0692 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel obtained a $36.5 million settlement in February 2004 for a class of female flight attendants who were required to weigh less than comparable male flight attendants. Former U.S. District Court Judge Charles B. Renfrew (ret.), who served as a mediator in the case, stated, “As a participant in the settlement negotiations, I am familiar with and know the reputation, experience and skills of lawyers involved. They are dedicated, hardworking and able counsel who have represented their clients very effectively.” U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins, in granting final approval to the settlement, found “that the results achieved here could be nothing less than described as exceptional,” and that the settlement “was obtained through the efforts of outstanding counsel.”

8. Barnett v. Wal-Mart, No. 01-2-24553-SNKT (Wash.). The Court approved in July 2009 a settlement valued at up to $35 million on behalf of workers in Washington State who alleged they were deprived of meal and rest breaks and forced to work off-the-clock at Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Clubs. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement provided injunctive relief benefiting all employees. Wal-Mart was required to

1043044.1 - 38 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 54 of 149

undertake measures to prevent wage and hour violations at its 50 stores and clubs in Washington, measures that included the use of new technologies and compliance tools.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2001. Three years later, the Court certified a class of approximately 40,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees. The eight years of litigation were intense and adversarial. Wal-Mart, currently the world’s third largest corporation, vigorously denied liability and spared no expense in defending itself.

This lawsuit and similar actions filed against Wal-Mart across America served to reform the pay procedures and employment practices for Wal- Mart’s 1.4 million employees nationwide. In a press release announcing the Court’s approval of the settlement, Wal-Mart spokesperson Daphne Moore stated, “This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today.” Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel.

9. Amochaev. v. Citigroup Global Markets, d/b/a Smith Barney, No. C 05-1298 PJH (N.D. Cal.). In August 2008, the Court approved a $33 million settlement for the 2,411 members of the Settlement Class in a gender discrimination case against Smith Barney. Lieff Cabraser represented Female Financial Advisors who charged that Smith Barney, the retail brokerage unit of Citigroup, discriminated against them in account distributions, business leads, referral business, partnership opportunities, and other terms of employment. In addition to the monetary compensation, the settlement included comprehensive injunctive relief for four years designed to increase business opportunities and promote equality in compensation for female brokers.

10. Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Services, C 06-0963 CW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for 12,700 foreign nationals sent by the Indian conglomerate Tata to work in the U.S. After 7 years of hard-fought litigation, the District Court in July 2013 granted final approval to a $29.75 million settlement. The complaint charged that Tata breached the contracts of its non-U.S.-citizen employees by requiring them to sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata, and by failing to pay its non-U.S.-citizen employees the monies promised to those employees before they came to the United States. In 2007 and again in 2008, the District Court denied Tata’s motions to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims in India. The Court held that no arbitration agreement existed because the documents purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of rules to the Plaintiffs and another set to Tata. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. In July 2011, the District Court denied in part Tata’s motion for summary judgment, allowing Plaintiffs’ legal claims for breach of contract and certain

1043044.1 - 39 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 55 of 149

violations of California wage laws to go forward. In 2012, the District Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the legal requirements for a class action and certified two classes.

11. Giannetto v. Computer Sciences Corporation, No. 03-CV-8201 (C.D. Cal.). In one of the largest overtime pay dispute settlements ever in the information technology industry, the Court approved a $24 million settlement with Computer Sciences Corporation in 2005. Plaintiffs charged that the global conglomerate had a common practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its technical support workers involved in the installation and maintenance of computer hardware and software in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the wage and hour laws of 13 states.

12. Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Case No. C-06-3903 (TEH). In October 2008, the Court approved a $16 million settlement in the class action against Morgan Stanley. The complaint charged that Morgan Stanley discriminated against African-American and Latino Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees in the Global Wealth Management Group of Morgan Stanley in compensation and business opportunities. The settlement included comprehensive injunctive relief regarding account distributions, partnership arrangements, branch manager promotions, hiring, retention, diversity training, and complaint processing, among other things. The settlement also provided for the appointment of an independent Diversity Monitor and an independent Industrial Psychologist to effectuate the terms of the agreement.

13. Church v. Consolidated Freightways, No. C90-2290 DLJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser was the Lead Court-appointed Class Counsel in this class action on behalf of the exempt employees of Emery Air Freight, a freight forwarding company acquired by Consolidated Freightways in 1989. On behalf of the employee class, Lieff Cabraser prosecuted claims for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the securities laws, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The case settled in 1993 for $13.5 million.

14. Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 05-0585 CW (N.D. Cal.). In January 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $12.8 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former business systems employees of Wells Fargo seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo illegally misclassified those employees, who maintained and updated Wells Fargo’s business tools according to others’ instructions, as “exempt” from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws.

15. Buccellato v. AT&T Operations, No. C10-00463-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented a group of current and former AT&T technical

1043044.1 - 40 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 56 of 149

support workers who alleged that AT&T misclassified them as exempt and failed to pay them for all overtime hours worked, in violation of federal and state overtime pay laws. In June 2011, the Court approved a $12.5 million collective and class action settlement.

16. Buttram v. UPS, No. C-97-01590 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and several co-counsel represented a class of approximately 14,000 African- American part-time hourly employees of UPS’s Pacific and Northwest Regions alleging race discrimination in promotions and job advancement. In 1999, the Court approved a $12.14 million settlement of the action. Under the injunctive relief portion of the settlement, Class Counsel monitored the promotions of African-American part-time hourly employees to part-time supervisor and full-time package car drivers.

17. Goddard, et al. v. Longs Drug Stores Corporation, et al., No. RG04141291 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Store managers and assistant store managers of Longs Drugs charged that the company misclassified them as exempt from overtime wages. Managers regularly worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week without compensation for their overtime hours. Following mediation, in 2005, Longs Drugs agreed to settle the claims for a total of $11 million. Over 1,000 current and former Longs Drugs managers and assistant managers were eligible for compensation under the settlement, over 98% of the class submitted claims.

18. Trotter v. Perdue Farms, No. C 99-893-RRM (JJF) (MPT) (D. Del.). Lieff Cabraser represented a class of chicken processing employees of Perdue Farms, Inc., one of the nation’s largest poultry processors, for wage and hour violations. The suit challenged Perdue’s failure to compensate its assembly line employees for putting on, taking off, and cleaning protective and sanitary equipment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, various state wage and hour laws, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Under a settlement approved by the Court in 2002, Perdue paid $10 million for wages lost by its chicken processing employees and attorneys’ fees and costs. The settlement was in addition to a $10 million settlement of a suit brought by the Department of Labor in the wake of Lieff Cabraser’s lawsuit.

19. Gottlieb v. SBC Communications, No. CV-00-04139 AHM (MANx) (C.D. Cal.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented current and former employees of SBC and Pacific Telesis Group (“PTG”) who participated in AirTouch Stock Funds, which were at one time part of PTG’s salaried and non-salaried savings plans. After acquiring PTG, SBC sold AirTouch, which PTG had owned, and caused the AirTouch Stock Funds that were included in the PTG employees’ savings plans to be liquidated. Plaintiffs alleged that in eliminating the AirTouch Stock

1043044.1 - 41 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 57 of 149

Funds, and in allegedly failing to adequately communicate with employees about the liquidation, SBC breached its duties to 401k plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In 2002, the Court granted final approval to a $10 million settlement.

20. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 04-03341-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for current and former female employees who charged that Costco discriminated against women in promotion to management positions. In January 2007, the Court certified a class consisting of over 750 current and former female Costco employees nationwide who were denied promotion to General Manager or Assistant Manager since January 3, 2002. Costco appealed. In September 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to make class certification findings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). In September 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified two classes of over 1,250 current and former female Costco employees, one for injunctive relief and the other for monetary relief. On May 27, 2014, the Court approved an $8 million settlement.

21. In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, MDL No. 1439 (D. Ore.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented claims representatives of Farmers’ Insurance Exchange seeking unpaid overtime. Lieff Cabraser won a liability phase trial on a classwide basis, and then litigated damages on an individual basis before a special master. The judgment was partially upheld on appeal. In August 2010, the Court approved an $8 million settlement.

22. Zuckman v. Allied Group, No. 02-5800 SI (N.D. Cal.). In September 2004, the Court approved a settlement with Allied Group and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company of $8 million plus Allied/Nationwide’s share of payroll taxes on amounts treated as wages, providing plaintiffs a 100% recovery on their claims. Plaintiffs, claims representatives of Allied / Nationwide, alleged that the company misclassified them as exempt employees and failed to pay them and other claims representatives in California overtime wages for hours they worked in excess of eight hours or forty hours per week. In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston commended counsel for their “really good lawyering” and stated that they did “a splendid job on this” case.

23. Thomas v. California State Automobile Association, No. CH217752 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented 1,200 current and former field claims adjusters who worked for the California State Automobile Association (“CSAA”). Plaintiffs alleged that CSAA improperly classified their employees as exempt, therefore denying

1043044.1 - 42 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 58 of 149

them overtime pay for overtime worked. In May 2002, the Court approved an $8 million settlement of the case.

24. Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, No. C 07-2813 JW (N.D. Cal.). In July 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $7.664 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former technical support workers for Cadence seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that Cadence illegally misclassified its employees who install, maintain, or support computer hardware or software as “exempt” from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws.

25. Zaborowski v. MHN Government Services, No. 12-CV-05109-SI (N.D. Cal.) Lieff Cabraser represented current and former Military and Family Life Consultants (“MFLCs”) in a class action lawsuit against MHN Government Services, Inc. (“MHN”) and Managed Health Network, Inc., seeking overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws. The complaint charged that MHN misclassified the MFLCs as independent contractors and as “exempt” from overtime and failed to pay them overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week. In April 2013, the Court denied MHN’s motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective action. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that the arbitration clause in MHN’s employee contract was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. MHN appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

MHN did not contest that its agreement had several unconscionable components; instead, it asked the Supreme Court to sever the unconscionable terms of its arbitration agreement and nonetheless send the MFLCs’ claims to arbitration. The Supreme Court granted MHN’s petition for certiorari on October 1, 2015, and was scheduled to hear the case in the 2016 spring term in MHN Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. Zaborowski, No. 14-1458. While the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, an arbitrator approved a class settlement in the matter, which resulted in payment of $7,433,109.19 to class members.

26. Sandoval v. Mountain Center, Inc., et al., No. 03CC00280 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Cable installers in California charged that defendants owed them overtime wages, as well as damages for missed meal and rest breaks and reimbursement for expenses incurred on the job. In 2005, the Court approved a $7.2 million settlement of the litigation, which was distributed to the cable installers who submitted claims.

27. Martin v. Bohemian Club, No. SCV-258731(Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented a class of approximately 659 individuals who worked seasonally as camp valets for the Bohemian Club. Plaintiffs alleged that they had been misclassified as independent

1043044.1 - 43 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 59 of 149

contractors, and thus were not paid for overtime or meal-and-rest breaks as required under California law. The Court granted final approval of a $7 million settlement resolving all claims in September 2016.

28. Lewis v. Wells Fargo, No. 08-cv-2670 CW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel on behalf of approximately 330 I/T workers who alleged that Wells Fargo had a common practice of misclassifying them as exempt and failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked in violation of federal and state overtime pay laws. In April 2011, the Court granted collective action certification of the FLSA claims and approved a $6.72 million settlement of the action.

29. Kahn v. Denny’s, No. BC177254 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser brought a lawsuit alleging that Denny’s failed to pay overtime wages to its General Managers and Managers who worked at company-owned restaurants in California. The Court approved a $4 million settlement of the case in 2000.

30. Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, No. C 06-3153 CW (N.D. Cal.). In August 2008, the Court granted final approval to a settlement valued at $2.1 million, including substantial injunctive relief, for a class of African American restaurant-level hourly employees. The consent decree created hiring benchmarks to increase the number of African Americans employed in front of the house jobs (e.g., server, bartender, host/hostess, waiter/waitress, and cocktail server), a registration of interest program to minimize discrimination in promotions, improved complaint procedures, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

31. Sherrill v. Premera Blue Cross, No. 2:10-cv-00590-TSZ (W.D. Wash.). In April 2010, a technical worker at Premera Blue Cross filed a lawsuit against Premera seeking overtime pay from its misclassification of technical support workers as exempt. In June 2011, the Court approved a collective and class action settlement of $1.45 million.

32. Holloway v. Best Buy, No. C05-5056 PJH (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented a class of current employees of Best Buy that alleged Best Buy stores nationwide discriminated against women, African Americans, and Latinos. The complaint charged that these employees were assigned to less desirable positions and denied promotions, and that class members who attained managerial positions were paid less than white males. In November 2011, the Court approved a settlement of the class action in which Best Buy agreed to changes to its personnel policies and procedures that will enhance the equal employment opportunities of the tens of thousands of women, African Americans, and Latinos employed by Best Buy nationwide.

1043044.1 - 44 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 60 of 149

33. Lyon v. TMP Worldwide, No. 993096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel for a class of certain non-supervisory employees in an advertising firm. The settlement, approved in 2000, provided almost a 100% recovery to class members. The suit alleged that TMP failed to pay overtime wages to these employees.

34. Lusardi v. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, No. 0120133395 (U.S. EEOC). Lieff Cabraser and the Transgender Law Center represent Tamara Lusardi, a transgender civilian software specialist employed by the U.S. Army. In a groundbreaking decision in April 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reversed a lower agency decision and held that the employer subjected Lusardi to disparate treatment and harassment based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when (1) the employer restricted her from using the common female restroom (consistent with her gender identity) and (2) a team leader intentionally and repeatedly referred to her by male pronouns and made hostile remarks about her transition and gender.

Lieff Cabraser attorneys have had experience representing employees in additional cases, including cases involving race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and age discrimination; False Claims Act (whistleblower) claims; breach of contract claims; unpaid wages or exempt misclassification (wage/hour) claims; pension plan abuses under ERISA; and other violations of the law. For example, as described in the Antitrust section of this resume, Lieff Cabraser serves as plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel in a class action charging that Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corporation violated antitrust laws by conspiring to suppress the wages of certain salaried employees.

Lieff Cabraser is currently investigating charges of discrimination, wage/hour violations, and wage suppression claims against several companies. In addition, our attorneys frequently write amicus briefs on cutting-edge legal issues involving employment law.

In 2015, The Recorder named Lieff Cabraser’s employment group as a Litigation Department of the Year in the category of California Labor and Employment Law. The Litigation Department of the Year awards recognize “California litigation practices that deliver standout results on their clients’ most critical matters.” The Recorder editors consider the degree of difficulty, dollar value and importance of each matter to the client; the depth and breadth of the practice; and the use of innovative approaches.

U.S. News and Best Lawyers selected Lieff Cabraser as a 2013 national “Law Firm of the Year” in the category of Employment Law – Individuals. U.S. News and Best Lawyers ranked firms nationally in 80 different practice areas based on extensive client feedback and evaluations from 70,000 lawyers nationwide. Only one law firm in the U.S. in each practice area receives the “Law Firm of the Year” designation.

Benchmark Plaintiff, a guide to the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ firms, has given Lieff Cabraser’s employment practice group a Tier 1 national ranking, its highest rating. The Legal

1043044.1 - 45 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 61 of 149

500 guide to the U.S. legal profession has recognized Lieff Cabraser as having one of the leading plaintiffs’ employment practices in the nation for the past four years.

Kelly M. Dermody chairs the firm’s employment practice group and leads the firm’s employment cases. She also serves as Managing Partner of Lieff Cabraser’s San Francisco office.

In 2015, the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers named Ms. Dermody a Fellow. Nomination to the College is by ones colleagues only, and recognizes those lawyers who have demonstrated sustained and exceptional services to their clients, bar, bench, and public, and the highest level of character, integrity, professional expertise, and leadership.

The Daily Journal has selected Ms. Dermody as one of the top 100 attorneys in California (2012-2015), top 75 labor and employment lawyers in California (2011-2015), and top 100 women litigators in California (2007, 2010, 2012-2016). She has been named a Northern California “Super Lawyer” every year since 2004, including being named a “Top 10 Lawyer” in 2014.

Since 2010, Ms. Dermody has annually been recognized by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Employment Law – Individuals and Litigation – Labor and Employment. In 2014, she was named “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers in the category of Employment Law – Individuals in San Francisco. In 2007, California Lawyer magazine awarded Ms. Dermody its prestigious California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award.

IV. Consumer Protection

A. Current Cases

1. In re Arizona Theranos, Inc. Litigation, No. 2:16-cv-2138-HRH (D. Ariz.). This class action alleges that Walgreens and startup company Theranos Inc. (along with its two top executives) committed fraud and battery by prematurely marketing to consumers blood testing services that were still in-development, not ready-for-market, and dangerously unreliable. Hundreds of thousands of consumers in Arizona and California submitted to these “testing” services and blood draws under false pretenses. Consumers also made major health decisions (including taking actions and medication, and refraining from taking actions and medications) in reliance on these unreliable tests. Plaintiffs allege that Walgreens’ and Theranos’ conduct violates Arizona and California consumer protection statutes and common law.

2. Fiat Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ecodiesel Litigation, 17-MD-02777- EMC. Lieff Cabraser represents owners and lessors of affected Fiat Chrysler vehicles in litigation accusing Fiat Chrysler of using secret software to allow excess emissions in violation of the law for at least 104,000 2014-2016 model year diesel vehicles, including Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3-liter diesel engines sold in the United States from late 2013 through 2016 (model years 2014, 2015,

1043044.1 - 46 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 62 of 149

and 2016). In June 2017, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of California named Elizabeth Cabraser sole Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for consolidated litigation of the case.

3. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036 (S.D. Fl.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“PEC”) in Multi-District Litigation against 35 banks, including Bank of America, Chase, Citizens, PNC, Union Bank, and U.S. Bank. The complaints alleged that the banks entered debit card transactions from the “largest to the smallest” to draw down available balances more rapidly and maximize overdraft fees. In March 2010, the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints. The Court has approved nearly $1 billion in settlements with the banks.

In November 2011, the Court granted final approval to a $410 million settlement of the case against Bank of America. Lieff Cabraser was the lead plaintiffs’ law firm on the PEC that prosecuted the case against Bank of America. In approving the settlement with Bank of America, U.S. District Court Judge James Lawrence King stated, “This is a marvelous result for the members of the class.” Judge King added, “[B]ut for the high level of dedication, ability and massive and incredible hard work by the Class attorneys . . . I do not believe the Class would have ever seen . . . a penny.”

In September 2012, the Court granted final approval to a $35 million of the case against Union Bank. In approving the settlement, Judge King again complimented plaintiffs’ counsel for their outstanding work and effort in resolving the case: “The description of plaintiffs’ counsel, which is a necessary part of the settlement, is, if anything, understated. In my observation of the diligence and professional activity, it’s superb. I know of no other class action case anywhere in the country in the last couple of decades that’s been handled as efficiently as this one has, which is a tribute to the lawyers.”

4. Hale, et al. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-00660-DRH-SCW. In 1997, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a class action in Illinois state court, accusing State Farm of approving the use of lower-quality non-original equipment manufacturer (non-OEM) automotive parts for repairs to the vehicles of more than 4 million State Farm policyholders, contrary to the company’s policy language. Plaintiffs won a verdict of more than nearly $1.2 billion that included $600 million in punitive damages. The state appeals court affirmed the judgment, but reduced it slightly to $1.05 billion. State Farm appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court in May 2013.

1043044.1 - 47 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 63 of 149

A two-plus-year delay in that Court’s decision led to a vacancy in the Illinois Supreme Court. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm recruited a little- known trial judge, Judge Lloyd A. Karmeier, to run for the vacant Supreme Court seat, and then managed his campaign behind the scenes, and secretly funded it to the tune of almost $4 million. Then, after Justice Karmeier was elected, State Farm hid its involvement in his campaign to ensure that Justice Karmeier could participate in the pending appeal of the $1.05 billion judgment. State Farm’s scheme was successful: Justice Karmeier joined the otherwise “deadlocked” deliberations and voted to decertify the class and overturn the judgment.

In a 2012 lawsuit filed in federal court, Plaintiffs allege that this secretive scheme to seat a sympathetic justice—and then to lie about it, so as secure that justice’s participation in the pending appeal—violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), and deprived Plaintiffs of their interest in the billion-dollar judgment. Judge David R. Herndon certified the class in October 2016, and the Seventh Circuit denied State Farm’s petition to appeal the ruling in December 2016 and again in May 2017. Discovery is ongoing, and a trial is expected in 2018.

5. Carrollton Family Clinic, LLC, et al. v. eClinicalWorks, LLC, No. 17-cv-12530-RGS (E.D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser represents healthcare providers in a class action lawsuit against eClinicalWorks, LLC, a provider of electronic health record (“EHR”) software. According to the complaint, a critical component of eClinicalWorks’ products and services relating to Electronic Health Records (“EHR”) are its guarantees to client healthcare providers that its products meet certain federal standards by, for example, using a government-approved code set for electronically-transmitted prescriptions (“ePrescriptions”) and ensuring that patient records can be transferred easily and accurately.

eClinicalWorks’ customers claim the company’s software failed to meet these and other requirements for years. In May 2017, eClinicalWorks paid $155 million and entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement to settle a lawsuit by the United States and a qui tam relator based in part on these same false statements, but that settlement does not call for any compensatory payments to the customers harmed by eClinicalWorks’ misconduct and its customers have not been made whole for their losses, including payments to eClinicalWorks that should be refunded, out-of- pocket costs, and, in some cases, lost or forfeited incentive payments made by government programs.

6. Dover v. British Airways, Case No. 1:12-cv-05567 (E.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represents participants in British Airways’ (“BA”) frequent flyer program, known as the Executive Club, in a breach of contract class action lawsuit. BA imposes a very high “fuel surcharge,” often in excess of $500,

1043044.1 - 48 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 64 of 149

on Executive Club reward tickets. Plaintiffs allege that the “fuel surcharge” is not based upon the price of fuel, and that it therefore violates the terms of the contract.

7. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. Lieff Cabraser serves as a leader in nationwide Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class actions challenging abusing and harassing automated calls. Based on Lieff Cabraser’s experience and expertise in these cases, Judge Amy J. St. Eve appointed Lieff Cabraser as lead counsel in consolidated TCPA class actions against State Farm. Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 301 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Lieff Cabraser also maintains leadership roles in ongoing nationwide class actions against American Express (Ossola v. American Express Co., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-4836 (N.D. Ill)), DirecTV (Brown v. DirecTV LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-01170-DMG-E (C.D. Cal.)), National Grid (Jenkins v. National Grid USA, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01219-JS- GRB (E.D.N.Y.), and several other companies that make automated debt- collection or telemarketing calls.

8. Rushing v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv- 4419 (N.D. Cal.); Rushing v. Viacom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv- 4492 (N.D. Cal.); McDonald, et al. v. Kiloo Aps, Sybo Games Aps, et al., Case No. Case No. 3:17-cv-4344 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents parents and their children in federal class action litigation against numerous online game and app producers including Disney, Viacom, and the makers of the vastly popular Subway Surfers game over allegations the companies violate state and federal privacy protection laws by exporting, exploiting, and monetizing children’s personal information from mobile games without the parental consent required by federal and state law. The actions are proceeding under various state laws as well as the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ("COPPA"), 15 U.S.C. 6501-6505.

9. The People of the State of California v. J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc., Case No. BC643036 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct); The People of the State of California v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. BC643037 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct); The People of the State of California v. Macy's, Inc., Case No. BC643040 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct); The People of the State of California v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al., Case No. BC643039 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct). Working with the office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent the People of California in consumer fraud and false advertising civil enforcement actions against national retailers J.C. Penney, Kohl’s, Macy’s, and Sears alleging that each of these companies has pervasively used “false reference pricing” schemes — whereby the companies advertise products at a purported “discount” from

1043044.1 - 49 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 65 of 149

false “original” or “regular” prices — to mislead customers into believing they are receiving bargains. Because such practices are misleading — and effective — California law prohibits them. The suits seek civil penalties and injunctive relief. The cases are ongoing.

10. Cody v. SoulCycle, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06457 (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in a class action lawsuit alleging that indoor cycling fitness company SoulCycle sells illegally expiring gift certificates. The suit alleges that SoulCycle defrauded customers by forcing them to buy gift certificates with short enrollment windows and keeping the expired certificates' unused balances in violation of the U.S. Electronic Funds Transfer Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, and seeks reinstatement of expired classes or customer reimbursements as well as policy changes. In October of 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted final approval to a settlement of the litigation valued between $6.9 million and $9.2 million that provides significant economic consideration to settlement class members as well as meaningful changes to SoulCycle's business practices.

11. Moore v. Verizon Communications, No. 09-cv-01823-SBA (N.D. Cal.); Nwabueze v. AT&T, No. 09-cv-1529 SI (N.D. Cal.); Terry v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., No. RG 09 488326 (Alameda County Sup. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represents nationwide classes of landline telephone customers subjected to the deceptive business practice known as “cramming.” In this practice, a telephone company bills customers for unauthorized third-party charges assessed by billing aggregators on behalf of third-party providers. A U.S. Senate committee has estimated that Verizon, AT&T, and Qwest place 300 million such charges on customer bills each year (amounting to $2 billion in charges), many of which are unauthorized. Various sources estimate that 90-99% of third-party charges are unauthorized. Both Courts have granted preliminary approval of settlements that allow customers to receive 100% refunds for all unauthorized charges from 2005 to the present, plus extensive injunctive relief to prevent cramming in the future. The Nwabueze and Terry cases are ongoing.

12. James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. CV-11-1613 (N.D. Cal); Zombie v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. CV-11-2431 (N.D. Cal). Lieff Cabraser and its co-counsel represent music recording artists in a proposed class action against Universal Music Group. Plaintiffs allege that Universal failed to pay the recording artists full royalty income earned from customers’ purchases of digitally downloaded music from vendors such as Apple iTunes. The complaint alleges that Universal licenses plaintiffs’ music to digital download providers, but in its accounting of the royalties plaintiffs have earned, treats such licenses as “records sold” because royalty rate for “records sold” is lower than the

1043044.1 - 50 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 66 of 149

royalty rate for licenses. Plaintiffs legal claims include breach of contract and violation of California unfair competition laws. In November 2011 the Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claims.

13. White v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 05-CV-1070 DOC (C.D. Cal.). In 2005, plaintiffs filed nationwide class action lawsuits on behalf of 750,000 claimants against the nation’s three largest repositories of consumer credit information, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC. The complaints charged that defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by recklessly failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accurate reporting of debts discharged in bankruptcy and by refusing to adequately investigate consumer disputes regarding the status of discharged accounts. In April 2008, the District Court approved a partial settlement of the action that established an historic injunction. This settlement required defendants comply with detailed procedures for the retroactive correction and updating of consumers’ credit file information concerning discharged debt (affecting one million consumers who had filed for bankruptcy dating back to 2003), as well as new procedures to ensure that debts subject to future discharge orders will be similarly treated. As noted by the District Court, “Prior to the injunctive relief order entered in the instant case, however, no verdict or reported decision had ever required Defendants to implement procedures to cross-check data between their furnishers and their public record providers.” In 2011, the District Court approved a $45 million settlement of the class claims for monetary relief. In April 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the order approving the monetary settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings.

14. Healy v. Chesapeake Appalachia, No. 1:10cv00023 (W.D. Va.); Hale v. CNX Gas, No. 1:10cv00059 (W.D. Va.); Estate of Holman v. Noble Energy, No. 03 CV 9 (Dist. Ct., Co.); Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation, No. 07 CV 2508 JLK (D. Co.); Anderson v. Merit Energy Co., No. 07 CV 00916 LTB (D. Co.); Holman v. Petro-Canada Resources (USA), No. 07 CV 416 (Dist. Ct., Co.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in several cases pending in federal court in Virginia, in which plaintiffs allege that certain natural gas companies improperly underpaid gas royalties to the owners of the gas. In one case that recently settled, the plaintiffs recovered approximately 95% of the damages they suffered. Lieff Cabraser also achieved settlements on behalf of natural gas royalty owners in five other class actions outside Virginia. Those settlements -- in which class members recovered between 70% and 100% of their damages, excluding interest -- were valued at more than $160 million.

1043044.1 - 51 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 67 of 149

15. Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, No. 12 CV 7667 (S.D.N.Y.). Five African- American residents from Detroit, Michigan, joined by Michigan Legal Services, have brought a class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley for discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws. The plaintiffs charge that Morgan Stanley actively ensured the proliferation of high-cost mortgage loans with specific risk factors in order to bundle and sell mortgage-backed securities to investors. The lawsuit is the first to seek to hold a bank in the secondary market accountable for the adverse racial impact of such policies and conduct. Plaintiffs seek certification of the case as a class action for as many as 6,000 African-Americans homeowners in the Detroit area who may have suffered similar discrimination. Lieff Cabraser serves as plaintiffs’ counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, and the National Consumer Law Center.

16. Williamson v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-cv-00158-EJD (N.D. Cal.). This nationwide class action alleges that McAfee falsely represents the prices of its computer anti-virus software to customers enrolled in its “auto- renewal” program. Plaintiff alleges that McAfee’s fraudulent pricing scheme operates on two levels: First, McAfee offers non-auto-renewal subscriptions at stated “discounts” from a “regular” sales price; however, the stated discounts are false because McAfee does not ever sell subscriptions at the stated “regular” price to non-auto-renewal customers. Second, plaintiffs allege that McAfee charges the auto- renewal customers the amount of the false “regular” sales price, claiming it to be the “current” regular price even though it does not sell subscriptions at that price to any other customer. Plaintiffs allege that McAfee’s false reference price scheme violates California’s and New York’s unfair competition and false advertising laws.

17. Marcus A. Roberts et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-cv-3418 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in a proposed class action lawsuit against AT&T claiming that AT&T falsely advertised that its “unlimited” mobile phone plans provide “unlimited” data, while purposefully failing to disclose that it regularly “throttles” (i.e., intentionally slows) customers’ data speed once they reach certain data usage thresholds. The lawsuit also challenges AT&T’s attempts to force consumers into non-class arbitration, claiming that AT&T’s arbitration clause in its Wireless Customer Agreement violates consumers’ fundamental constitutional First Amendment right to petition courts for a redress of grievances.

1043044.1 - 52 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 68 of 149

B. Successes

1. In re Volkswagen ‘Clean Diesel’ Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.). In September of 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Violation to Volkswagen relating to 475,000 diesel-powered cars in the United States sold since 2008 under the VW and Audi brands on which VW installed “cheat device” software that intentionally changed the vehicles’ emissions production during official testing. Only when the programming detected that the vehicles were undergoing official emissions testing did the cars turn on their full emission control systems. The controls were turned off during actual road use, producing up to 40x more pollutants than the testing amounts in an extraordinary violation of U.S. clean air laws.

Private vehicle owners, state governments, agencies, and attorneys general, as well as federal agencies, all sought compensation and relief from VW through litigation in U.S. courts. More than 1,000 individual civil cases and numerous accompanying government claims were consolidated in federal court in Northern California, and U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer appointed Lieff Cabraser founding partner Elizabeth Cabraser as Lead Counsel and Chair of the 22-member Plaintiffs Steering Committee in February of 2016.

After nine months of intensive negotiation and extraordinary coordination led on the class plaintiffs’ side by Elizabeth Cabraser, a set of interrelated settlements totaling $14.7 billion were given final approval by Judge Breyer on October 25, 2016. The settlements offer owners and lessees of Volkswagen and Audi 2.0-liter diesel vehicles substantial compensation through buybacks and lease terminations, government- approved emissions modifications, and cash payments, while fixing or removing these polluting vehicles from the road. On May 11, 2017, a further settlement with a value of at least $1.2 billion relating to VW’s 3.0- liter engine vehicles received final approval. This deal offers a combination of a projected emissions modification or buybacks for older 3.0-liter models. If a government-approved modification can’t be found, VW will have to buy back all the vehicles, which could increase its costs for the 3.0-liter model settlement to as much as $4 billion.

The consumer class settlements have garnered overwhelming approval and response. Over 380,000 diesel owners have already signed up for the settlement, most doing so even before final approval was granted by Judge Breyer, who is overseeing all federal “clean diesel” litigation.

The Volkswagen emissions settlement is one of the largest payments in American history and the largest known consumer class settlement. It exemplifies the best of the American judicial system, illustrating the

1043044.1 - 53 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 69 of 149

resolution of a significant portion of one of the most massive multidistrict class actions at what Law360 referred to as “lightning speed.” The settlements are unprecedented also for their scope and complexity, involving the Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB) and California Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and private plaintiffs.

2. Hansell v. TracFone Wireless, No. 13-cv-3440-EMC (N.D. Cal.); Blaqmoor v. TracFone Wireless, No. 13-cv-05295-EMC (N.D. Cal.); Gandhi v. TracFone Wireless, No. 13-cv-05296-EMC (N.D. Cal.). In January 2015, Michael W. Sobol, the chair of Lieff Cabraser’s consumer protection practice group, announced that consumers nationwide who purchased service plans with “unlimited data” from TracFone Wireless, Inc., were eligible to receive payments under a $40 million settlement of a series of class action lawsuits. One of the nation’s largest wireless carriers, TracFone uses the brands Straight Talk, Net10, Telcel America, and Simple Mobile to sell mobile phones with prepaid wireless plans at Walmart and other retail stores nationwide. The class action alleged that TracFone falsely advertised its wireless mobile phone plans as providing “unlimited data,” while actually maintaining monthly data usage limits that were not disclosed to customers. It further alleged that TracFone regularly throttled (i.e. significantly reduces the speed of) or terminated customers’ data plans pursuant to the secret limits. Approved by the Court in July 2015, the settlement permanently enjoins TracFone from making any advertisement or other representation about amount of data its cell phone plans offer without disclosing clearly and conspicuously all material restrictions on the amount and speed of the data plan. Further, TracFone and its brands may not state in their advertisements and marketing materials that any plan provides “unlimited data” unless there is also clear, prominent, and adjoining disclosure of any applicable throttling caps or limits. The litigation is notable in part because, following two years of litigation by class counsel, the Federal Trade Commission joined the litigation and filed a Consent Order with TracFone in the same federal court where the class action litigation is pending. All compensation to consumers will be provided through the class action settlement.

3. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C 07-05923 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Following a two week bench class action trial, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in August 2010 issued a 90-page opinion holding that Wells Fargo violated California law by improperly and illegally assessing overdraft fees on its California customers and ordered $203 million in restitution to the certified class. Instead of posting each transaction chronologically, the evidence presented at trial showed that Wells Fargo deducted the largest charges first, drawing down available balances more rapidly and triggering a higher volume of overdraft fees.

1043044.1 - 54 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 70 of 149

Wells Fargo appealed. In December 2012, the Appellate Court issued an opinion upholding and reversing portions of Judge Alsup’s order, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In May 2013, Judge Alsup reinstated the $203 million judgment against Wells Fargo and imposed post-judgment interest bringing the total award to nearly $250 million. On October 29, 2014, the Appellate Court affirmed the Judge Alsup’s order reinstating the judgment.

For his outstanding work as Lead Trial Counsel and the significance of the case, California Lawyer magazine recognized Richard M. Heimann with a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award. In addition, the Consumer Attorneys of California selected Mr. Heimann and Michael W. Sobol as Finalists for the Consumer Attorney of the Year Award for their success in the case.

In reviewing counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, Judge Alsup stated on May 21, 2015: “Lieff, Cabraser, on the other hand, entered as class counsel and pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. They bravely confronted several obstacles including the possibility of claim preclusion based on a class release entered in state court (by other counsel), federal preemption, hard-fought dispositive motions, and voluminous discovery. They rescued the case [counsel that originally filed] had botched and secured a full recovery of $203 million in restitution plus injunctive relief. Notably, Attorney Richard Heimann’s trial performance ranks as one of the best this judge has seen in sixteen years on the bench. Lieff, Cabraser then twice defended the class on appeal. At oral argument on the present motion, in addition to the cash restitution, Wells Fargo acknowledged that since 2010, its posting practices changed nationwide, in part, because of the injunction. Accordingly, this order allows a multiplier of 5.5 mainly on account of the fine results achieved on behalf of the class, the risk of non-payment they accepted, the superior quality of their efforts, and the delay in payment.”

4. Kline v. The Progressive Corporation, Circuit No. 02-L-6 (Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Johnson County, Illinois). Lieff Cabraser served as settlement class counsel in a nationwide consumer class action challenging Progressive Corporation’s private passenger automobile insurance sales practices. Plaintiffs alleged that the Progressive Corporation wrongfully concealed from class members the availability of lower priced insurance for which they qualified. In 2002, the Court approved a settlement valued at approximately $450 million, which included both cash and equitable relief. The claims program, implemented upon a nationwide mail and publication notice program, was completed in 2003.

1043044.1 - 55 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 71 of 149

5. Catholic Healthcare West Cases, JCCP No. 4453 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Plaintiff alleged that Catholic Healthcare West (“CHW”) charged uninsured patients excessive fees for treatment and services, at rates far higher than the rates charged to patients with private insurance or on Medicare. In January 2007, the Court approved a settlement that provides discounts, refunds and other benefits for CHW patients valued at $423 million. The settlement requires that CHW lower its charges and end price discrimination against all uninsured patients, maintain generous charity case policies allowing low-income and uninsured patients to receive free or heavily discounted care, and protect uninsured patients from unfair collections practices. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in the coordinated action.

6. In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1629 (D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in multidistrict litigation arising out of the sale and marketing of the prescription drug Neurontin, manufactured by Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert Company, which was later acquired by Pfizer, Inc. Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) in Kaiser’s trial against Pfizer in the litigation. On March 25, 2010, a federal court jury determined that Pfizer violated a federal antiracketeering law by promoting its drug Neurontin for unapproved uses and found Pfizer must pay Kaiser damages up to $142 million. At trial, Kaiser presented evidence that Pfizer knowingly marketed Neurontin for unapproved uses without proof that it was effective. Kaiser said it was misled into believing neuropathic pain, migraines, and bipolar disorder were among the conditions that could be treated effectively with Neurontin, which was approved by the FDA as an adjunctive therapy to treat epilepsy and later for post-herpetic neuralgia, a specific type of neuropathic pain. In November 2010, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Kaiser’s claims arising under the California Unfair Competition Law, finding Pfizer liable and ordering that it pay restitution to Kaiser of approximately $95 million. In April 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both the jury’s and the District Court’s verdicts. In November 2014, the Court approved a $325 million settlement on behalf of a nationwide class of third party payors.

7. Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases, JCCP No. 4388 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Plaintiffs alleged that they and a Class of uninsured patients treated at Sutter hospitals were charged substantially more than patients with private or public insurance, and many times above the cost of providing their treatment. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a comprehensive and groundbreaking settlement of the action. As part of the settlement, Class members were entitled to make a claim for refunds or deductions of between 25% to 45% from their prior hospital bills, at an

1043044.1 - 56 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 72 of 149

estimated total value of $276 million. For a three year period, Sutter agreed to provide discounted pricing policies for uninsureds. In addition, Sutter agreed to maintain more compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds who fall behind in their payments. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in the coordinated action.

8. Citigroup Loan Cases, JCCP No. 4197 (San Francisco Supr. Ct., Cal.). In 2003, the Court approved a settlement that provided approximately $240 million in relief to former Associates’ customers across America. Prior to its acquisition in November 2000, Associates First Financial, referred to as The Associates, was one of the nation’s largest “subprime” lenders. Lieff Cabraser represented former customers of The Associates charging that the company added unwanted and unnecessary insurance products onto mortgage loans and engaged in improper loan refinancing practices. Lieff Cabraser served as nationwide Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel.

9. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. Lieff Cabraser has spearheaded a series of groundbreaking class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which prohibits abusive telephone practices by lenders and marketers, and places strict limits on the use of autodialers to call or send texts to cell phones. The settlements in these cases have collectively put a stop to millions of harassing calls by debt collectors and others and resulted in the recovery by consumers across America of over $300 million.

In 2012, Lieff Cabraser achieved a $24.15 million class settlement with Sallie Mae – the then-largest settlement in the history of the TCPA. See Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. C10-0198 JLR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132413 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2012). In subsequent cases, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel eclipsed this record, including a $32,083,905 settlement with Bank of America (Duke v. Bank of America, No. 5:12-cv-04009- EJD (N.D. Cal.)), a $39,975,000 settlement with HSBC (Wilkins v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., Case No. 14-cv-190 (N.D. Ill.)), and a $75,455,098.74 settlement with Capital One (In re Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:12-cv-10064 (N.D. Ill.)). In the HSBC matter, Judge James F. Holderman commented on “the excellent work” and “professionalism” of Lieff Cabraser and its co-counsel. As noted above, Lieff Cabraser’s class settlements in TCPA cases have collectively resulted in the recovery by consumers of over $300 million.

10. Thompson v. WFS Financial, No. 3-02-0570 (M.D. Tenn.); Pakeman v. American Honda Finance Corporation, No. 3-02- 0490 (M.D. Tenn.); Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. CGC 03-419 230 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser with co-

1043044.1 - 57 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 73 of 149

counsel litigated against several of the largest automobile finance companies in the country to compensate victims of—and stop future instances of—racial discrimination in the setting of interest rates in automobile finance contracts. The litigation led to substantial changes in the way Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (“TMCC”), American Honda Finance Corporation (“American Honda”) and WFS Financial, Inc. sell automobile finance contracts, limiting the discrimination that can occur. In approving the settlement in Thompson v. WFS Financial, the Court recognized the “innovative” and “remarkable settlement” achieved on behalf of the nationwide class. In 2006 in Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide class action settlement on behalf of all African-American and Hispanic customers of TMCC who entered into retail installment contracts that were assigned to TMCC from 1999 to 2006. The monetary benefit to the class was estimated to be between $159-$174 million.

11. In re John Muir Uninsured Healthcare Cases, JCCP No. 4494 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represented nearly 53,000 uninsured patients who received care at John Muir hospitals and outpatient centers and were charged inflated prices and then subject to overly aggressive collection practices when they failed to pay. In November 2008, the Court approved a final settlement of the John Muir litigation. John Muir agreed to provide refunds or bill adjustments of 40-50% to uninsured patients who received medical care at John Muir over a six year period, bringing their charges to the level of patients with private insurance, at a value of $115 million. No claims were required. Every class member received a refund or bill adjustment. Furthermore, John Muir was required to (1) maintain charity care policies to give substantial discounts—up to 100%—to low income, uninsured patients who meet certain income requirements; (2) maintain an Uninsured Patient Discount Policy to give discounts to all uninsured patients, regardless of income, so that they pay rates no greater than those paid by patients with private insurance; (3) enhance communications to uninsured patients so they are better advised about John Muir’s pricing discounts, financial assistance, and financial counseling services; and (4) limit the practices for collecting payments from uninsured patients.

12. Providian Credit Card Cases, JCCP No. 4085 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified national Settlement Class of Providian credit cardholders who alleged that Providian had engaged in widespread misconduct by charging cardholders unlawful, excessive interest and late charges, and by promoting and selling to cardholders “add-on products” promising illusory benefits and services. In November 2001, the Court granted final approval to a $105 million settlement of the case, which also required Providian to implement substantial changes in its business practices. The

1043044.1 - 58 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 74 of 149

$105 million settlement, combined with an earlier settlement by Providian with Federal and state agencies, represents the largest settlement ever by a U.S. credit card company in a consumer protection case.

13. In re Chase Bank USA, N.A. “Check Loan” Contract Litigation, MDL No. 2032 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) charging that Chase Bank violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unilaterally modifying the terms of fixed rate loans. The MDL was established in 2009 to coordinate more than two dozen cases that were filed in the wake of the conduct at issue. The nationwide, certified class consisted of more than 1 million Chase cardholders who, in 2008 and 2009, had their monthly minimum payment requirements unilaterally increased by Chase by more than 150%. Plaintiffs alleged that Chase made this change, in part, to induce cardholders to give up their promised fixed APRs in order to avoid the unprecedented minimum payment hike. In November 2012, the Court approved a $100 million settlement of the case.

14. In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, MDL No. 1182 (N.D. Ill.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for the purchasers of the thyroid medication Synthroid in litigation against Knoll Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of Synthroid. The lawsuits charged that Knoll misled physicians and patients into keeping patients on Synthroid despite knowing that less costly, but equally effective drugs, were available. In 2000, the District Court gave final approval to a $87.4 million settlement with Knoll and its parent company, BASF Corporation, on behalf of a class of all consumers who purchased Synthroid at any time from 1990 to 1999. In 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld the order approving the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings. 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001). The settlement proceeds were distributed in 2003.

15. R.M. Galicia v. Franklin; Franklin v. Scripps Health, No. IC 859468 (San Diego Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel in a certified class action lawsuit on behalf of 60,750 uninsured patients who alleged that the Scripps Health hospital system imposed excessive fees and charges for medical treatment. The class action originated in July 2006, when uninsured patient Phillip Franklin filed a class action cross-complaint against Scripps Health after Scripps sued Mr. Franklin through a collection agency. Mr. Franklin alleged that he, like all other uninsured patients of Scripps Health, was charged unreasonable and unconscionable rates for his medical treatment. In June 2008, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the action which includes refunds or discounts of 35% off of medical bills, collectively worth $73 million. The settlement also required Scripps

1043044.1 - 59 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 75 of 149

Health to modify its pricing and collections practices by (1) following an Uninsured Patient Discount Policy, which includes automatic discounts from billed charges for Hospital Services; (2) following a Charity Care Policy, which provides uninsured patients who meet certain income tests with discounts on Health Services up to 100% free care, and provides for charity discounts under other special circumstances; (3) informing uninsured patients about the availability and terms of the above financial assistance policies; and (4) restricting certain collections practices and actively monitoring outside collection agents.

16. In re Lawn Mower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1999 (E.D. Wi.). Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel for consumers who alleged manufacturers of certain gasoline-powered lawn mowers misrepresented, and significantly overstated, the horsepower of the product. As the price for lawn mowers is linked to the horsepower of the engine -- the higher the horsepower, the more expensive the lawn mower -- defendants’ alleged misconduct caused consumers to purchase expensive lawn mowers that provided lower horsepower than advertised. In August 2010, the Court approved a $65 million settlement of the action.

17. Strugano v. Nextel Communications, No. BC 288359 (Los Angeles Supr. Ct). In May 2006, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval to a class action settlement on behalf of all California customers of Nextel from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002, for compensation for the harm caused by Nextel’s alleged unilateral (1) addition of a $1.15 monthly service fee and/or (2) change from second- by-second billing to minute-by-minute billing, which caused “overage” charges (i.e., for exceeding their allotted cellular plan minutes). The total benefit conferred by the Settlement directly to Class Members was between approximately $13.5 million and $55.5 million, depending on which benefit Class Members selected.

18. Curry v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation, No. 03-10895-DPW (D. Mass.). In 2004, the Court approved a $55 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Fairbanks Capital Corporation arising out of charges against Fairbanks of misconduct in servicing its customers’ mortgage loans. The settlement also required substantial changes in Fairbanks’ business practices and established a default resolution program to limit the imposition of fees and foreclosure proceedings against Fairbanks’ customers. Lieff Cabraser served as nationwide Co- Lead Counsel for the homeowners.

19. Payment Protection Credit Card Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented consumers in litigation in federal court against some of the nation’s largest credit card issuers, challenging the imposition of charges

1043044.1 - 60 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 76 of 149

for so-called “payment protection” or “credit protection” programs. The complaints charged that the credit card companies imposed payment protection without the consent of the consumer and/or deceptively marketed the service, and further that the credit card companies unfairly administered their payment protection programs to the detriment of consumers. In 2012 and 2013, the Courts approved monetary settlements with HSBC ($23.5 million), Bank of America ($20 million), and Discover ($10 million) that also required changes in the marketing and sale of payment protection to consumers.

20. California Title Insurance Industry Litigation. Lieff Cabraser, in coordination with parallel litigation brought by the Attorney General, reached settlements in 2003 and 2004 with the leading title insurance companies in California, resulting in historic industry-wide changes to the practice of providing escrow services in real estate closings. The settlements brought a total of $50 million in restitution to California consumers, including cash payments. In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the title companies received interest payments on customer escrow funds that were never reimbursed to their customers. The defendant companies include Lawyers’ Title, Commonwealth Land Title, Stewart Title of California, First American Title, Fidelity National Title, and Chicago Title.

21. Vytorin/Zetia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1938 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Executive Committee of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee representing plaintiffs alleging that Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals falsely marketed anti-cholesterol drugs Vytorin and Zetia as being more effective than other anti-cholesterol drugs. Plaintiffs further alleged that Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals sold Vytorin and Zetia at higher prices than other anti-cholesterol medication when they were no more effective than other drugs. In 2010, the Court approved a $41.5 million settlement for consumers who bought Vytorin or Zetia between November 2002 and February 2010.

22. Morris v. AT&T Wireless Services, No. C-04-1997-MJP (W.D. Wash.). Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel for a nationwide settlement class of cell phone customers subjected to an end-of-billing cycle cancellation policy implemented by AT&T Wireless in 2003 and alleged to have breached customers’ service agreements. In May 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court granted final approval to a class settlement that guarantees delivery to the class of $40 million in benefits. Class members received cash-equivalent calling cards automatically, and had the option of redeeming them for cash. Lieff Cabraser had been prosecuting the class claims in the Western District of Washington when a settlement in New Jersey state court was announced. Lieff Cabraser objected to that

1043044.1 - 61 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 77 of 149

settlement as inadequate because it would have only provided $1.5 million in benefits without a cash option, and the Court agreed, declining to approve it. Thereafter, Lieff Cabraser negotiated the new settlement providing $40 million to the class, and the settlement was approved.

23. Berger v. Property I.D. Corporation, No. CV 05-5373-GHK (C.D. Cal.). In January 2009, the Court granted final approval to a $39.4 million settlement with several of the nation’s largest real estate brokerages, including companies doing business as Coldwell Banker, Century 21, and ERA Real Estate, and California franchisors for RE/MAX and Prudential California Realty, in an action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act on behalf of California home sellers. Plaintiffs charged that the brokers and Property I.D. Corporation set up straw companies as a way to disguise kickbacks for referring their California clients’ natural hazard disclosure report business to Property I.D. (the report is required to sell a home in California). Under the settlement, hundreds of thousands of California home sellers were eligible to receive a full refund of the cost of their report, typically about $100.

24. In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation, MDL No. 1467 (N.D. Ga.). In March 2004, Lieff Cabraser delivered opening statements and began testimony in a class action by families whose loved ones were improperly cremated and desecrated by Tri-State Crematory in Noble, Georgia. The families also asserted claims against the funeral homes that delivered the decedents to Tri-State Crematory for failing to ensure that the crematory performed cremations in the manner required under the law and by human decency. One week into trial, settlements with the remaining funeral home defendants were reached and brought the settlement total to approximately $37 million. Trial on the class members’ claims against the operators of crematory began in August 2004. Soon thereafter, these defendants entered into a $80 million settlement with plaintiffs. As part of the settlement, all buildings on the Tri-State property were razed. The property will remain in a trust so that it will be preserved in peace and dignity as a secluded memorial to those whose remains were mistreated, and to prevent crematory operations or other inappropriate activities from ever taking place there. Earlier in the litigation, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a published order. 215 F.R.D. 660 (2003).

25. In re American Family Enterprises, MDL No. 1235 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a nationwide class of persons who received any sweepstakes materials sent under the name “American Family Publishers.” The class action lawsuit alleged that defendants deceived consumers into purchasing magazine subscriptions and merchandise in the belief that such purchases were necessary to win an

1043044.1 - 62 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 78 of 149

American Family Publishers’ sweepstakes prize or enhanced their chances of winning a sweepstakes prize. In September 2000, the Court granted final approval of a $33 million settlement of the class action. In April 2001, over 63,000 class members received refunds averaging over $500 each, representing 92% of their eligible purchases. In addition, American Family Publishers agreed to make significant changes to the way it conducts the sweepstakes.

26. Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00050 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented a class of 54,000 current and former residents, and families of residents, of skilled nursing care facilities in a class action against Kindred Healthcare for failing to adequately staff its nursing facilities in California. Since January 1, 2000, skilled nursing facilities in California have been required to provide at least 3.2 hours of direct nursing hours per patient day (NHPPD), which represented the minimum staffing required for patients at skilled nursing facilities.

The complaint alleged a pervasive and intentional failure by Kindred Healthcare to comply with California’s required minimum standard for qualified nurse staffing at its facilities. Understaffing is uniformly viewed as one of the primary causes of the inadequate care and often unsafe conditions in skilled nursing facilities. Studies have repeatedly shown a direct correlation between inadequate skilled nursing care and serious health problems, including a greater likelihood of falls, pressure sores, significant weight loss, incontinence, and premature death. The complaint further charged that Kindred Healthcare collected millions of dollars in payments from residents and their family members, under the false pretense that it was in compliance with California staffing laws and would continue to do so.

In December 2013, the Court approved a $8.25 million settlement which included cash payments to class members and an injunction requiring Kindred Healthcare to consistently utilize staffing practices which would ensure they complied with applicable California law. The injunction, subject to a third party monitor, was valued at between $6 to $20 million.

27. Cincotta v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, No. 07359096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel for nearly 100,000 uninsured patients that alleged they were charged excessive and unfair rates for emergency room service across 55 hospitals throughout California. The settlement, approved on October 31, 2008, provided complete debt elimination, 100% cancellation of the bill, to uninsured patients treated by California Emergency Physicians Medical Group during the 4-year class period. These benefits were valued at $27 million. No claims were required, so all of these bills were cancelled.

1043044.1 - 63 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 79 of 149

In addition, the settlement required California Emergency Physicians Medical Group prospectively to (1) maintain certain discount policies for all charity care patients; (2) inform patients of the available discounts by enhanced communications; and (3) limit significantly the type of collections practices available for collecting from charity care patients.

28. In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1715. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for borrowers who alleged that Ameriquest engaged in a predatory lending scheme based on the sale of loans with illegal and undisclosed fees and terms. In August 2010, the Court approved a $22 million settlement.

29. ING Bank Rate Renew Cases, Case No. 11-154-LPS (D. Del.). Lieff Cabraser represented borrowers in class action lawsuits charging that ING Direct breached its promise to allow them to refinance their mortgages for a flat fee. From October 2005 through April 2009, ING promoted a $500 or $750 flat-rate refinancing fee called “Rate Renew” as a benefit of choosing ING for mortgages over competitors. Beginning in May 2009, however, ING began charging a higher fee of a full monthly mortgage payment for refinancing using “Rate Renew,” despite ING’s earlier and lower advertised price. As a result, the complaint alleged that many borrowers paid more to refinance their loans using “Rate Renew” than they should have, or were denied the opportunity to refinance their loan even though the borrowers met the terms and conditions of ING’s original “Rate Renew” offer. In August 2012, the Court certified a class of consumers in ten states who purchased or retained an ING mortgage from October 2005 through April 2009. A second case on behalf of California consumers was filed in December 2012. In October 2014, the Court approved a $20.35 million nationwide settlement of the litigation. The settlement provided an average payment of $175 to the nearly 100,000 class members, transmitted to their accounts automatically and without any need to file a claim form.

30. Yarrington v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, No. 09-CV-2261 (D. Minn.). In March 2010, the Court granted final approval to a $16.5 million settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, one of the country’s leading pharmaceutical companies. Lieff Cabraser served as Co- Lead Counsel, representing a class of persons who purchased Estratest—a hormone replacement drug. The class action lawsuit alleged that Solvay deceptively marketed and advertised Estratest as an FDA-approved drug when in fact Estratest was not FDA-approved for any use. Under the settlement, consumers obtained partial refunds for up to 30% of the purchase price paid of Estratest. In addition, $8.9 million of the settlement was allocated to fund programs and activities devoted to promoting women’s health and well-being at health organizations, medical schools, and charities throughout the nation.

1043044.1 - 64 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 80 of 149

31. Reverse Mortgage Cases, JCCP No. 4061 (San Mateo County Supr. Ct., Cal.). Transamerica Corporation, through its subsidiary Transamerica Homefirst, Inc., sold “reverse mortgages” marketed under the trade name “Lifetime.” The Lifetime reverse mortgages were sold exclusively to seniors, i.e., persons 65 years or older. Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, filed suit on behalf of seniors alleging that the terms of the reverse mortgages were unfair, and that borrowers were misled as to the loan terms, including the existence and amount of certain charges and fees. In 2003, the Court granted final approval to an $8 million settlement of the action.

32. Brazil v. Dell, No. C-07-01700 RMW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel representing a certified class of online consumers in California who purchased certain Dell computers based on the advertisement of an instant-off (or “slash-through”) discount. The complaint challenged Dell’s pervasive use of “slash-through” reference prices in its online marketing. Plaintiffs alleged that these “slash- through” reference prices were interpreted by consumers as representing Dell’s former or regular sales prices, and that such reference prices (and corresponding representations of “savings”) were false because Dell rarely, if ever, sold its products at such prices. In October 2011, the Court approved a settlement that provided a $50 payment to each class member who submitted a timely and valid claim. In addition, in response to the lawsuit, Dell changed its methodology for consumer online advertising, eliminating the use of “slash-through” references prices.

33. Hepting v. AT&T Corp., Case No. C-06-0672-VRW (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs alleged that AT&T collaborated with the National Security Agency in a massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracked the domestic and foreign communications and communications records of millions of Americans in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and other statutes. The case was filed on January 2006. The U.S. government quickly intervened and sought dismissal of the case. By the Spring of 2006, over 50 other lawsuits were filed against various telecommunications companies, in response to a USA Today article confirming the surveillance of communications and communications records. The cases were combined into a multi-district litigation proceeding entitled In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Record Litigation, MDL No. 06-1791. In June of 2006, the District Court rejected both the government’s attempt to dismiss the case on the grounds of the state secret privilege and AT&T’s arguments in favor of dismissal. The government and AT&T appealed the decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard argument one year later. No decision was issued. In July 2008, Congress granted the government and AT&T “retroactive immunity” for liability for their wiretapping program under amendments to the Foreign Intelligence

1043044.1 - 65 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 81 of 149

Surveillance Act that were drafted in response to this litigation. Signed into law by President Bush in 2008, the amendments effectively terminated the litigation. Lieff Cabraser played a leading role in the litigation working closely with co-counsel from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

34. In Re Apple and AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan Litigation, No. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW (N.D. Ca.). Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel in an action against Apple and AT&T charging that Apple and AT&T misrepresented that consumers purchasing an iPad with 3G capability could choose an unlimited data plan for a fixed monthly rate and switch in and out of the unlimited plan on a monthly basis as they wished. Less than six weeks after its introduction to the U.S. market, AT&T and Apple discontinued their unlimited data plan for any iPad 3G customers not currently enrolled and prohibited current unlimited data plan customers from switching back and forth from a less expensive, limited data plan. In March 2014, Apple agreed to compensate all class members $40 and approximately 60,000 claims were paid. In addition, sub-class members who had not yet entered into an agreement with AT&T were offered a data plan.

V. Economic Injury Product Defects

A. Current Cases

1. McClellan, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case Nos. 16-cv-00036-JD; 16-cv- 00777-JD (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers nationwide in litigation against Fitbit that alleges the Fitbit Blaze, Charge HR and Fitbit Surge heart monitors do not and cannot consistently record accurate heart rates during the intense physical activity for which Fitbit expressly markets the devices in widespread advertising. The lawsuit contends — and expert testing confirms — that the Fitbit heart rate monitors consistently mis-record heart rates by a significant margin, particularly during intense exercise. Not only are accurate heart readings important for those engaging in fitness, they can be critical to the health and well- being of people whose medical conditions require them to maintain (or not exceed) a certain heart rate. In May 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including comprehensive new studies conducted by researchers at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona confirming that Fitbit's monitors are "highly inaccurate during elevated physical activity." The litigation is ongoing.

2. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in multiple states who have filed separate class action lawsuits against Whirlpool, Sears and LG Corporations. The complaints charge that certain front-loading automatic washers manufactured by these companies are defectively designed and that the

1043044.1 - 66 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 82 of 149

design defects create foul odors from mold and mildew that permeate washing machines and customers’ homes. Many class members have spent money for repairs and on other purported remedies. As the complaints allege, none of these remedies eliminates the problem.

3. In Re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 2543 (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represents proposed nationwide classes of GM vehicle owners and lessees whose cars include defective ignition switches in litigation focusing on economic loss claims. On August 15, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the litigation, which seeks compensation on behalf of consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles containing a defective ignition switch, over 500,000 of which have now been recalled. The consumer complaints allege that the ignition switches in these vehicles share a common, uniform, and defective design. As a result, these cars are of a lesser quality than GM represented, and class members overpaid for the cars. Further, GM’s public disclosure of the ignition switch defect has caused the value of these cars to materially diminish. The complaints seek monetary relief for the diminished value of the class members’ cars.

4. Honda Window Defective Window Litigation. Case No. 2:21-cv- 01142-SVW-PLA (C.D. CA). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in a class action lawsuit filed against Honda Motor Company, Inc. for manufacturing and selling vehicles with allegedly defective window regulator mechanisms. Windows in these vehicles allegedly can, without warning, drop into the door frame and break or become permanently stuck in the fully-open position.

The experience of one Honda Element owner, as set forth in the complaint, exemplifies the problem: The driver’s side window in his vehicle slid down suddenly while he was driving on a smooth road. A few months later, the window on the passenger side of the vehicle also slid down into the door and would not move back up. The owner incurred more than $300 in repair costs, which Honda refused to pay for. Discovery in the action is ongoing.

5. Moore, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-4966 (D.N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in federal court in New Jersey in cases focusing on complaints about Samsung top-loading washing machines that explode in the home, causing damage to walls, doors, and other equipment and presenting significant injury risks. Owners report Samsung top-load washers exploding as early as the day of installation, while others have seen their machines explode months or even more than a year after

1043044.1 - 67 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 83 of 149

purchase. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief as well as remedial and restitutionary actions and damages.

6. In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, No. 10-30568 (E.D. La.). Lieff Cabraser with co-counsel represents a proposed class of builders who suffered economic losses as a result of the presence of Chinese-manufactured drywall in homes and other buildings they constructed. From 2005 to 2008, hundreds-of- millions of square feet of gypsum wallboard manufactured in China were exported to the U.S., primarily to the Gulf Coast states, and installed in newly-constructed and reconstructed properties. After installation of this drywall, owners and occupants of the properties began noticing unusual odors, blackening of silver and copper items and components, and the failure of appliances, including microwaves, refrigerators, and air- conditioning units. Some residents of the affected homes also experienced health problems, such as skin and eye irritation, respiratory issues, and headaches.

Lieff Cabraser’s client, Mitchell Company, Inc., was the first to perfect service on Chinese defendant Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. (“TG”), and thereafter secured a default judgment against TG. Lieff Cabraser participated in briefing that led to the District Court’s denial of TG’s motion to dismiss the class action complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On May 21, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Court affirmed the District Court’s default judgment against TG, finding jurisdiction based on ties of the company and its agent with state distributors. 753 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2014).

B. Successes

1. Allagas v. BP Solar, No. 3:14-cv-00560-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented California consumers in a class action lawsuit against BP Solar and Home Depot charging the companies sold solar panels with defective junction boxes that caused premature failures and fire risks. In January 2017, Judge Susan Illston granted final approval to a consumer settlement valued at more than $67 million that extends relief to a nationwide class as well as eliminating the serious fire risks.

2. In re Mercedes-Benz Tele-Aid Contract Litigation, MDL No. 1914 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represented owners and lessees of Mercedes- Benz cars and SUVs equipped with the Tele-Aid system, an emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and cellular technology. In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule, effective 2008, eliminating the requirement that wireless phone carriers provide analog-based networks. The Tele-Aid system offered by Mercedes-Benz relied on analog signals. Plaintiffs charged that Mercedes-Benz

1043044.1 - 68 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 84 of 149

committed fraud in promoting and selling the Tele-Aid system without disclosing to buyers of certain model years that the Tele-Aid system as installed would become obsolete in 2008.

In an April 2009 published order, the Court certified a nationwide class of all persons or entities in the U.S. who purchased or leased a Mercedes- Benz vehicle equipped with an analog-only Tele Aid system after August 8, 2002, and (1) subscribed to Tele Aid service until being informed that such service would be discontinued at the end of 2007, or (2) purchased an upgrade to digital equipment. In September 2011, the Court approved a settlement that provided class members between a $650 check or a $750 to $1,300 certificate toward the purchase or lease of new Mercedes-Benz vehicle, depending upon whether or not they paid for an upgrade of the analog Tele Aid system and whether they still owned their vehicle. In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise stated, “I want to thank counsel for the . . . very effective and good work . . . . It was carried out with vigor, integrity and aggressiveness with never going beyond the maxims of the Court.”

3. McLennan v. LG Electronics USA, No. 2:10-cv-03604 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who alleged several LG refrigerator models had a faulty design that caused the interior lights to remain on even when the refrigerator doors were closed (identified as the “light issue”), resulting in overheating and food spoilage. In March 2012, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the nationwide class action lawsuit. The settlement provides that LG reimburse class members for all out-of-pocket costs (parts and labor) to repair the light issue prior to the mailing of the class notice and extends the warranty with respect to the light issue for 10 years from the date of the original retail purchase of the refrigerator. The extended warranty covers in-home refrigerator repair performed by LG and, in some cases, the cost of a replacement refrigerator. In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martini stated, “The Settlement in this case provides for both the complete reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for repairs fixing the Light Issue, as well as a warranty for ten years from the date of refrigerator purchase. It would be hard to imagine a better recovery for the Class had the litigation gone to trial. Because Class members will essentially receive all of the relief to which they would have been entitled after a successful trial, this factor weighs heavily in favor of settlement.”

4. Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corporation, No. 05-05437 (W.D. Wash.). In April 2008, the Court approved a nationwide settlement for current and past owners of high- efficiency furnaces manufactured and sold by Carrier Corporation and equipped with polypropylene-laminated condensing heat exchangers (“CHXs”). Carrier sold the furnaces under the Carrier, Bryant, Day &

1043044.1 - 69 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 85 of 149

Night and Payne brand-names. Plaintiffs alleged that starting in 1989 Carrier began manufacturing and selling high efficiency condensing furnaces manufactured with a secondary CHX made of inferior materials. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result, the CHXs, which Carrier warranted and consumers expected to last for 20 years, failed prematurely. The settlement provides an enhanced 20-year warranty of free service and free parts for consumers whose furnaces have not yet failed. The settlement also offers a cash reimbursement for consumers who already paid to repair or replace the CHX in their high-efficiency Carrier furnaces.

An estimated three million or more consumers in the U.S. and Canada purchased the furnaces covered under the settlement. Plaintiffs valued the settlement to consumers at over $300 million based upon the combined value of the cash reimbursement and the estimated cost of an enhanced warranty of this nature.

5. Carideo v. Dell, No. C06-1772 JLR (W.D. Wash.). Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who owned Dell Inspiron notebook computer model numbers 1150, 5100, or 5160. The class action lawsuit complaint charged that the notebooks suffered premature failure of their cooling system, power supply system, and/or motherboards. In December 2010, the Court approved a settlement which provided class members that paid Dell for certain repairs to their Inspiron notebook computer a reimbursement of all or a portion of the cost of the repairs.

6. Cartwright v. Viking Industries, No. 2:07-cv-2159 FCD (E.D. Cal.) Lieff Cabraser represented California homeowners in a class action lawsuit which alleged that over one million Series 3000 windows produced and distributed by Viking between 1989 and 1999 were defective. The plaintiffs charged that the windows were not watertight and allowed for water to penetrate the surrounding sheetrock, drywall, paint or wallpaper. Under the terms of a settlement approved by the Court in August 2010, all class members who submitted valid claims were entitled to receive as much as $500 per affected property.

7. Pelletz v. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies (W.D. Wash.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a case alleging that ChoiceDek decking materials, manufactured by AERT, developed persistent and untreatable mold spotting throughout their surface. In a published opinion in January 2009, the Court approved a settlement that provided affected consumers with free and discounted deck treatments, mold inhibitor applications, and product replacement and reimbursement.

8. Create-A-Card v. Intuit, No. C07-6452 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented business users of QuickBooks Pro for accounting that lost their QuickBooks data and other files due to faulty

1043044.1 - 70 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 86 of 149

software code sent by Intuit, the producer of QuickBooks. In September 2009, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that provided all class members who filed a valid claim with a free software upgrade and compensation for certain data-recovery costs. Commenting on the settlement and the work of Lieff Cabraser on September 17, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup stated, “I want to come back to something that I observed in this case firsthand for a long time now. I think you’ve done an excellent job in the case as class counsel and the class has been well represented having you and your firm in the case.”

9. Weekend Warrior Trailer Cases, JCCP No. 4455 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented owners of Weekend Warrior trailers manufactured between 1998 and 2006 that were equipped with frames manufactured, assembled, or supplied by Zieman Manufacturing Company. The trailers, commonly referred to as “toy haulers,” were used to transport outdoor recreational equipment such as motorcycles and all- terrain vehicles. Plaintiffs charged that Weekend Warrior and Zieman knew of design and performance problems, including bent frames, detached siding, and warped forward cargo areas, with the trailers, and concealed the defects from consumers. In February 2008, the Court approved a $5.5 million settlement of the action that provided for the repair and/or reimbursement of the trailers. In approving the settlement, California Superior Court Judge Thierry P. Colaw stated that class counsel were “some of the best” and “there was an overwhelming positive reaction to the settlement” among class members.

10. Lundell v. Dell, No. C05-03970 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel for consumers who experienced power problems with the Dell Inspiron 5150 notebook. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the class action which extended the one- year limited warranty on the notebook for a set of repairs related to the power system. In addition, class members that paid Dell or a third party for repair of the power system of their notebook were entitled to a 100% cash refund from Dell.

11. Kan v. Toshiba American Information Systems, No. BC327273 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a class of all end-user persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired in the United States, for their own use and not for resale, a new Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Series notebook. Consumers alleged a series of defects were present in the notebook. In 2006, the Court approved a settlement that extended the warranty for all Satellite Pro 6100 notebooks, provided cash compensation for certain repairs, and reimbursed class members for certain out-of-warranty repair expenses.

1043044.1 - 71 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 87 of 149

12. Foothill/DeAnza Community College District v. Northwest Pipe Company, No. C-00-20749 (N.D. Cal.). In June 2004, the Court approved the creation of a settlement fund of up to $14.5 million for property owners nationwide with Poz-Lok fire sprinkler piping that fails. Since 1990, Poz-Lok pipes and pipe fittings were sold in the U.S. as part of fire suppression systems for use in residential and commercial buildings. After leaks in Poz-Lok pipes caused damage to its DeAnza Campus Center building, Foothill/DeAnza Community College District in California retained Lieff Cabraser to file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of Poz-Lok. The college district charged that Poz-Lok pipe had manufacturing and design defects that resulted in the premature corrosion and failure of the product. Under the settlement, owners whose Poz-Lok pipes are leaking today, or over the next 15 years, may file a claim for compensation.

13. Toshiba Laptop Screen Flicker Settlement. Lieff Cabraser negotiated a settlement with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”) to provide relief for owners of certain Toshiba Satellite 1800 Series, Satellite Pro 4600 and Tecra 8100 personal notebook computers whose screens flickered, dimmed or went blank due to an issue with the FL Inverter Board component. In 2004 under the terms of the Settlement, owners of affected computers who paid to have the FL Inverter issue repaired by either TAIS or an authorized TAIS service provider recovered the cost of that repair, up to $300 for the Satellite 1800 Series and the Satellite Pro 4600 personal computers, or $400 for the Tecra 8100 personal computers. TAIS also agreed to extend the affected computers’ warranties for the FL Inverter issue by 18 months.

14. McManus v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., No. SA-99-CA-464-FB (W.D. Tex.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of original owners of 1994-2000 model year Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes. In 2003, the Court approved a settlement that resolved lawsuits pending in Texas and California about braking while towing with 1994 Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes. The lawsuits alleged that Fleetwood misrepresented the towing capabilities of new motor homes it sold, and claimed that Fleetwood should have told buyers that a supplemental braking system is needed to stop safely while towing heavy items, such as a vehicle or trailer. The settlement paid $250 to people who bought a supplemental braking system for Fleetwood motor homes that they bought new. Earlier, the appellate court found that common questions predominated under purchasers’ breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim. 320 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2003).

15. Richison v. American Cemwood Corp., No. 005532 (San Joaquin Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel for an estimated nationwide class of 30,000 owners of homes and other

1043044.1 - 72 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 88 of 149

structures on which defective Cemwood Shakes were installed. In November 2003, the Court granted final approval to a $75 million Phase 2 settlement in the American Cemwood roofing shakes national class action litigation. This amount was in addition to a $65 million partial settlement approved by the Court in May 2000, and brought the litigation to a conclusion.

16. ABS Pipe Litigation, JCCP No. 3126 (Contra Costa County Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel on behalf of property owners whose ABS plumbing pipe was allegedly defective and caused property damage by leaking. Six separate class actions were filed in California against five different ABS pipe manufacturers, numerous developers of homes containing the ABS pipe, as well as the resin supplier and the entity charged with ensuring the integrity of the product. Between 1998 and 2001, Lieff Cabraser achieved 12 separate settlements in the class actions and related individual lawsuits for approximately $78 million.

Commenting on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the case, California Superior Court (now appellate) Judge Mark B. Simons stated on May 14, 1998: “The attorneys who were involved in the resolution of the case certainly entered the case with impressive reputations and did nothing in the course of their work on this case to diminish these reputations, but underlined, in my opinion, how well deserved those reputations are.”

17. Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 995787 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of hundreds of thousands or millions of owners of homes and other structures with defective Weyerhaeuser hardboard siding. A California- wide class was certified for all purposes in February 1999, and withstood writ review by both the California Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of California. In 2000, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of the case which provides class members with compensation for their damaged siding, based on the cost of replacing or, in some instances, repairing, damaged siding. The settlement has no cap, and requires Weyerhaeuser to pay all timely, qualified claims over a nine year period.

18. Naef v. Masonite, No. CV-94-4033 (Mobile County Circuit Ct., Ala.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide Class of an estimated 4 million homeowners with allegedly defective hardboard siding manufactured and sold by Masonite Corporation, a subsidiary of International Paper, installed on their homes. The Court certified the class in November 1995, and the Alabama Supreme Court twice denied extraordinary writs seeking to decertify the Class, including

1043044.1 - 73 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 89 of 149

in Ex Parte Masonite, 681 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 1996). A month-long jury trial in 1996 established the factual predicate that Masonite hardboard siding was defective under the laws of most states. The case settled on the eve of a second class-wide trial, and in 1998, the Court approved a settlement. Under a claims program established by the settlement that ran through 2008, class members with failing Masonite hardboard siding installed and incorporated in their property between January 1, 1980 and January 15, 1998 were entitled to make claims, have their homes evaluated by independent inspectors, and receive cash payments for damaged siding. Combined with settlements involving other alleged defective home building products sold by Masonite, the total cash paid to homeowners exceeded $1 billion.

19. In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 961 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel representing a class of 4.7 million plaintiffs who owned 1973-1987 GM C/K pickup trucks with allegedly defective gas tanks. The Consolidated Complaint asserted claims under the Lanham Act, the Magnuson-Moss Act, state consumer protection statutes, and common law. In 1995, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court settlement approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court for further proceedings. In July 1996, a new nationwide class action was certified for purposes of an enhanced settlement program valued at a minimum of $600 million, plus funding for independent fuel system safety research projects. The Court granted final approval of the settlement in November 1996.

20. In re Louisiana-Pacific Inner-Seal Siding Litigation, No. C-95- 879-JO (D. Ore.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of homeowners with defective exterior siding on their homes. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and violation of consumer protection statutes. In 1996, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones entered an Order, Final Judgment and Decree granting final approval to a nationwide settlement requiring Louisiana-Pacific to provide funding up to $475 million to pay for inspection of homes and repair and replacement of failing siding over the next seven years.

21. In re Intel Pentium Processor Litigation, No. CV 745729 (Santa Clara Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as one of two Court- appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel, and negotiated a settlement, approved by the Court in June 1995, involving both injunctive relief and damages having an economic value of approximately $1 billion.

22. Cox v. Shell, No. 18,844 (Obion County Chancery Ct., Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of

1043044.1 - 74 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 90 of 149

approximately 6 million owners of property equipped with defective polybutylene plumbing systems and yard service lines. In November 1995, the Court approved a settlement involving an initial commitment by Defendants of $950 million in compensation for past and future expenses incurred as a result of pipe leaks, and to provide replacement pipes to eligible claimants. The deadline for filing claims expired in 2009.

23. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., No. C-95-2010-CAL (N.D. Cal.). In 1995, the District Court approved a $200+ million settlement enforcing Chrysler’s comprehensive minivan rear latch replacement program, and to correct alleged safety problems with Chrysler’s pre-1995 designs. As part of the settlement, Chrysler agreed to replace the rear latches with redesigned latches. The settlement was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (1998).

24. Gross v. Mobil, No. C 95-1237-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in this nationwide action involving an estimated 2,500 aircraft engine owners whose engines were affected by Mobil AV-1, an aircraft engine oil. Plaintiffs alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, violation of consumer protection statutes, and for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant Mobil Corporation to provide notice to all potential class members of the risks associated with past use of Defendants’ aircraft engine oil. In addition, Plaintiffs negotiated a proposed Settlement, granted final approval by the Court in November 1995, valued at over $12.5 million, under which all Class Members were eligible to participate in an engine inspection and repair program, and receive compensation for past repairs and for the loss of use of their aircraft associated with damage caused by Mobil AV-1.

VI. Antitrust/Trade Regulation/Intellectual Property

A. Current Cases

1. Charles Schwab Bank, N.A. v. Bank of America Corp., MDL No. 2262 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as counsel for The Charles Schwab Corporation and several of The Charles Schwab Family of Funds and the Bay Area Toll Authority (“BATA”) in individual lawsuits against Bank of America Corporation, Credit Suisse Group AG, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citibank, Inc., and additional banks for allegedly manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”).

The complaints allege that beginning in 2007, the defendants conspired to understate their true costs of borrowing, causing the calculation of LIBOR to be set artificially low. As a result, Schwab, the Schwab Fund Series, and BATA received less than their rightful rates of return on their LIBOR-based investments. The complaints assert claims under federal

1043044.1 - 75 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 91 of 149

and state law, including the Sherman Act and the statutory and common law of California. The cases are pending.

2. In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724 (E.D. Pa.). Beginning in February 2015, Lieff Cabraser conducted an extensive investigation into dramatic price increases of certain generic prescription drugs. Lieff Cabraser worked alongside economists and industry experts and interviewed industry participants to evaluate possible misconduct.

In December of 2016, Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, filed the first case alleging price-fixing of Levothyroxine, the primary treatment for hypothyroidism, among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. Lieff Cabraser also played a significant role in similar litigation over the drug Propranolol, and the drug Clomipramine. These cases, and other similar cases, were consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724. Lieff Cabraser is a member of the End-Payer Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

3. In re Lithium-Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2420 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Interim Co-Lead Indirect Purchaser Counsel representing consumers in a class action filed against LG, GS Yuasa, NEC, Sony, Sanyo, Panasonic, Hitachi, LG Chem, Samsung, Toshiba, and Sanyo for allegedly conspiring from 2002 to 2011 to fix and raise the prices of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries. The defendants are the world’s leading manufacturers of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries, which provide power for a wide variety of consumer electronic products. As a result of the defendants' alleged anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, consumers across the U.S. paid artificially inflated prices for lithium-ion rechargeable batteries. In late 2014, the Court denied in large part defendants' motion to dismiss. Indirect Purchasers have settled with Hitachi, LG Chem, NEC Corp., and Sony for a combined total of $64.45 million. Indirect Purchasers have moved for class certification, which is currently pending before the court.

4. In re Restasis Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2819 (pending). Lieff Cabraser serves as counsel for plaintiffs in two class actions alleging a broad-based and ongoing anticompetitive scheme by pharmaceutical giant Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”). The alleged scheme’s goal was and is to maintain Allergan’s monopoly in Restasis, a blockbuster drug used to treat dry-eye disease. Lieff Cabraser filed the first two class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers (i.e., consumers).

The complaints allege that Allergan (1) fraudulently procured patents it knew were invalid, (2) caused those invalid patents to be listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book” as being applicable to Restasis, (3) used the

1043044.1 - 76 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 92 of 149

improper Orange Book listings as grounds for filing baseless patent- infringement litigation, (4) abused the FDA’s “citizen petition” process, and (5) used a “sham” transfer of the invalid patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe to obtain tribal sovereign immunity and protect the patents from challenge. This alleged scheme of government petitioning delayed competition from generic equivalents to Restasis that would have been just as safe and cheaper for consumers. The complaints assert claims under federal and state law, including the Sherman Act and the statutory and common law of numerous states. Several similar lawsuits have since been filed, and Lieff Cabraser’s motion for consolidated or coordinated proceedings is pending.

5. Nashville General v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. 3:15- cv-01100 (M.D. Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser represents Nashville General Hospital (the Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan in a proposed class- action antitrust case against defendants Momenta Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz, Inc., for their alleged price-fixing of enoxaparin, the generic version of the anti-coagulant blood clotting drug Lovenox.

Lovenox, developed by Sanofi-Aventis, is a highly profitable drug with annual sales of more than $1 billion. The drug entered the market in 1995 and its patent was invalidated by the federal government in 2008, making generic production possible. The complaint alleges Momenta and Sandoz colluded to manipulate the process by which the federal government allows drugs to become generic in order to ensure that defendants were the only producers of generic enoxaparin, thereby restraining trade and disrupting the market at consumers’ expense.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in December 2017. Discovery is ongoing.

6. In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee representing indirect purchasers in an electrolytic and film price-fixing class action lawsuit filed against the world's largest manufacturers of capacitors, used to store and regulate current in electronic circuits and computers, phones, appliances, and cameras worldwide. The defendants include Panasonic Corp., Elna Co. Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Nistuko Electronics Corp., NEC Tokin Corp., SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., Matsuo Electric Co., Nippon Chemi-con Corp., Nichicon Corp., Rubycon Corp., Taitsu Corp., and Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd. Lieff Cabraser has played a central role in discovery efforts, and assisted in opposing Defendants’ motions to dismiss and in opposing Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The case is currently still in fact discovery.

1043044.1 - 77 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 93 of 149

7. In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2626 (M.D. Fla.). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers who purchased disposable contact lenses manufactured by Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, and Cooper Vision, Inc. The complaint challenges the use by contact lens manufacturers of minimum resale price maintenance agreements with independent eye care professionals (including optometrists and ophthalmologists) and wholesalers. These agreements, the complaint alleges, operate to raise retail prices and eliminate price competition and discounts on contact lenses, including from “big box” retail stores, discount buying clubs, and online retailers. As a result, the consumers across the United States have paid artificially inflated prices.

8. In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, 1:15-mc- 01404 (District of Columbia). Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in a class action lawsuit against the four largest U.S. airline carriers: American Airlines, Delta Air, Southwest, and United. These airlines collectively account for over 80 percent of all domestic airline travel. The complaint alleges that for years the airlines colluded to restrain capacity, eliminate competition in the market, and increase the price of domestic airline airfares in violation of U.S. antitrust law. The proposed class consists of all persons and entities who purchased domestic airline tickets directly from one or more defendants from July 2, 2011 to the present. In February 2016, Judge Kollar-Kotelly appointed Lieff Cabraser to the three-member Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee overseeing this multidistrict airline price-fixing litigation. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied in October 2016. Subsequently, a settlement with Southwest Airlines was granted preliminary approval. Discovery as to the remaining defendants is underway.

9. Seaman v. Duke University, No. 1:15-cv-00462 (M.D. N.C.). Lieff Cabraser represents Dr. Danielle M. Seaman in a class action lawsuit against Duke University; Duke University Health System; and Dr. William L. Roper in his official capacity as Dean and Vice-Chancellor of Medical Affairs for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. The complaint charges that Duke and UNC entered into an express, secret agreement not to hire or attempt to hire certain medical faculty and staff that they each employed. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief, including treble damages, for defendants’ alleged violations of federal and North Carolina antitrust law.

In February 2016, Judge Eagles denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds, including a denial of state action immunity to antitrust liability. The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that they should be exempt from the nation’s antitrust laws because Dr. Roper, an alleged co-conspirator, is an administrator of a state university

1043044.1 - 78 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 94 of 149

and health system. Defendants sought permission to appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In June 2016, a unanimous three-judge panel denied the request.

On January 5, 2018, Judge Eagles granted final approval to a partial settlement of antitrust class action claims against Duke University, UNC, and other related parties. The partial settlement implements a variety of measures by the UNC Defendants to ensure that they will not enter into or enforce any unlawful no-hire agreements or similar restraints on competition. The settlement also requires the UNC Defendants to cooperate in providing documents, data and testimony to Dr. Seaman as she continues to pursue her case against the Duke Defendants. The Duke Defendants have not settled; they remain in the case, which is ongoing.

B. Successes

1. In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11 CV 2509 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in a consolidated class action charging that Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar violated antitrust laws by conspiring to suppress the pay of technical, creative, and other salaried employees. The complaint alleged that the conspiracy among defendants restricted recruiting of each other’s employees. On October 24, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh certified a class of approximately 64,000 persons who worked in Defendants’ technical, creative, and/or research and development jobs from 2005-2009. On September 2, 2015, the Court approved a $415 million settlement with Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe. Earlier, on May 15, 2014, the Court approved partial settlements totaling $20 million resolving claims against Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar. The Daily Journal described the case as the “most significant antitrust employment case in recent history,” adding that it “has been widely recognized as a legal and public policy breakthrough.”

2. Cipro Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 4154 and 4220 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represented California consumers and third party payors in a class action lawsuit filed in California state court charging that Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, and other generic prescription drug manufacturers conspired to restrain competition in the sale of Bayer’s blockbuster antibiotic drug Ciprofloxacin, sold as Cipro. Between 1997 and 2003, Bayer paid its would-be generic drug competitors nearly $400 million to refrain from selling more affordable versions of Cipro. As a result, consumers were forced to pay inflated prices for the drug -- frequently prescribed to treat urinary tract, prostate, abdominal, and other infections.

1043044.1 - 79 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 95 of 149

The Trial Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the Appellate Court affirmed in October 2011. Plaintiffs sought review before the California Supreme Court and were successful. Following briefing, the case was stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis. After the U.S. Supreme Court in Actavis overturned the Appellate Court’s ruling that pay-for-delay deals in the pharmaceutical industry are generally legal, plaintiffs and Bayer entered into settlement negotiations. In November 2013, the Trial Court approved a $74 million settlement with Bayer.

On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Defendants and resoundingly endorsed the rights of consumers to challenge pharmaceutical pay-for-delay settlements under California competition law. The Court held that “[p]arties illegally restrain trade when they privately agree to substitute consensual monopoly in place of potential competition.”

Additional settlements were reached with the remaining defendants, bringing total settlements to $399 million (exceeding plaintiffs’ damages estimate by approximately $68 million), a result the Trial Court described as “extraordinary.” The Trial Court granted final approval on April 21, 2017, adding that it was “not aware of any case” that “has taken roughly 17 years,” where, net of fees, end-payor “claimants will get basically 100 cents on the dollar[.]”

Some objectors are appealing the settlements. Objectors and their counsel objected to part of the settlement notice and to the attorneys’ fees. As of early 2018, the appeals are slowly progressing.

In 2017, the American Antitrust Institute honored Lieff Cabraser’s Cipro team with its Outstanding Private Practice Antitrust Achievement Award for their extraordinary work on the Cipro price-fixing and exclusionary drug-pricing agreements case. In addition, their work on the Cipro case led Lieff Cabraser attorneys Eric B. Fastiff, Brendan P. Glackin, and Dean M. Harvey to recognition by California Lawyer and the Daily Journal with the 2016 California Lawyer of the Year Award.

3. In re Municipal Derivatives Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, City of Fresno, Fresno County Financing Authority, and East Bay Delta Housing and Finance Agency in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of themselves and other California entities that purchased guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, and other municipal derivatives products from Bank of America, N.A., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Piper Jaffray & Co., Societe Generale SA, UBS AG, and other banks, brokers and financial institutions. The complaint charged that Defendants conspired to give cities, counties, school districts, and other governmental agencies

1043044.1 - 80 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 96 of 149

artificially low bids for guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, and other municipal derivatives products, which are used by public entities to earn interest on bond proceeds.

The complaint further charged that Defendants met secretly to discuss prices, customers, and markets of municipal derivatives sold in the U.S. and elsewhere; intentionally created the false appearance of competition by engaging in sham auctions in which the results were pre-determined or agreed not to bid on contracts; and covertly shared their unjust profits with losing bidders to maintain the conspiracy.

4. Natural Gas Antitrust Cases, JCCP Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). In 2003, the Court approved a landmark of $1.1 billion settlement in class action litigation against El Paso Natural Gas Co. for manipulating the market for natural gas pipeline transmission capacity into California. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Co-Liaison Counsel in the Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV.

In June 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $67.39 million settlement of a series of class action lawsuits brought by California business and residential consumers of natural gas against a group of natural gas suppliers, Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC, CMS Energy Resources Management Company, and Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs charged defendants with manipulating the price of natural gas in California during the California energy crisis of 2000-2001 by a variety of means, including falsely reporting the prices and quantities of natural gas transactions to trade publications, which compiled daily and monthly natural gas price indices; prearranged wash trading; and, in the case of Reliant, “churning” on the Enron Online electronic trading platform, which was facilitated by a secret netting agreement between Reliant and Enron.

The 2007 settlement followed a settlement reached in 2006 for $92 million partial settlement with Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; Dynegy Inc. and affiliates; EnCana Corporation; WD Energy Services, Inc.; and The Williams Companies, Inc. and affiliates.

5. In the Matter of the Arbitration between CopyTele and AU Optronics, Case No. 50 117 T 009883 13 (Internat’l Centre for Dispute Resolution). Lieff Cabraser successfully represented CopyTele, Inc. in a commercial dispute involving intellectual property. In 2011, CopyTele entered into an agreement with AU Optronics (“AUO”) under which both companies would jointly develop two groups of products incorporating CopyTele’s patented display technologies. CopyTele charged that AUO never had any intention of jointly developing the CopyTele technologies,

1043044.1 - 81 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 97 of 149

and instead used the agreements to fraudulently obtain and transfer licenses of CopyTele’s patented technologies. The case required the review of thousands of pages of documents in Chinese and in English culminating in a two week arbitration hearing. In December 2014, after the hearing, the parties resolved the matter, with CopyTele receiving $9 million.

6. Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, JCCP Nos. 4204 & 4205 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in the private class action litigation against Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, Reliant Energy, and The Williams Companies for claims that the companies manipulated California’s wholesale electricity markets during the California energy crisis of 2000-2001. Extending the landmark victories for California residential and business consumers of electricity, in September 2004, plaintiffs reached a $206 million settlement with Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, and in August 2005, plaintiffs reached a $460 million settlement with Reliant Energy, settling claims that the companies manipulated California’s wholesale electricity markets during the California energy crisis of 2000-01. Lieff Cabraser earlier entered into a settlement for over $400 million with The Williams Companies.

7. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for direct purchasers in litigation against the world’s leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays. TFT- LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. Plaintiffs charged that defendants conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products containing those panels for over a decade, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those panels and products. In March 2010, the Court certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, one class of panel purchasers, and one class of buyers of laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions that contained TFT-LCDs. Over the course of the litigation, the classes reached settlements with all defendants except Toshiba. The case against Toshiba proceeded to trial. In July 2012, the jury found that Toshiba participated in the price-fixing conspiracy. The case was subsequently settled, bringing the total settlements in the litigation to over $470 million. For his outstanding work in the precedent-setting litigation, California Lawyer recognized Richard M. Heimann with a 2013 California Lawyer of the Year award.

8. Sullivan v. DB Investments, No. 04-02819 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel for consumers who purchased diamonds from 1994 through March 31, 2006, in a class action lawsuit against the De

1043044.1 - 82 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 98 of 149

Beers group of companies. Plaintiffs charged that De Beers conspired to monopolize the sale of rough diamonds in the U.S. In May 2008, the District Court approved a $295 million settlement for purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry, including $130 million to consumers. The settlement also barred De Beers from continuing its illegal business practices and required De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement. In December 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order approving the settlement. 667 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2011).

For sixty years, De Beers has flouted U.S. antitrust laws. In 1999, De Beers’ Chairman Nicholas Oppenheimer stated that De Beers “likes to think of itself as the world’s . . . longest-running monopoly. [We seek] to manage the diamond market, to control supply, to manage prices and to act collusively with our partners in the business.” The hard-fought litigation spanned several years and nations. Despite the tremendous resources available to the U.S. Department of Justice and state attorney generals, it was only through the determination of plaintiffs’ counsel that De Beers was finally brought to justice and the rights of consumers were vindicated. Lieff Cabraser attorneys played key roles in negotiating the settlement and defending it on appeal. Discussing the DeBeers case, The National Law Journal noted that Lieff Cabraser was “among the plaintiffs’ firms that weren’t afraid to take on one of the business world’s great white whales.”

9. Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co. et al., No. 10-cv-00318-RDB (D. Md.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for direct purchasers of titanium dioxide in a nationwide class action lawsuit against Defendants E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., Huntsman International LLC, Kronos Worldwide Inc., and Cristal Global (fka Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc.), alleging these corporations participated in a global cartel to fix the price of titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide, a dry chemical powder, is the world’s most widely used pigment for providing whiteness and brightness in paints, paper, plastics, and other products. Plaintiffs charged that defendants coordinated increases in the prices for titanium dioxide despite declining demand, decreasing raw material costs, and industry overcapacity.

Unlike some antitrust class actions, Plaintiffs proceeded without the benefit of any government investigation or proceeding. Plaintiffs overcame attacks on the pleadings, discovery obstacles, a rigorous class certification process that required two full rounds of briefing and expert analysis, and multiple summary judgment motions. In August 2012, the Court certified the class. Plaintiffs prepared fully for trial and achieved a settlement with the final defendant on the last business day before

1043044.1 - 83 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 99 of 149

trial. In December 2013, the Court approved a series of settlements with defendants totaling $163 million.

10. In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.). In May 2005, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of a class action lawsuit by patients, insurance companies and health and welfare benefit plans that paid for Lupron, a prescription drug used to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty. The settlement requires the defendants, Abbott Laboratories, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, and TAP Pharmaceuticals, to pay $150 million, inclusive of costs and fees, to persons or entities who paid for Lupron from January 1, 1985 through March 31, 2005. Plaintiffs charged that the defendants conspired to overstate the drug’s average wholesale price (“AWP”), which resulted in plaintiffs paying more for Lupron than they should have paid. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

11. Marchbanks Truck Service v. Comdata Network, No. 07-cv- 01078 (E.D. Pa.). In July 2014, the Court approved a $130 million settlement of a class action brought by truck stops and other retail fueling facilities that paid percentage-based transaction fees to Comdata on proprietary card transactions using Comdata’s over-the-road fleet card. The complaint challenged arrangements among Comdata, its parent company Ceridian LLC, and three national truck stop chains: defendants TravelCenters of America LLC and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and its predecessor Pilot Corporation, and Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. The alleged anticompetitive conduct insulated Comdata from competition, enhanced its market power, and led to independent truck stops’ paying artificially inflated transaction fees. In addition to the $130 million payment, the settlement required Comdata to change certain business practices that will promote competition among payment cards used by over-the-road fleets and truckers and lead to lower merchant fees for the independent truck stops. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in the litigation.

12. California Vitamins Cases, JCCP No. 4076 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Co-Chairman of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee on behalf of a class of California indirect vitamin purchasers in every level of the chain of distribution. In January 2002, the Court granted final approval of a $96 million settlement with certain vitamin manufacturers in a class action alleging that these and other manufacturers engaged in price fixing of particular vitamins. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to over $8.8 million in additional settlements.

1043044.1 - 84 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 100 of 149

13. In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1413 (S.D. N.Y.). In November 2003, Lieff Cabraser obtained a $90 million cash settlement for individual consumers, consumer organizations, and third party payers that purchased BuSpar, a drug prescribed to alleviate symptoms of anxiety. Plaintiffs alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS), Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc. entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade under which BMS paid a potential generic manufacturer of BuSpar to drop its challenge to BMS’ patent and refrain from entering the market. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel.

14. Meijer v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. C 07-5985 CW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel for the group of retailers charging that Abbott Laboratories monopolized the market for AIDS medicines used in conjunction with Abbott’s prescription drug Norvir. These drugs, known as Protease Inhibitors, have enabled patients with HIV to fight off the disease and live longer. In January 2011, the Court denied Abbott’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ monopolization claim. Trial commenced in February 2011. After opening statements and the presentation of four witnesses and evidence to the jury, plaintiffs and Abbott Laboratories entered into a $52 million settlement. The Court granted final approval to the settlement in August 2011.

15. In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075 (N.D. Ga.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel and a member of the trial team for a class of direct purchasers of twenty-ounce level loop polypropylene carpet. Plaintiffs, distributors of polypropylene carpet, alleged that Defendants, seven manufacturers of polypropylene carpet, conspired to fix the prices of polypropylene carpet by agreeing to eliminate discounts and charge inflated prices on the carpet. In 2001, the Court approved a $50 million settlement of the case.

16. In re Lasik/PRK Antitrust Litigation, No. CV 772894 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in class actions brought on behalf of persons who underwent Lasik/PRK eye surgery. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, the manufacturers of the laser system used for the laser vision correction surgery, manipulated fees charged to ophthalmologists and others who performed the surgery, and that the overcharges were passed onto consumers who paid for laser vision correction surgery. In December 2001, the Court approved a $12.5 million settlement of the litigation.

17. Methionine Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 4090 & 4096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of methionine, an amino acid used primarily as a poultry and swine feed additive to enhance growth and production. Plaintiffs alleged that the

1043044.1 - 85 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 101 of 149

companies illegally conspired to raise methionine prices to super- competitive levels. The case settled.

18. In re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1514 (D.N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represented the City and County of San Francisco and a class of direct purchasers of carbon brushes and carbon collectors on claims that producers fixed the price of carbon brushes and carbon collectors in violation of the Sherman Act.

VII. Environmental and Toxic Exposures

A. Current Cases

1. In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Court- appointed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) and with co-counsel represents fishermen, property owners, business owners, wage earners, and other harmed parties in class action litigation against BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other defendants involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout and resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010. The Master Complaints allege that the defendants were insouciant in addressing the operations of the well and the oil rig, ignored warning signs of the impending disaster, and failed to employ and/or follow proper safety measures, worker safety laws, and environmental protection laws in favor of cost-cutting measures.

In 2012, the Court approved two class action settlements that will fully compensate hundreds of thousands of victims of the tragedy. The settlements resolve the majority of private economic loss, property damage, and medical injury claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and hold BP fully accountable to individuals and businesses harmed by the spill. Under the settlements, there is no dollar limit on the amount BP will pay. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of BP’s challenge to its own class action settlement. Approval of that settlement is now final, and has so far delivered $11 billion to compensate claimants’ losses. The medical settlement is also final, and an additional $1 billion settlement has been reached with defendant Halliburton.

2. Andrews, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, et al., No. 2:15- cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser is Court-appointed Class Counsel in this action arising from an oil spill in Santa Barbara County in May 2015. A pipeline owned by Plains ruptured, and oil from the pipeline flowed into the Pacific Ocean, soiling beaches and impacting local fisheries. Lieff Cabraser represents homeowners who lost the use of the beachfront amenity for which they pay a premium, local oil platform workers who were laid off as a result of the spill and subsequent closure of

1043044.1 - 86 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 102 of 149

the pipeline, as well as fishers whose catch was impacted by the oil spill. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not follow basic safety protocols when they installed the pipeline, failed to properly monitor and maintain the pipeline, ignored clear signs that the pipeline was corroded and in danger of bursting, and failed to promptly respond to the oil spill when the inevitable rupture occurred.

The Federal District Court recently certified a plaintiff class composed of fishers whose catch diminished as a result of the spill and fish industry businesses that were affected as a result of the decimated fish population. Lieff Cabraser has recently filed a motion to certify additional classes of groups harmed by the spill, including private property owners and lessees near the soiled shoreline, and oil industry workers and businesses that suffered economic injuries associated with the closure of the pipeline.

3. Southern California Gas Leak Cases, JCCP No. 4861. Lieff Cabraser has been selected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court to help lead two important class action cases on behalf of homeowners and businesses that suffered economic injuries in the wake of the massive Porter Ranch gas leak, which began in October of 2015 and lasted into February of 2016. During this time, huge quantities of natural gas spewed out of an old well at Southern California Gas’s Aliso Canyon Facility and into the air of Porter Ranch, a neighborhood located adjacent to the Facility and 25 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

This large-scale environmental disaster forced thousands of residents to leave their homes for months on end while the leak continued and for several months thereafter. It also caused local business to dry up during the busy holiday season, as many residents had evacuated the neighborhood and visitors avoided the area. Evidence suggests the leak was caused by at least one old and malfunctioning well used to inject and retrieve gas. Southern California Gas Company allegedly removed the safety valve on the well that could have prevented the leak. As a result, the gas leak has left a carbon footprint larger than the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Together with other firms chosen to pursue class relief for these victims, Lieff Cabraser has filed two class action complaints—one on behalf of Porter Ranch homeowners and another on behalf of Porter Ranch businesses. Southern California Gas has argued in response that the injuries suffered by homeowners and businesses cannot proceed as class actions, and separately, that businesses cannot recover their economic losses resulting from the leak. In May 2017, the Superior Court rejected all of these arguments. The class action cases are proceeding with discovery into Southern California Gas Company’s role in this disaster.

1043044.1 - 87 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 103 of 149

B. Successes

1. In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, No. 3:89-cv-0095 HRH (D. Al.). The Exxon Valdez ran aground on March 24, 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. Lieff Cabraser served as one of the Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel. The class consisted of fisherman and others whose livelihoods were gravely affected by the disaster. In addition, Lieff Cabraser served on the Class Trial Team that tried the case before a jury in federal court in 1994. The jury returned an award of $5 billion in punitive damages.

In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the original $5 billion punitive damages verdict was excessive. In 2002, U.S. District Court Judge H. Russell Holland reinstated the award at $4 billion. Judge Holland stated that, “Exxon officials knew that carrying huge volumes of crude oil through Prince William sound was a dangerous business, yet they knowingly permitted a relapsed alcoholic to direct the operation of the Exxon Valdez through Prince William Sound.” In 2003, the Ninth Circuit again directed Judge Holland to reconsider the punitive damages award under United States Supreme Court punitive damages guidelines. In January 2004, Judge Holland issued his order finding that Supreme Court authority did not change the Court’s earlier analysis.

In December 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling, setting the punitive damages award at $2.5 billion. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court further reduced the punitive damages award to $507.5 million, an amount equal to the compensatory damages. With interest, the total award to the plaintiff class was $977 million.

2. In re Imprelis Herbicide Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2284 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for homeowners, golf course companies and other property owners in a nationwide class action lawsuit against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (“DuPont”), charging that its herbicide Imprelis caused widespread death among trees and other non- targeted vegetation across the country. DuPont marketed Imprelis as an environmentally friendly alternative to the commonly used 2,4-D herbicide. Just weeks after Imprelis’ introduction to the market in late 2010, however, complaints of tree damage began to surface. Property owners reported curling needles, severe browning, and dieback in trees near turf that had been treated with Imprelis. In August 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the sale of Imprelis.

The complaint charged that DuPont failed to disclose the risks Imprelis posed to trees, even when applied as directed, and failed to provide instructions for the safe application of Imprelis. In response to the litigation, DuPont created a process for property owners to submit claims

1043044.1 - 88 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 104 of 149

for damages. Approximately $400 million was paid to approximately 25,000 claimants. In October 2013, the Court approved a settlement of the class action that substantially enhanced the DuPont claims process, including by adding an extended warranty, a more limited release of claims, the right to appeal the denial of claim by DuPont to an independent arborist, and publication of DuPont’s tree payment schedule.

3. In re GCC Richmond Works Cases, JCCP No. 2906 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Lead Class Counsel in coordinated litigation arising out of the release on July 26, 1993, of a massive toxic sulfuric acid cloud which injured an estimated 50,000 residents of Richmond, California. The Coordination Trial Court granted final approval to a $180 million class settlement for exposed residents.

4. In re Unocal Refinery Litigation, No. C 94-04141 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as one of two Co-Lead Class Counsel and on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this action against Union Oil Company of California (“Unocal”) arising from a series of toxic releases from Unocal’s San Francisco refinery in Rodeo, California. The action was settled in 1997 on behalf of approximately 10,000 individuals for $80 million.

5. West v. G&H Seed Co., et al., No. 99-C-4984-A (La. State Ct.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented a certified class of 1,500 Louisiana crawfish farmers who charged in a lawsuit that Fipronil, an insecticide sold under the trade name ICON, damaged their pond-grown crawfish crops. In Louisiana, rice and crawfish are often farmed together, either in the same pond or in close proximity to one another.

After its introduction to the market in 1999, ICON was used extensively in Louisiana to kill water weevils that attacked rice plants. The lawsuit alleged that ICON also had a devastating effect on crawfish harvests with some farmers losing their entire crawfish crop. In 2004, the Court approved a $45 million settlement with Bayer CropScience, which during the litigation purchased Aventis CropScience, the original manufacturer of ICON. The settlement was reached after the parties had presented nearly a month’s worth of evidence at trial and were on the verge of making closing arguments to the jury.

6. Kingston, Tennessee TVA Coal Ash Spill Litigation, No. 3:09-cv- 09 (E.D. Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser represented hundreds of property owners and businesses harmed by the largest coal ash spill in U.S. history. On December 22, 2008, more than a billion gallons of coal ash slurry spilled when a dike burst on a retention pond at the Kingston Fossil Plant operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in Roane County, Tennessee. A wall of coal ash slurry traveled across the Emory River, polluting the river and nearby waterways, and covering nearly 300 acres

1043044.1 - 89 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 105 of 149

with toxic sludge, including 12 homes and damaging hundreds of properties. In March 2010, the Court denied in large part TVA’s motion to dismiss the litigation. In the Fall of 2011, the Court conducted a four week bench trial on the question of whether TVA was liable for releasing the coal ash into the river system. The issue of damages was reserved for later proceedings. In August 2012, the Court found in favor of plaintiffs on their claims of negligence, trespass, and private nuisance. In August 2014, the case came to a conclusion with TVA’s payment of $27.8 million to settle the litigation.

7. In re Sacramento River Spill Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 2617 & 2620 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). On July 14, 1991, a Southern Pacific train tanker car derailed in northern California, spilling 19,000 gallons of a toxic pesticide, metam sodium, into the Sacramento River near the town of Dunsmir at a site along the rail lines known as the Cantara Loop. The metam sodium mixed thoroughly with the river water and had a devastating effect on the river and surrounding ecosystem. Within a week, every fish, 1.1 million in total, and all other aquatic life in a 45-mile stretch of the Sacramento River was killed. In addition, many residents living along the river became ill with symptoms that included headaches, shortness of breath, and vomiting. The spill considered the worst inland ecological disaster in California history.

Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Lead Class Counsel, and chaired the Plaintiffs’ Litigation Committee in coordinated proceedings that included all of the lawsuits arising out of this toxic spill. Settlement proceeds of approximately $16 million were distributed pursuant to Court approval of a plan of allocation to four certified plaintiff classes: personal injury, business loss, property damage/diminution, and evacuation.

8. Kentucky Coal Sludge Litigation, No. 00-CI-00245 (Cmmw. Ky.). On October 11, 2000, near Inez, Kentucky, a coal waste storage facility ruptured, spilling 1.25 million tons of coal sludge (a wet mixture produced by the treatment and cleaning of coal) into waterways in the region and contaminating hundreds of properties. This was one of the worst environmental disasters in the Southeastern United States. With co- counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented over 400 clients in property damage claims, including claims for diminution in the value of their homes and properties. In April 2003, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement on favorable terms to the plaintiffs.

9. Toms River Childhood Cancer Incidents, No. L-10445-01 MT (Sup. Ct. NJ). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented 69 families in Toms River, New Jersey, each with a child having cancer, that claimed the cancers were caused by environmental contamination in the Toms River

1043044.1 - 90 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 106 of 149

area. Commencing in 1998, the parties—the 69 families, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Union Carbide and United Water Resources, Inc., a water distributor in the area—participated in an unique alternative dispute resolution process, which lead to a fair and efficient consideration of the factual and scientific issues in the matter. In December 2001, under the supervision of a mediator, a confidential settlement favorable to the families was reached.

VIII. False Claims Act

A. Current Cases

Lieff Cabraser represents whistleblowers in a wide range of False Claims Act cases, including Medicare kickback and healthcare fraud, defense contractor fraud, and securities and financial fraud. We have more than a dozen whistleblower cases currently under seal and investigation in federal and state jurisdictions across the U.S. For that reason, we do not list all of our current False Claims Act and qui tam cases in our resume.

1. United States ex rel. Matthew Cestra v. Cephalon, No. 14-01842 (E.D. Pa.); United States ex rel. Bruce Boise et al. v. Cephalon, No. 08-287 (E.D. Pa.) Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represents four whistleblowers bringing claims on behalf of the U.S. Government and various states under the federal and state False Claims Acts against Cephalon, Inc., a pharmaceutical company. The complaints allege that Cephalon has engaged in unlawful off-label marketing of certain of its drugs, largely through misrepresentations, kickbacks, and other unlawful or fraudulent means, causing the submission of hundreds of thousands of false claims for reimbursement to federal and state health care programs. The Boise case involves Provigil and its successor drug Nuvigil, limited- indication wakefulness drugs that are unsafe and/or not efficacious for the wide array of off-label psychiatric and neurological conditions for which Cephalon has marketed them, according to the allegations. The Cestra case involves an expensive oncological drug called Treanda, which is approved only for second-line treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma despite what the relators allege to be the company’s off-label marketing of the drug for first-line treatment. Various motions are pending.

B. Successes

1. United States ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of Phoenix, No. 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser obtained a record whistleblower settlement against the University of Phoenix that charged the university had violated the incentive compensation ban of the Higher Education Act (HEA) by providing improper incentive pay to its recruiters. The HEA prohibits

1043044.1 - 91 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 107 of 149

colleges and universities whose students receive federal financial aid from paying their recruiters based on the number of students enrolled, which creates a risk of encouraging recruitment of unqualified students who, Congress has determined, are more likely to default on their loans. High student loan default rates not only result in wasted federal funds, but the students who receive these loans and default are burdened for years with tremendous debt without the benefit of a college degree.

The complaint alleged that the University of Phoenix defrauded the U.S. Department of Education by obtaining federal student loan and Pell Grant monies from the federal government based on false statements of compliance with HEA. In December 2009, the parties announced a $78.5 million settlement. The settlement constitutes the second-largest settlement ever in a False Claims Act case in which the federal government declined to intervene in the action and largest settlement ever involving the Department of Education. The University of Phoenix case led to the Obama Administration passing new regulations that took away the so-called “safe harbor” provisions that for-profit universities relied on to justify their alleged recruitment misconduct. For his outstanding work as Lead Counsel and the significance of the case, California Lawyer magazine recognized Lieff Cabraser attorney Robert J. Nelson with a California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) Award.

2. State of California ex rel. Sherwin v. Office Depot, No. BC410135 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). In February 2015, the Court approved a $77.5 million settlement with Office Depot to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought under the California False Claims Act. The whistleblower was a former Office Depot account manager. The City of Los Angeles, County of Santa Clara, Stockton Unified School District, and 16 additional California cities, counties, and school districts intervened in the action to assert their claims (including common-law fraud and breach of contract) against Office Depot directly. The governmental entities purchased office supplies from Office Depot under a nationwide supply contract known as the U.S. Communities contract. Office Depot promised in the U.S. Communities contract to sell office supplies at its best governmental pricing nationwide. The complaint alleged that Office Depot repeatedly failed to give most of its California governmental customers the lowest price it was offering other governmental customers. Other pricing misconduct was also alleged.

3. State of California ex rel. Rockville Recovery Associates v. Multiplan, No. 34-2010-00079432 (Sacramento Supr. Ct., Cal.). In a case that received widespread media coverage, Lieff Cabraser represented whistleblower Rockville Recovery Associates in a qui tam suit for civil penalties under the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFPA”), Cal. Insurance Code § 1871.7, against Sutter Health, one of California’s

1043044.1 - 92 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 108 of 149

largest healthcare providers, and obtained the largest penalty ever imposed under the statute. The parties reached a $46 million settlement that was announced in November 2013, shortly before trial was scheduled to commence.

The complaint alleged that the 26 Sutter hospitals throughout California submitted false, fraudulent, or misleading charges for anesthesia services (separate from the anesthesiologist’s fees) during operating room procedures that were already covered in the operating room bill.

After Lieff Cabraser defeated Sutter Health’s demurrer and motion to compel arbitration, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones intervened in the litigation in May 2011. Lieff Cabraser attorneys continued to serve as lead counsel, and litigated the case for over two more years. In all, plaintiffs defeated no less than 10 dispositive motions, as well as three writ petitions to the Court of Appeals.

In addition to the monetary recovery, Sutter Health agreed to a comprehensive series of billing and transparency reforms, which California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones called “a groundbreaking step in opening up hospital billing to public scrutiny.” On the date the settlement was announced, the California Hospital Association recognized its significance by issuing a press release stating that the settlement “compels industry-wide review of anesthesia billing.” Defendant Multiplan, Inc., a large leased network Preferred Provider Organization, separately paid a $925,000 civil penalty for its role in enabling Sutter’s alleged false billing scheme.

4. United States ex rel. Dye v. ATK Launch Systems, No. 1:06-CV- 39-TS (D. Utah). Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel for a whistleblower who alleged that ATK Launch Systems knowingly sold defective and potentially dangerous illumination flares to the United States military in violation of the federal False Claims Act. The specialized flares were used in nighttime combat, covert missions, and search and rescue operations. A key design specification set by the Defense Department was that these highly flammable and dangerous items ignite only under certain conditions. The complaint alleged that the ATK flares at issue could ignite when dropped from a height of less than 10 feet – and, according to ATK’s own analysis, from as little as 11.6 inches – notwithstanding contractual specifications that they be capable of withstanding such a drop. In April 2012, the parties reached a settlement valued at $37 million.

5. United States ex rel. Mauro Vosilla and Steven Rossow v. Avaya, Inc., No. CV04-8763 PA JTLx (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented a whistleblower in litigation alleging that defendants Avaya, Lucent Technologies, and AT&T violated the Federal False Claims Act and state false claims statutes. The complaint alleged that defendants charged

1043044.1 - 93 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 109 of 149

governmental agencies for the lease, rental, and post-warranty maintenance of telephone communications systems and services that the governmental agencies no longer possessed and/or were no longer maintained by defendants. In November 2010, the parties entered into a $21.75 million settlement of the litigation.

6. State of California ex rel. Associates Against FX Insider State Street Corp., No. 34-2008-00008457 (Sacramento Supr. Ct., Cal.) (“State Street I”). Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel for the whistleblowers in this action against State Street Corporation. The Complaint alleged that State Street violated the California False Claims Act with respect to certain foreign exchange transactions it executed with two California public pension fund custodial clients. The California Attorney General intervened in the case in October 2009.

IX. Digital Privacy and Data Security

A. Current Cases

1. In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, No. 3:10-md-021784-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents individuals whose right to privacy was violated when Google intentionally equipped its Google Maps “Street View” vehicles with Wi-Fi antennas and software that collected data transmitted by those persons’ Wi-Fi networks located in their nearby homes. Google collected not only basic identifying information about individuals’ Wi-Fi networks, but also personal, private data being transmitted over their Wi-Fi networks such as emails, usernames, passwords, videos, and documents. Plaintiffs allege that Google’s actions violated the federal Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. On September 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Google’s actions are not exempt from the Act.

2. Campbell v. Facebook, No. 4:13-cv-05996 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that Facebook intercepts certain private data in users’ personal and private messages on the social network and profits by sharing that information with third parties. When a user composes a private Facebook message and includes a link (a “URL”) to a third party website, Facebook allegedly scans the content of the message, follows the URL, and searches for information to profile the message-sender’s web activity. This enables Facebook to data mine aspects of user data and profit from that data by sharing it with advertisers, marketers, and other data aggregators. In December 2014, the Court in large part denied Facebook’s motion to dismiss. In rejecting one of Facebook’s core arguments, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton stated: “An electronic communications service provider cannot simply adopt any revenue-generating practice and

1043044.1 - 94 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 110 of 149

deem it ‘ordinary’ by its own subjective standard.” In August of 2017, Judge Hamilton granted final approval to an injunctive relief settlement of the action. As part of the settlement, Facebook has ceased the offending practices and has made changes to its operative relevant user disclosures.

3. In re Carrier IQ Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2330 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents a plaintiff in Multi-District Litigation against Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC, and Carrier IQ alleging that smartphone manufacturers violated privacy laws by installing tracking software, called IQ Agent, on millions of cell phones and other mobile devices that use the Android operating system. Without notifying users or obtaining consent, IQ Agent tracks users’ keystrokes, passwords, apps, text messages, photos, videos, and other personal information and transmits this data to cellular carriers. In a 96-page order issued in January 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen granted in part, and denied in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss. Importantly, the Court permitted the core Wiretap Act claim to proceed as well as the claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the California Unfair Competition Law and breach of the common law duty of implied warranty.

4. Diaz v. Intuit, No. 5:15-CV-01778-PSG (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents identity theft victims in a nationwide class action lawsuit against Intuit for allegedly failing to protect consumers’ data from foreseeable and preventable breaches, and by facilitating the filing of fraudulent tax returns through its TurboTax software program. The complaint alleges that Intuit failed to protect data provided by consumers who purchased TurboTax, used to file an estimated 30 million tax returns for American taxpayers every year, from easy access by hackers and other cybercriminals. The complaint further alleges that Intuit was aware of the widespread use of TurboTax exclusively for the filing of fraudulent tax returns. Yet, Intuit failed to adopt basic cyber security policies to prevent this misuse of TurboTax. As a result, fraudulent tax returns were filed in the names of the plaintiffs and thousands of other individuals across America, including persons who never purchased TurboTax.

5. Henson v. Turn, No. 3:15-CV-01497 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents plaintiffs in class action litigation alleging that internet marketing company Turn, Inc. violates users’ digital privacy by installing software tracking beacons on smartphones, tablets, and other mobile computing devices. The complaint alleges that in an effort to thwart standard privacy settings and features, Turn deploys so-called “zombie cookies” that cannot be detected or deleted, and that track smartphone activity across various browsers and applications. Turn uses the data harvested by these cookies to build robust user profiles and sell targeted and profitable advertising, all without the user’s knowledge or consent.

1043044.1 - 95 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 111 of 149

The complaint alleges that Turn’s conduct violates consumer protection laws and amounts to trespass.

6. McDowell v. CGI Group, No. 1:15-cv-01157-GK (D.D.C.). Lieff Cabraser represents individuals in class action litigation against CGI Group, Inc. and CGI Federal, Inc. (collectively “CGI”) for allegedly facilitating a data breach affecting more than 1,000 U.S. citizens. The U.S. government contracts with CGI to manage all U.S. passport application activities. Passport applicants must provide their name, date of birth, city of birth, state of birth, country of birth, social security number, sex, height, hair color, eye color, occupation, and evidence of U.S. citizenship, such as a previously issued U.S. passport, or U.S. birth certificate. Between 2010 and May 2, 2015, CGI employees allegedly stole and sold personal information of passport applicants to cybercriminals. The mass identity theft allowed cybercriminals to use stolen information to buy cell phones and computers, and to obtain lines of credit. The complaint alleges that CGI failed to fulfill its legal duty to protect customers’ sensitive personal and financial information.

7. Fowles v. Anthem, No. 3:15-cv-2249 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents individuals in a class action lawsuit against Anthem for its alleged failure to safeguard and secure the medical records and other personally identifiable information of its members. The second largest health insurer in the U.S., Anthem provides coverage for 37.5 million Americans. Anthem’s customer database was allegedly attacked by international hackers on December 10, 2014. Anthem says it discovered the breach on January 27, 2015, and reported it about a week later on February 4, 2015. California customers were informed around March 18, 2015. The theft includes names, birth dates, social security numbers, billing information, and highly confidential health information. In addition, the complaint charges that Anthem was on notice about the weaknesses in its computer security defenses for at least a year before the breach occurred.

According to a September 2013 audit, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Inspector General found vulnerabilities that could provide “a gateway for malicious virus and hacking activity that could lead to data breaches.” The complaint charges that Anthem violated its duty to safeguard and protect consumers’ personal information, and violated its duty to disclose the breach to consumers in a timely manner. In August of 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh granted preliminary approval to a $115 million settlement of the case.

B. Successes

1. Ebarle et al. v. LifeLock Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00258 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who subscribed to LifeLock’s identity

1043044.1 - 96 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 112 of 149

theft protection services in a nationwide class action fraud lawsuit. The complaint alleged LifeLock did not protect the personal information of its subscribers from hackers and criminals, and specifically that, contrary to its advertisements and statements, LifeLock lacked a comprehensive monitoring network, failed to provide “up-to-the-minute” alerts of suspicious activity, and did an inferior job of providing the same theft protection services that banks and credit card companies provide, often for free. On September 21, 2016, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. granted final approval to a $68 million settlement of the case.

2. Perkins v. LinkedIn, No. 13-CV-04303-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented individuals who joined LinkedIn's network and, without their consent or authorization, had their names and likenesses used by LinkedIn to endorse LinkedIn's services and send repeated emails to their contacts asking that they join LinkedIn. On February 16, 2016, the Court granted final approval to a $13 million settlement, one of the largest per-class member settlements ever in a digital privacy class action. In addition to the monetary relief, LinkedIn agreed to make significant changes to Add Connections disclosures and functionality. Specifically, LinkedIn revised disclosures to real-time permission screens presented to members using Add Connections, agreed to implement new functionality allowing LinkedIn members to manage their contacts, including viewing and deleting contacts and sending invitations, and to stop reminder emails from being sent if users have sent connection invitations inadvertently.

3. Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, No. 2:14-CV-09660-RGK (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel in class action litigation against Sony for failing to take reasonable measures to secure the data of its employees from hacking and other attacks. As a result, personally identifiable information of thousands of current and former Sony employees and their families was obtained and published on websites across the Internet. Among the staggering array of personally identifiable information compromised were medical records, Social Security Numbers, birth dates, personal emails, home addresses, salaries, tax information, employee evaluations, disciplinary actions, criminal background checks, severance packages, and family medical histories. The complaint charges that Sony owed a duty to take reasonable steps to secure the data of its employees from hacking. Sony allegedly breached this duty by failing to properly invest in adequate IT security, despite having already succumbed to one of the largest data breaches in history only three years ago. In October 2015, an $8 million settlement was reached under which Sony will reimburse employees for losses and harm.

1043044.1 - 97 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 113 of 149

X. International and Human Rights Litigation

A. Successes

1. Holocaust Cases. Lieff Cabraser was one of the leading firms that prosecuted claims by Holocaust survivors and the heirs of Holocaust survivors and victims against banks and private manufacturers and other corporations who enslaved and/or looted the assets of Jews and other minority groups persecuted by the Nazi Regime during the Second World War era. The firm served as Settlement Class Counsel in the case against the Swiss banks for which the Court approved a U.S. $1.25 billion settlement in July 2000. Lieff Cabraser donated its attorneys’ fees in the Swiss Banks case, in the amount of $1.5 million, to endow a Human Rights clinical chair at Columbia University Law School. The firm was also active in slave labor and property litigation against German and Austrian defendants, and Nazi-era banking litigation against French banks. In connection therewith, Lieff Cabraser participated in multinational negotiations that led to Executive Agreements establishing an additional approximately U.S. $5 billion in funds for survivors and victims of Nazi persecution.

Commenting on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the litigation against private German corporations, entitled In re Holocaust Era German Industry, Bank & Insurance Litigation (MDL No. 1337), U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler stated on November 13, 2002:

Up until this litigation, as far as I can tell, perhaps with some minor exceptions, the claims of slave and forced labor fell on deaf ears. You can say what you want to say about class actions and about attorneys, but the fact of the matter is, there was no attention to this very, very large group of people by Germany, or by German industry until these cases were filed. . . . What has been accomplished here with the efforts of the plaintiffs’ attorneys and defense counsel is quite incredible. . . . I want to thank counsel for the assistance in bringing us to where we are today. Cases don’t get settled just by litigants. It can only be settled by competent, patient attorneys.

2. Cruz v. U.S., Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Wells Fargo Bank, et al., No. 01-0892-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Working with co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser succeeded in correcting an injustice that dated back 60 years. The case was brought on behalf of Mexican workers and laborers, known as Braceros (“strong arms”), who came from Mexico to the United States pursuant to bilateral agreements from 1942 through 1946 to aid American farms and industries hurt by employee shortages during World War II in the agricultural, railroad, and other industries. As part of the Braceros

1043044.1 - 98 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 114 of 149

program, employers held back 10% of the workers’ wages, which were to be transferred via United States and Mexican banks to savings accounts for each Bracero. The Braceros were never reimbursed for the portion of their wages placed in the forced savings accounts.

Despite significant obstacles including the aging and passing away of many Braceros, statutes of limitation hurdles, and strong defenses to claims under contract and international law, plaintiffs prevailed in a settlement in February 2009. Under the settlement, the Mexican government provided a payment to Braceros, or their surviving spouses or children, in the amount of approximately $3,500 (USD). In approving the settlement on February 23, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer stated:

I’ve never seen such litigation in eleven years on the bench that was more difficult than this one. It was enormously challenging. . . . It had all sorts of issues . . . that complicated it: foreign law, constitutional law, contract law, [and] statute of limitations. . . . Notwithstanding all of these issues that kept surfacing . . . over the years, the plaintiffs persisted. I actually expected, to tell you the truth, at some point that the plaintiffs would just give up because it was so hard, but they never did. They never did. And, in fact, they achieved a settlement of the case, which I find remarkable under all of these circumstances.

FIRM BIOGRAPHY:

PARTNERS

ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, Admitted to practice in California, 1978; U.S. Supreme Court, 1996; U.S. Tax Court, 1979; California Supreme Court, 1978; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1978; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1979; U.S. District Court, Central District of California and Southern District of California, 1992; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1994; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1979; U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1992; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986; Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2013. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law), Berkeley, California (J.D., 1978); University of California at Berkeley (A.B., 1975). Awards and Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; “Lifetime Achievement Award,” National Law Journal, 2017; “Plaintiff Lawyer of the Year,” Benchmark Litigation, 2017; selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in the fields of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs” and “Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs,” 2005-2017; “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” Benchmark Litigation, 2016-2017; “Top Plaintiff Lawyers,”

1043044.1 - 99 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 115 of 149

Daily Journal, 2016-2017; “Leader in the Field” for General Commercial Litigation (California); Product Liability – Plaintiffs (Nationwide), Chambers USA, 2017; “Energy and Environmental Law Trailblazer,” National Law Journal, 2017; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2004-2017; “California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2012-2017; “Litigator of the Week,” American Lawyer Litigation Daily, October 28, 2016; “25 Most Influential Women in Securities Law,” Law360, 2016 ; “MVP for Class Action Law,” Law360, 2016; “Judge Learned Hand Award,” American Jewish Committee, 2016; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, recognized in the category of Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Plaintiffs and Product Liability Litigation - Plaintiffs for San Francisco, 2014, 2016; “Top 10 Female Litigators,” Benchmark Litigation, 2016; “Women Trailblazers in the Law,” Senior Lawyers Division, American Bar Association, 2015 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America,” Benchmark Litigation, 2015; “Top Trial Lawyer,” Benchmark Litigation, 2016; “Top 100 Attorneys in California,” Daily Journal, 2002-2007, 2010-2015; “Top California Women Litigators,” Daily Journal, 2007- 2015; “Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America,” Lawdragon, 2005-2015; “Outstanding Women Lawyer,” National Law Journal, 2015; “Top 10 Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2011-2016; “Top 50 Female Northern California Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2005-2016; “Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2005- 2016; “Recommended Lawyer,” The Legal 500 (U.S. edition, 2000-2014); “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America,” The National Law Journal, 1997, 2000, 2006, & 2013; “Lifetime Achievement Award,” American Association for Justice, 2012; “Outstanding Achievement Award,” Chambers USA, 2012; “Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award,” American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, 2010; “Edward Pollock Award,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2008; “Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers,” Lawdragon, Winter 2007; “50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America,” The National Law Journal, 1998 & 2007; “Award For Public Interest Excellence,” University of San Francisco School of Law Public Interest Law Foundation, 2007; “Top 75 Women Litigators,” Daily Journal, 2005-2006; “Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America,” Lawdragon, 2006; “Distinguished Leadership Award,” Legal Community Against Violence, 2006; “Women of Achievement Award,” Legal Momentum (formerly the NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund), 2006; “Top 30 Securities Litigator,” Daily Journal, 2005; “Top 50 Women Litigators,” Daily Journal, 2004; “Citation Award,” University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law), 2003; “Distinguished Jurisprudence Award,” Anti-Defamation League, 2002; “Top 30 Women Litigators,” California Daily Journal, 2002; “Top Ten Women Litigators,” The National Law Journal, 2001; “Matthew O. Tobriner Public Service Award,” Legal Aid Society, 2000; “California Law Business Top 100 Lawyers,” California Daily Journal, 2000; “California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY),” California Lawyer, 1998; “Presidential Award of Merit,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 1998; “Public Justice Achievement Award,” Public Justice, 1997. Publications & Presentations: Editor-in-Chief, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure, LexisNexis (updated annually); “Punitive Damages,” Proving and Defending Damage Claims, Chapter 8, Aspen Publishers (updated annually); “Symposium: Enforcing the Social Contract through Representative Litigation,” 33 Connecticut Law Review 1239 (Summer 2011); “Apportioning Due Process: Preserving The Right to Affordable Justice,” 87 Denver U. L.Rev. 437 (2010); “Due Process Pre-Empted: Stealth Preemption As a Consequence of Agency Capture” (2010); “When Worlds Collide: The Supreme Court Confronts Federal Agencies with Federalism in Wyeth v. Levine,” 84 Tulane L. Rev. 1275 (2010); “Just Choose: The Jurisprudential Necessity to Select a Single Governing Law for Mass Claims Arising from

1043044.1 - 100 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 116 of 149

Nationally Marketed Consumer Goods and Services,” Roger Williams University Law Review (Winter 2009); “California Class Action Classics,” Consumer Attorneys of California (January/February Forum 2009); Executive Editor, ABA Section of Litigation, Survey of State Class Action Law, 2008-2010; Coordinating Editor, ABA Section of Litigation, Survey of State Class Action Law, 2006-2007; “The Manageable Nationwide Class: A Choice-of-Law Legacy of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,” University of Missouri- Kansas City Law Review, Volume 74, Number 3, Spring 2006; Co-Author with Fabrice N. Vincent, “Class Actions Fairness Act of 2005,” California Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2005); Co-Author with Joy A. Kruse, Bruce Leppla, “Selective Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California,” (pts. 1 & 2), Securities Litigation Report (West Legalworks May & June 2005); Editor-in-Chief, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (2003); “A Plaintiffs’ Perspective On The Effect of State Farm v. Campbell On Punitive Damages in Mass Torts” (May 2003); Co-Author, “Decisions Interpreting California’s Rules of Class Action Procedure,” Survey of State Class Action Law, updated and re-published in 5 Newberg on Class Actions (ABA 2001-2004); Co-Author, “Mass But Not (Necessarily) Class: Emerging Aggregation Alternatives Under the Federal Rules,” ABA 8th Annual National Institute on Class Actions, New York (Oct. 15, 2004), New Orleans (Oct. 29, 2004); Co-Author, “2004 ABA Toxicology Monograph-California State Law,” (January 2004); “Mass Tort Class Actions,” ATLA's Litigating Tort Cases, Vol. 1, Chapter 9 (June 2003); “Human Rights Violations as Mass Torts: Compensation as a Proxy for Justice in the United States Civil Litigation System”; Co-Author with Fabrice N. Vincent, “Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant Evidentiary Exclusions,” Mealey’s December Emerging Drugs Reporter (December 2002); Co-Author with Fabrice N. Vincent, “The Shareholder Strikes Back: Varied Approaches to Civil Litigation Claims Are Available to Help Make Shareholders Whole,” Mealey’s Emerging Securities Litigation Reporter (September 2002); Coordinating Editor and Co-Author of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2001-2002); “Unfinished Business: Reaching the Due Process Limits of Punitive Damages in Tobacco Litigation Through Unitary Classwide Adjudication,” 36 Wake Forest Law Review 979 (Winter 2001); “Symposium: Enforcing the Social Contract through Representative Litigation,” 33 Connecticut Law Review 1239 (Summer 2001); “Equity for the Victims, Equity for the Transgressor: The Classwide Treatment of Punitive Damages Claims,” 74 Tulane Law Review 2005 (June 2000); “Class Action Trends and Developments After Amchem and Ortiz,” in Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALI-ABA Course of Study 1999); Contributor/Editor, Moore’s Federal Practice (1999); Co-Author, “Preliminary Issues Regarding Forum Selection, Jurisdiction, and Choice of Law in Class Actions,” (December 1999); “Life After Amchem: The Class Struggle Continues,” 31 Loyola Law Review 373 (1998); “Recent Developments in Nationwide Products Liability Litigation: The Phenomenon of Non-Injury Products Cases, the Impact of Amchem and the Trend Toward State Court Adjudication,” Products Liability (ABA February 1998); Contributor/Editor, California Causes of Action (1998); “Beyond Bifurcation: Multi-Phase Structure in Mass Tort Class Actions,” Class Actions & Derivative Suits (Spring 1997); “The Road Not Taken: Thoughts on the Fifth Circuit’s Decertification of the Castano Class,” SB24 ALI-ABA 433 (1996); “Getting the Word Out: Pre-Certification Notice to Class Members Under Rule 23(d)(2),” Class Actions & Derivative Suits Newsletter (October 1995); “Mass Tort Class Action Settlements,” 24 CTLA Forum 11 (January-February 1994); “Do You Know the Way from San Jose? The Evolution of Environmental and Toxic Nuisance Class Actions,” Class Actions & Derivative Suits (Spring 1994); “An Oracle of Change? Realizing the

1043044.1 - 101 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 117 of 149

Potential of Emerging Fee Award Methodologies for Enhancing The Role and Control of Investors in Derivative and Class Action Suits,” Principles of Corporate Governance (ALI October 1994); “How To Streamline Complex Litigation: Tailor a Case Management Order to Your Controversy,” 21 The Brief 12 (ABA/TIPS Summer 1992); “The Applicability of the Fraud- On-The-Market Theory to Undeveloped Markets: When Fraud Creates the Market,” 12 Class Action Reports 402 (1989); “Mandatory Certification of Settlement Classes,” 10 Class Action Reports 151 (1987). Member: American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Fellow); American Association for Justice (Fight for Justice Campaign; Women Trial Lawyers Caucus; California State Liaison); American Bar Association (Committee on Mass Torts, Past Co-Chair; Committee on Class Actions and Derivative Suits; Tort and Insurance Practice Section; Rules & Procedures Committee, Past Vice-Chair; Civil Procedure & Evidence News Letter, Contributor; Business Law Section); American Law Institute (1993 - present; Council, 1999 - present; Adviser, the Restatement Third, Consumer Contracts project and the Restatement Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm; Members Consultative Group, the Restatement Third, Torts: Liability for Physical Harm; past Adviser, the Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments project and the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation project); Association of Business Trial Lawyers; Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit; Bar Association of San Francisco (Past President, Securities Litigation Section; Board of Directors, 1997 - 1998; Judiciary Committee); Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; California Constitution Revision Commission (1993 -1996); California Women Lawyers; Consumer Attorneys of California; Federal Bar Association; Federal Bar Association (Northern District of California Chapter); Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee (Appointed by Supreme Court, 2011); Lawyers Club of San Francisco; National Center for State Courts (Board Member; Mass Tort Conference Planning Committee); National Judicial College (Board of Trustees); Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (Lawyer Delegate, 1992 - 1995); Northern District of California Civil Justice Reform Act (Advisory Committee; Advisory Committee on Professional Conduct); Northern District of California Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) Advisory Committee; Public Justice Foundation; Queen’s Bench; State Bar of California.

RICHARD M. HEIMANN, Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, 1972; District of Columbia, 1974; California, 1975; New York, 2000; U.S. Supreme Court, 1980; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999; U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2015; U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 1973; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1975; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2005; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1985;U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006. Education: Georgetown University (J.D., 1972); Georgetown Law Journal, 1971-72; University of Florida (B.S.B.A., with honors, 1969). Prior Employment: Mr. Heimann served as Deputy District Attorney and Acting Assistant District Attorney for Tulare County, California, 1974-75, and as an Assistant Public Defender in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972-74. As a private civil law attorney, Mr. Heimann has tried over 30 civil jury cases, including complex cases such as the successful FPI/Agretech and Edsaco securities class action trials. In April 2002 in the Edsaco case, a federal jury in San Francisco, California returned a $170.7 million verdict against Edsaco Ltd., which included $165 million in punitive damages. Awards & Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Bet the Company Litigation,” “Litigation – Antitrust,” “Litigation – Securities,” and “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs,” 2007-2017; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, Litigation-Securities for

1043044.1 - 102 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 118 of 149

San Francisco, 2017; “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America,” Benchmark Litigation, 2017; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, Litigation-Securities for San Francisco, 2016; “California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2016; “Trial Ace,” Law360 (one of 50 attorneys in the U.S. recognized by Law360 in 2015 as the foremost trial lawyers in America); Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; "Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2013; “Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2011; California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) Award, California Lawyer, 2011, 2013; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009-2011; “Top 100 Attorneys in California,” Daily Journal, 2010-2011; “Top Attorneys In Securities Law,” Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2010, 2012; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2004-2017. Publications & Presentations: Securities Law Roundtable, California Lawyer (March 2013); Securities Law Roundtable, California Lawyer (September 2010); Securities Law Roundtable, California Lawyer (March 2009); Securities Law Roundtable, California Lawyer (April 2008); Securities Law Roundtable, California Lawyer (April 2007); Co-Author, “Preliminary Issues Regarding Forum Selection, Jurisdiction, and Choice of Law in Class Actions” (December 1999). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco.

WILLIAM BERNSTEIN, Admitted to practice in California, 1975; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1975; New York and U.S. Supreme Court, 1985; U.S. District Court, Central and Eastern Districts of California, 1991; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008. Education: University of San Francisco (J.D., 1975); San Francisco Law Review, 1974-75; University of Pennsylvania (B.A., general honors, 1972). Community Service: Adjunct Professor of Law, University of San Francisco, Settlement Law, 2006-present; Judge Pro Tem for San Francisco Superior Court, 2000-present; Marin Municipal Court, 1984; Discovery Referee for the Marin Superior Court, 1984-89; Arbitrator for the Superior Court of Marin, 1984-1990. Awards & Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; “California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Plaintiff (ranked as one of California’s leading litigators in antitrust law); Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in field of “Litigation - Antitrust,” 2013-2017; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2004- 2017; "Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist," Consumer Attorneys of California, 2014; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009-2011; “Top Attorneys In Antitrust Law,” Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2010, 2012; Princeton Premier Registry, Business Leaders and Professionals, 2008-2009; “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in California,” American Trial Lawyers Association, 2008; Who’s Who Legal, 2007; Unsung Hero Award, Appleseed, 2006. Publications & Presentations: “The Rise and Fall of Enron’s One-To-Many Trading Platform,” American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section, Annual Spring Meeting (2005); Co-Author with Donald C. Arbitblit, “Effective Use of Class Action Procedures in California Toxic Tort Litigation,” Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental and Toxic Torts Law and Policy, No. 3 (Spring 1996). Member: Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers; Bar Association of San Francisco; Marin County Bar Association (Admin. of Justice Committee, 1988); State Bar of California.

DONALD C. ARBITBLIT, Admitted to practice in Vermont, 1979; California and U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1986. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 1979); Order of the Coif; Tufts University (B.S.,

1043044.1 - 103 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 119 of 149

magna cum laude, 1974). Awards and Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Plaintiffs” and “Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs,” 2012-2017; Northern California Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2004, 2006-2008, 2014-2017; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009- 2011. Publications & Presentations: Co-Author with Wendy Fleishman, “The Risky Business of Off-Label Use,” Trial (March 2005); “Comment on Joiner: Decision on the Daubert Test of Admissibility of Expert Testimony,” 6 Mealey’s Emerging Toxic Torts, No. 18 (December 1997); Co-author with William Bernstein, “Effective Use of Class Action Procedures in California Toxic Tort Litigation,” 3 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3 (Spring 1996); “The Plight of American Citizens Injured by Transboundary River Pollution,” 8 Ecology Law Quarterly, No. 2 (1979). Appointments: Co-Chair, California JCCP Yaz Science Committee, 2010-Present; Member of the Federal Court-appointed Science Executive Committee, and Chair of the Epidemiology/Clinical Trials Subcommittee, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.); Member of the Federal Court-appointed Science and Expert Witness Committees in In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine /Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.), In re Baycol Products Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn.) and Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1348 (S.D.N.Y.). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco.

STEVEN E. FINEMAN, Managing Partner. Admitted to practice in California, 1989; U.S. District Court, Northern, Eastern and Central Districts of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1995; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1996; New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, 1997; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1997. Education: University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1988); University of California, San Diego (B.A., 1985); Stirling University, Scotland (English Literature and Political Science, 1983-84). Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in the fields of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs,” 2006-2017; “Super Lawyer for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2006-2017; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, recognized in the category of Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs for New York City, 2016; "New York Litigation Star," Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2016; Member, Best Lawyers Advisory Board, a select group of U.S. and international law firm leaders and general counsel, 2011-2012; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009-present; “Top Attorneys In Securities Law,” Super Lawyers Business Edition, 2008-present; Consultant to the Office of Attorney General, State of New York, in connection with an industry-wide investigation and settlement concerning health insurers’ use of the “Ingenix database” to determine usual and customary rates for out-of-network services, April 2008-February 2009; “100 Managing Partners You Need to Know,” Lawdragon, 2008; “40 Under 40,” selected as one of the country’s most successful litigators under the age of 40, The National Law Journal, 2002. Publications & Presentations: American Association for Justice, The Future of Class Actions: Teamwork, Savvy Defense, and Smart Offense, Panel Member, “Going on Offense: Developing a Proactive Plan” (May 11, 2017, Nashville, Tennessee); University of Haifa Faculty of Law, Dispute Resolution of Consumer Mass Disputes, Panelist, “The Role of the Lead Lawyer in Consumer Class Actions” (March 17, 2017, Haifa, Israel); Global Justice Forum, Presented by Robert L. Lieff – Moderator of Financial Fraud Litigation Panel and Participant on Financing of

1043044.1 - 104 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 120 of 149

Litigation Panel (October 4, 2011, Columbia Law School, New York, New York); The Canadian Institute, The 12th Annual Forum on Class Actions – Panel Member, Key U.S. and Cross-Border Trends: Northbound Impacts and Must-Have Requirements (September 21, 2011, Toronto, Ontario, Canada); Co-Author with Michael J. Miarmi, “The Basics of Obtaining Class Certification in Securities Fraud Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard, Rejecting Fifth Circuit’s ‘Loss Causation’ Requirement,” Bloomberg Law Reports (July 5, 2011); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Representing Plaintiffs in Large-Scale Litigation (March 2, 2011, Stanford, California); Stanford University Law School — Panel Member, Symposium on the Future of the Legal Profession, (March 1, 2011, Stanford, California); Stanford University Law School, Member, Advisory Forum, Center of the Legal Profession (2011-Present); 4th Annual International Conference on the Globalization of Collective Litigation — Panel Member, Funding Issues: Public versus Private Financing (December 10, 2010, Florida International University College of Law, Miami, Florida); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law,” Column, The Supreme Court’s Decisions in Iqbol and Twombly Threaten Access to Federal Courts (Winter 2010); American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Access to Justice in Federal Courts — Panel Member, The Iqbal and Twombly Cases (January 21, 2010, New York, New York); American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, The 13th Annual National Institute on Class Actions — Panel Member, Hydrogen Peroxide Will Clear It Up Right Away: Developments in the Law of Class Certification (November 20, 2009, Washington, D.C.); Global Justice Forum, Presented by Robert L. Lieff and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP — Conference Co-Host and Moderator of Mediation/Arbitration Panel (October 16, 2009, Columbia Law School, New York, New York); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts/U.S. Lawyers in Foreign Courts (April 6, 2009, Stanford, California); Consultant to the Office of Attorney General, State of New York, in connection with an industry-wide investigation and settlement concerning health insurers’ use of the “Ingenix database” to determine usual and customary rates for out-of-network services, April 2008-February 2009; Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts/U.S. Lawyers in Foreign Courts (April 16, 2008, Stanford, California); Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School, The American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, and Public Justice, Co-Organizer of conference and Master of Ceremonies for conference, Justice and the Role of Class Actions (March 28, 2008, New York, New York); Stanford University Law School and The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University, Conference on The Globalization of Class Actions, Panel Member, Resolution of Class and Mass Actions (December 13 and 14, 2007, Oxford, England); Editorial Board and Columnist, “Federal Practice for the State Court Practitioner,” New York State Trial Lawyers Association’s “Bill of Particulars,” (2005-present); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law,” Federal Multidistrict Litigation Practice (Fall 2007); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law,” Pleading a Federal Court Complaint (Summer 2007); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts (April 17, 2007, Palo Alto, California); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Law,” Initiating Litigation and Electronic Filing in Federal Court (Spring 2007); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law,” Column, Federal Court Jurisdiction: Getting to Federal Court By Choice or Removal (Winter 2007); American Constitution Society for Law and

1043044.1 - 105 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 121 of 149

Policy, 2006 National Convention, Panel Member, Finding the Balance: Federal Preemption of State Law (June 16, 2006, Washington, D.C.); Global Justice Forum, Presented by Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP — Conference Moderator and Panel Member on Securities Litigation (May 19, 2006, Paris, France); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Court (April 25, 2006, Stanford, California); Global Justice Forum, Presented by Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP — Conference Moderator and Speaker and Papers, The Basics of Federal Multidistrict Litigation: How Disbursed Claims are Centralized in U.S. Practice and Basic Principles of Securities Actions for Institutional Investors (May 20, 2005, London, England); New York State Trial Lawyers Institute, Federal Practice for State Practitioners, Speaker and Paper, Federal Multidistrict Litigation Practice, (March 30, 2005, New York, New York), published in “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law” (Spring 2005); Stanford University Law School, The Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation, Interdisciplinary Seminar on Conflict and Dispute Resolution, Guest Lecturer, In Search of “Global Settlements”: Resolving Class Actions and Mass Torts with Finality (March 16, 2004, Stanford, California); Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications and Conferences Group, Wall Street Forum: Mass Tort Litigation, Co-Chair of Event (July 15, 2003, New York, New York); Northstar Conferences, The Class Action Litigation Summit, Panel Member on Class Actions in the Securities Industry, and Paper, Practical Considerations for Investors’ Counsel - Getting the Case (June 27, 2003, Washington, D.C.); The Manhattan Institute, Center for Legal Policy, Forum Commentator on Presentation by John H. Beisner, Magnet Courts: If You Build Them, Claims Will Come (April 22, 2003, New York, New York); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s Courses on Complex Litigation, Selecting The Forum For a Complex Case — Strategic Choices Between Federal And State Jurisdictions, and Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR In Mass Tort Litigation, (March 4, 2003, Stanford, California); American Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Practice Section, Emerging Issues Committee, Member of Focus Group on Emerging Issues in Tort and Insurance Practice (coordinated event with New York University Law School and University of Connecticut Law School, August 27, 2002, New York, New York); Duke University and University of Geneva, “Debates Over Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective,” Panel Member on Mass Torts and Products Liability (July 21-22, 2000, Geneva, Switzerland); New York Law Journal, Article, Consumer Protection Class Actions Have Important Position, Applying New York’s Statutory Scheme (November 23, 1998); Leader Publications, Litigation Strategist, “Fen-Phen,” Articles, The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Fen-Phen Litigation and Daubert Developments: Something For Plaintiffs, Defense Counsel (June 1998, New York, New York); “Consumer Protection Class Actions Have Important Position, Applying New York’s Statutory Scheme,” New York Law Journal (November 23, 1998); The Defense Research Institute and Trial Lawyer Association, Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar, Article and Lecture, A Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Perspective: What’s the Next Horizon? (April 30, 1998, New York, New York); Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications and Conference Group, Mealey’s Tobacco Conference: Settlement and Beyond 1998, Article and Lecture, The Expanding Litigation (February 21, 1998, Washington, D.C.); New York State Bar Association, Expert Testimony in Federal Court After Daubert and New Federal Rule 26, Article and Lecture, Breast Implant Litigation: Plaintiffs’ Perspective on the Daubert Principles (May 23, 1997, New York, New York); Plaintiff Toxic Tort Advisory Council, Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications and Conferences Group (January 2002- 2005). Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association; American

1043044.1 - 106 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 122 of 149

Constitution Society (Board of Directors, 2016-present); Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Bar Association of the District of Columbia; Civil Justice Foundation (Board of Trustees, 2004-present); Fight for Justice Campaign; Human Rights First; National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (Executive Committee, 2009-present); New York State Bar Association; New York State Trial Lawyers Association (Board of Directors, 2001-2004); New York State Trial Lawyers Association’s “Bill of Particulars” (Editorial Board and Columnist, “Federal Practice for the State Court Practitioner,” 2005-present); Plaintiff Toxic Tort Advisory Council (Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications and Conferences Group, 2002-2005); Public Justice Foundation (President, 2011-2012; Executive Committee, July 2006-present; Board of Directors, July 2002-present); Co-Chair, Major Donors/Special Gifts Committee, July 2009- present; Class Action Preservation Project Committee, July 2005-present); State Bar of California; Supreme Court Historical Society.

ROBERT J. NELSON, Admitted to practice in California, 1987; California Supreme Court; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1995; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2016; District of Columbia, 1998; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio; U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 1987): Order of the Coif, Articles Editor, New York University Law Review; Root-Tilden-Kern Scholarship Program. Cornell University (A.B., cum laude 1982): Member, Phi Beta Kappa; College Scholar Honors Program. London School of Economics (General Course, 1980-81): Graded First. Prior Employment: Judicial Clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1987-88; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Northern District of California, 1988-93; Legal Research and Writing Instructor, University of California-Hastings College of the Law, 1989-91 (Part-time position). Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs” and “Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs,” 2012-2017; “California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2016; “Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2007, 2010, 2014- 2015; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013-Present; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009-2011; “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY)” Award, California Lawyer, 2008, 2010; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2004-2017; “San Francisco Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist,” San Francisco Trial Lawyers’ Association, 2007. Publications: False Claims Roundtable, California Lawyer (January 2013); False Claims Roundtable, California Lawyer (April 2012); False Claims Roundtable, California Lawyer (June 2011); False Claims Roundtable, California Lawyer (June 2010); Product Liability Roundtable, California Lawyer (March 2010); Product Liability Roundtable, California Lawyer (July 2009); “Class Action Treatment of Punitive Damages Issues after Philip Morris v. Williams: We Can Get There from Here,” 2 Charleston Law Review 2 (Spring 2008) (with Elizabeth J. Cabraser); Product Liability Roundtable, California Lawyer (December 2007); Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003); “The Importance of Privilege Logs,” The Practical Litigator, Vol. II, No. 2 (March 2000) (ALI-ABA Publication); “To Infer or Not to Infer a Discriminatory Purpose: Rethinking Equal Protection Doctrine,” 61 New York University Law Review 334 (1986). Member: American Association for Justice, Fight for Justice Campaign; American Bar Association; American Civil

1043044.1 - 107 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 123 of 149

Liberties Union of Northern California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Bar of the District of Columbia; Consumer Attorneys of California; Human Rights Watch California Committee North; RE-volv, Board Member; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association; State Bar of California.

KELLY M. DERMODY, Admitted to practice in California (1994); U.S. Supreme Court (2013); U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2012); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2010); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2001); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2008); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2006); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2007); U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (1995); U.S. District Court, Central District of California (2005); U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (2012); U.S. District Court of Colorado (2007). Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 1993); Moot Court Executive Board (1992-1993); Articles Editor, Industrial Relations Law Journal/Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law (1991-1992); Harvard University (A.B. magna cum laude, 1990), Senior Class Ames Memorial Public Service Award. Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Judge John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 1993-1994; Adjunct Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, Employment Law (Spring 2001). Awards & Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Employment Law – Individuals” and “Litigation – Labor and Employment,” 2010-2017; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, Employment Law-Individuals for San Francisco, 2017; “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” Benchmark Litigation, 2016-2017; “Top California Women Litigators,” Daily Journal, 2007, 2010, 2012-2017; “Gender Justice Honoree,” Equal Rights Advocates, 2017; “California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2016; Fellow, The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, 2015; “Top 100 Attorneys in California, Daily Journal, 2012-2015; “Top 75 Labor and Employment Attorneys in California,” Daily Journal, 2011-2015; “500 Leading Lawyers in America,” Lawdragon, 2010-2015; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2004-2017; “Top 50 Women Northern California Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2007-2015; “Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2007, 2009-2015; Distinguished Jurisprudence Award, Anti-Defamation League, 2014; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, recognized in the category of Employment Law – Individuals for San Francisco, 2014; “Top 10 Northern California Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers, 2014; “Dolores Huerta Adelita Award,” California Rural Assistance, 2013; “Recommended Lawyer,” The Legal 500 (U.S. edition, 2013); “Women of Achievement Award,” Legal Momentum (formerly the NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund), 2011; “Irish Legal 100” Finalist, The Irish Voice, 2010; “Florence K. Murray Award,” National Association of Women Judges, 2010 (for influencing women to pursue legal careers, opening doors for women attorneys, and advancing opportunities for women within the legal profession); “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2007-2009; “Community Service Award,” Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, 2008; “Community Justice Award,” Centro Legal de la Raza, 2008; “Award of Merit,” Bar Association of San Francisco, 2007; “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award,” California Lawyer, 2007; “500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in America,” Lawdragon, Winter 2007; “Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist,” Public Justice Foundation, 2007; “Consumer Attorney of the Year” Finalist, Consumer Attorneys of California, 2006; “California’s Top 20 Lawyers Under 40,” Daily Journal, 2006; “Living the Dream Partner,” Lawyers’

1043044.1 - 108 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 124 of 149

Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, 2005; “Top Bay Area Employment Attorney,” The Recorder, 2004. Member: American Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section (Governing Council, 2009-present; Co-Chair, Section Conference, 2008-2009; Vice-Chair, Section Conference, 2007-2008; Co-Chair, Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Legal Profession, 2006-2007); American Bar Association, Section of Litigation (Attorney Client Privilege Task Force, 2017-2018); Bar Association of San Francisco (Board of Directors, 2005- 2012; President, 2011-2012; President-Elect, 2010-2011; Treasurer, 2009-2010; Secretary, 2008-2009; Litigation Section; Executive Committee, 2002-2005); Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (Board of Directors, 1998-2005; Secretary, 1999-2003; Co-Chair, 2003-2005; Member, 1997-Present); Carver Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (Steering Committee, 2007); College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (Fellow, 2015); Consumer Attorneys of California; Equal Rights Advocates (Litigation Committee, 2000-2002); National Association of Women Judges (Independence of the Judiciary Co-Chair, 2011-2014; Resource Board, Co-Chair, 2009- 2011, Member, 2005-2014); National Center for Lesbian Rights (Board of Directors, 2002- 2008; Co-Chair, 2005-2006); National Employment Lawyers’ Association; Northern District of California Historical Society (Board of Directors, 2015- Present); Northern District of California Lawyer Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (2007-2010); Pride Law Fund (Board of Directors, 1995-2002; Secretary, 1995-1997; Chairperson, 1997-2002); Public Justice Foundation; State Bar of California.

JONATHAN D. SELBIN, Admitted to practice in California, 1994; District of Columbia, 2000; New York, 2001; U.S. Supreme Court, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2002; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2014; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1997; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1995; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, 2009; U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois, 2010; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2008; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2007; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1993); University of Michigan (B.A., summa cum laude, 1989). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1993-95. Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in field of “ Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs,” 2013-2017; Distinguished Service Award, American Association for Justice, 2016; “New York Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2016; “New York Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2006-2017; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: On Class Actions (2009); Contributing Author, “Ninth Circuit Reshapes California Consumer-Protection Law,” American Bar Association (July 2012); Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor-in-chief, 2003); “Bashers Beware: The Continuing Constitutionality of Hate Crimes Statutes After R.A.V.,” 72 Oregon Law Review 157 (Spring, 1993). Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association; District of Columbia Bar Association; Equal Justice Works, Board of Counselors; New York Advisory Board, Alliance for Justice; New York State Bar Association; New York State Trial Lawyers Association; State Bar of California.

1043044.1 - 109 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 125 of 149

MICHAEL W. SOBOL, Admitted to practice in Massachusetts, 1989; California, 1998; United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1990; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2005; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2011; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2010; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2012). Education: Boston University (J.D., 1989); Hobart College (B.A., cum laude, 1983). Prior Employment: Lecturer in Law, Boston University School of Law, 1995-1997. Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs” and “Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs,” 2013-2017; "Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Trailblazer," The National Law Journal, 2017 ; “Super Lawyer for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2012 – 2017; California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2015; “Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2013; “Top 100 Attorneys in California,” Daily Journal, 2012-2013; “Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist,” Public Justice, 2012; “Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2011; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, National Consumer Law Center’s 15th Annual Consumer Rights Litigation Conference, Class Action Symposium; Panelist, Continuing Education of the Bar (C.E.B.) Seminar on Unfair Business Practices—California’s Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and Beyond; Columnist, On Class Actions, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, 2005 to present; The Fall of Class Action Waivers (2005); The Rise of Issue Class Certification (2006); Proposition 64’s Unintended Consequences (2007); The Reach of Statutory Damages (2008). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California, Board of Governors, (2007-2008, 2009-2010); National Association of Consumer Advocates.

FABRICE N. VINCENT, Admitted to practice in California, 1992; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1992. Education: Cornell Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1992); University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1989). Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs,” “Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs,” and “Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs,” 2012-2017; “Super Lawyer for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2006–2017; "Outstanding Subcommittee Chair for the Class Actions & Derivative Suits," ABA Section of Litigation, 2013. Publications & Presentations: Lead Author, Citizen Report on Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) Hazards and Urgent Need to Improve Safety and Performance Standards; and Request for Urgent Efforts To Increase Yamaha Rhino Safety and Avoid Needless New Catastrophic Injuries, Amputations and Deaths, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (2009); Co-Author with Elizabeth J. Cabraser, “Class Actions Fairness Act of 2005,” California Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2005); Co-Editor, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (2003-06); Co-Author, “Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant Evidentiary Exclusions,” Mealey’s December Emerging Drugs Reporter (December 2002); Co-author, “The Shareholder Strikes Back: Varied Approaches to Civil Litigation Claims Are Available to Help Make Shareholders Whole,” Mealey’s Emerging Securities Litigation Reporter (September 2002); Co-Author, “Decisions Interpreting California’s Rules of Class Action Procedure,” Survey of State Class Action Law (ABA 2000-09), updated and re-published in 5 Newberg on Class

1043044.1 - 110 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 126 of 149

Actions (2001-09); Coordinating Editor and Co-Author of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2001-06); Co-Editor-In-Chief, Fen-Phen Litigation Strategist (Leader Publications 1998-2000); Author of “Off-Label Drug Promotion Permitted” (Oct. 1999); Co- Author, “The Future of Prescription Drug Products Liability Litigation in a Changing Marketplace,” and “Six Courts Certify Medical Monitoring Claims for Class Treatment,” 29 Forum 4 (Consumer Attorneys of California 1999); Co-Author, Class Certification of Medical Monitoring Claims in Mass Tort Product Liability Litigation (ALI-ABA Course of Study 1999); Co-Author, “How Class Proofs of Claim in Bankruptcy Can Help in Medical Monitoring Cases,” (Leader Publications 1999); Author, “AHP Loses Key California Motion In Limine,” (February 2000); Co-Author, Introduction, “Sanctioning Discovery Abuses in the Federal Court,” (LRP Publications 2000); “With Final Approval, Diet Drug Class Action Settlement Avoids Problems That Doomed Asbestos Pact,” (Leader Publications 2000); Author, “Special Master Rules Against SmithKline Beecham Privilege Log,” (November 1999). Member: American Association for Justice; Association of Business Trial Lawyers; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; American Bar Association; Fight for Justice Campaign; Association of Business Trial Lawyers; Society of Automotive Engineers.

DAVID S. STELLINGS, Admitted to practice in New York, 1994; New Jersey; 1994; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1994. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 1993); Editor, Journal of International Law and Politics; Cornell University (B.A., cum laude, 1990). Awards & Honors: “Super Lawyer for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2012-2017; “Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist,” Public Justice, 2012; “Lawdragon Finalist, Lawdragon, 2009. Member: New York State Bar Association; New Jersey State Association; Bar Association of the City of New York; American Bar Association.

ERIC B. FASTIFF, Admitted to practice in California, 1996; District of Columbia, 1997; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third, Ninth and Federal Circuit; U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California, District of Columbia; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin; U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Education: Cornell Law School (J.D., 1995); Editor-in-Chief, Cornell International Law Journal; London School of Economics (M.Sc.(Econ.), 1991); Tufts University (B.A., cum laude, magno cum honore in thesi, 1990). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Hon. James T. Turner, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 1995-1996; International Trade Specialist, Eastern Europe Business Information Center, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992. Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of “Litigation - Antitrust,” 2013-2017; “Top Plaintiff Lawyers,” Daily Journal, 2016-2017; “Leader in the Field” for Antitrust (California), Antitrust (National), Chambers USA, 2017; "California Litigation Star," Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2015; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2010-2017;”Top 100 Lawyers in California,” Daily Journal, 2013; “Top Attorneys in Business Law,” Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2012; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: General Editor, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures, (2003-2009); Coordinating Editor and Co-Author of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2003-2008); Author, “US Generic Drug Litigation Update,” 1 Journal of Generic Medicines 212 (2004); Author, “The Proposed Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments: A Solution to Butch Reynolds’s Jurisdiction and Enforcement Problems,” 28 Cornell International Law Journal

1043044.1 - 111 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 127 of 149

469 (1995). Member: American Antitrust Institute (Advisory Board, 2012-Present); Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws, President, 2017; Bar Association of San Francisco; Children’s Day School (Board of Trustees); District of Columbia Bar Association; Journal of Generic Medicines (Editorial Board Member, 2003-Present); State Bar of California; U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association.

WENDY R. FLEISHMAN, Admitted to practice in New York, 1992; Pennsylvania, 1977; U.S. Supreme Court, 2000; U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2010; U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, 2010; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, 2013; U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2012; U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 1999; U.S. District Court Northern District of New York, 1999; U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1995; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1984; U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit, March 5, 2014. Education: University of Pennsylvania (Post-Baccalaureate Pre-Med, 1982); Temple University (J.D., 1977); Sarah Lawrence College (B.A., 1974). Prior Employment: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York (Counsel in the Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Department), 1993-2001; Fox, Rothschild O’Brien & Frankel (partner), 1988-93 (tried more than thirty civil, criminal, employment and jury trials, and AAA arbitrations, including toxic tort, medical malpractice and serious injury and wrongful death cases); Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll (associate), 1984-88 (tried more than thirty jury trials on behalf of the defense and the plaintiffs in civil personal injury and tort actions as well as employment—and construction—related matters); Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, PA, 1977-84 (in charge of and tried major homicide and sex crime cases). Awards and Honors: Fellow, American Bar Foundation; “New York Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013- 2016; “New York Super Lawyers,” Super Lawyers, 2006-2017; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Officer of New York State Trial Lawyers Association, 2010-present; New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers, 2011; “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Moderator, “Jurisdiction: Defining State Courts’ Authority,” Pound Civil Justice Institute Judges Forum; Boston, MA, July 2017; Speaker, “Diversity in Mass Torts,” AAJ Education Programs, Boston, MA, July 2017; Speaker, “Mass Torts & Criminality,” JAMS Mass Torts Judicial Forum, New York, NY, April 2017; Speaker, “Settling Strategies for MDLs,” JAMS Mass Torts Judicial Forum, New York, NY, April 2016; Moderator & Chair, “Toxic, Environmental & Pharmaceutical Torts,” American Association for Justice Annual Convention, Baltimore, MD, July 2014; "Where Do You Want To Be? Don't Get Left Behind, Creating a Vision for Your Practice," Minority Caucus and Women Trial Lawyers Caucus (July 22, 2013); Editor, Brown & Fleishman, “Proving and Defending Damage Claims: A Fifty-State Guide” (2007-2010); Co-Author with Donald Arbitblit, “The Risky Business of Off-Label Use,” Trial (March 2005); Co-Author, “From the Defense Perspective,” Scientific Evidence, Chapter 6, Aspen Law Pub (1999); Editor, Trial Techniques Newsletter, Tort and Insurance Practices Section, American Bar Association (1995- 1996; 1993-1994); “How to Find, Understand, and Litigate Mass Torts,” NYSTLA Mass Torts Seminar (April 2009); “Ethics of Fee Agreements in Mass Torts,” AAJ Education Programs (July 2009). Appointments: Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, IVC Filters Litigation; Lead Counsel, Joint Coordinated California Litigation, Amo Lens Solution Litigation; Co-Liaison, In re Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Litigation; Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, DePuy ASR Hip

1043044.1 - 112 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 128 of 149

Implant Litigation; Liaison, NJ Ortho Evra Patch Product Liability Litigation; Co-Liaison, NJ Reglan Mass Tort Litigation; Co-Chair, Mealey’s Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference (2007); Executive Committee, In re ReNu MoistureLoc Product Liability Litigation, MDL; Discovery Chair, In re Guidant Products Liability Litigation; Co-Chair Science Committee, In re Baycol MDL Litigation; Pricing Committee, In re Vioxx MDL Litigation. Member: New York State Trial Lawyers Association (Treasurer, 2010-present; Board of Directors, 2004-Present); Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Product Liability Committee, 2007-present; Judiciary Committee, 2004-Present); American Bar Association (Annual Meeting, Torts & Insurance Practices Section, NYC, Affair Chair, 1997; Trial Techniques Committee, Torts and Insurance Practices, Chair-Elect, 1996); American Association for Justice (Board of Governors); American Association for Justice (Board of Governors, Women Trial Lawyers’ Caucus); Pennsylvania Bar Association (Committee on Legal Ethics and Professionalism, 1993-Present; Committee on Attorney Advertising, 1993-Present; Vice-Chair, Task Force on Attorney Advertising, 1991-92); State Bar of New York; Federal Bar Association; Member, Gender and Race Bias Task Force of the Second Circuit, 1994-present; Deputy Counsel, Governor Cuomo’s Screening Committee for New York State Judicial Candidates, 1993-94; New York Women’s Bar Association; New York County Lawyers; Fight for Justice Campaign; PATLA; Philadelphia Bar Association (Member of Committee on Professionalism 1991-92).

RACHEL GEMAN, Admitted to practice in New York, 1998; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, 1999; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2005; U.S. District Court of Colorado, 2007; U.S. Supreme Court, 2013. Education: Columbia University School of Law (J.D. 1997); Stone Scholar; Equal Justice America Fellow; Human Rights Fellow; Editor, Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems; Harvard University (A.B. cum laude 1993). Prior Employment: Adjunct Professor, New York Law School; Special Advisor, United States Mission to the United Nations, 2000; Law Clerk to Judge Constance Baker Motley, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1997-98. Awards & Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in field of “Employment Law – Individuals,” 2012-2017; “Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, recognized in the category of Employment Law – Individuals for San Francisco, 2014; "Super Lawyer for New York Metro," Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; “Rising Star for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2011; Distinguished Honor Award, United States Department of State, 2001. Publications & Presentations: Speaker and Moderator, “Statistics for Lawyers - Even Those Who Hate Math,” National Employment Lawyers Association Annual Convention (2015); Speaker, “Gender Pay Disparities: Enforcement, Litigation, and Remedies,” New York City Conference on Representing Employees (2015); Speaker, “Protecting Pay: Representing Workers With Wage and Hour Claims,” National Employment Lawyers Association (2015); Speaker and Author, “What Employment Lawyers Need to Know About Non-Employment Class Actions,” ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law Conference (2014); Moderator, “Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Issues,” National Employment Lawyers Association/New York (2014); Author, “Whistleblower Under Pressure,” Trial Magazine (April 2013); Panelist, “Class Certification Strategies: Dukes in the Rear View Mirror,” Impact Fund Class Action Conference (2013); Author & Panelist, “Who is an Employer Under the FLSA?” National Employment Lawyers Association Conference (2013); Panelist, “Fraud and Consumer Protection: Plaintiff and Defense Strategies,” Current Issues in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation, ABA

1043044.1 - 113 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 129 of 149

Section of Litigation (2012); Participant and Moderator, “Ask the EEOC: Current Insights on Enforcement and Litigation,” ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law (2011); Panelist, “Drafting Class Action Complaints,” New York State Bar Association (2011); Participant and Moderator, “Ask the EEOC: Current Insights on Enforcement and Litigation,” ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law (2011); The New York Employee Advocate, Co-Editor (2005- 2009), Regular Contributor (2008-present); Moderator, “Hot Topics in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions,” American Association for Justice Tele-Seminar (2010); Author & Panelist, “Class Action Considerations: Certification, Settlement, and More,” American Conference Institute Advanced Forum (2009); Panelist, “Rights Without Remedies,” American Constitutional Society National Convention, Revitalizing Our Democracy: Progress and Possibilities (2008); Panelist, Fair Measure: Toward Effective Attorney Evaluations, American Bar Association Annual Meeting (2008); Panelist, “Getting to Know You: Use and Misuse of Selection Devices for Hiring and Promotion,” ABA Labor & Employment Section Annual Meeting (2008); Author, “’Don’t I Think I Know You Already?’: Excessive Subjective Decision- Making as an Improper Tool for Hiring and Promotion,” ABA Labor & Employment Section Annual Meeting (2008); Author & Panelist, “Ethical Issues in Representing Workers in Wage & Hour Actions,” Representing Workers in Individuals & Collective Actions under the FLSA (2007); Author & Panelist, “Evidence and Jury Instructions in FLSA Actions,” Georgetown Law Center/ACL-ABA (2007); Author & Panelist, “Crucial Events in the ‘Life’ of an FLSA Collective Action: Filing Considerations and the Two-step ‘Similarly-Situated’ Analysis,” National Employment Lawyers Association, Annual Convention (2006); Author & Panelist, “Time is Money, Except When It’s Not: Compensable Time and the FLSA,” National Employment Lawyers Association, Impact Litigation Conference (2005); Panelist, “Electronic Discovery,” Federal Judicial Center & Institute of Judicial Administration, Workshop on Employment Law for Federal Judges (2005); “Image-Based Discrimination and the BFOQ Defense,” EEO Today: The Newsletter of the EEO Committee of the ABA’s Section of Labor and Employment Law, Vol. 9, Issue 1 (2004); “Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Exemptions: Proposed Regulatory Changes,” New York State Bar Association Labor and Employment Newsletter (2004); Chair & Panelist, “Current Topics in Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation,” Conference, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (2003); Moderator, “Workforce Without Borders,” ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law, EEOC Midwinter Meeting (2003). Member: American Bar Association [Labor and Employment Law Section, Standing Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (Member, Past Employee Co-Chair, 2009-2011)]; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; National Employment Lawyers’ Association - New York Chapter (Chair of Amicus Committee, 2017; Board Member, 2005-2011); National Employment Lawyers’ Association – National; Public Justice Foundation; Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund.

BRENDAN P. GLACKIN, Admitted to practice in California, 1998; New York, 2000; U.S. District Court, Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2004; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1998); University of Chicago (A.B., Phi Beta Kappa, 1995). Prior Employment: Contra Costa Public Defender, 2005-2007; Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 2000-2005; Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1999-2000; Law Clerk to Honorable William B. Shubb, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998-1999.

1043044.1 - 114 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 130 of 149

Awards & Honors: “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year,” California Lawyer, 2016. Member: State Bar of California; BASF Antitrust Section, Executive Committee. Seminars: Ramifications of American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 2010; Antitrust Institute 2011: Developments & Hot Topics, 2011; Antitrust Trials: The View From the Trenches, 2013; Applying Settlement Offsets to Antitrust Judgments, ABA Spring Meetings, 2013; California Trial Advocacy, PLI, 2013; Building Trial Skills, NITA, 2013.

MARK P. CHALOS, Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2012; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2000; U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2002; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2007; U.S. Supreme Court, 2012. Education: Emory University School of Law (J.D., 1998); Dean’s List; Award for Highest Grade, Admiralty Law; Research Editor, Emory International Law Review; Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity; Vanderbilt University (B.A., 1995). Honors & Awards: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs,” 2012-2017; American Bar Foundation Fellow, 2016; “Tennessee Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2013-2015; “Best of the Bar,” Nashville Business Journal, 2008-2010, 2015-2016; "Super Lawyer for Mid-South," Super Lawyers, 2011 - 2017; “Tennessee Top 100,” Super Lawyers, 2015; "Rising Star for Mid-South," Super Lawyers, 2008 - 2010; “Top 40 Under 40,” The Tennessean, 2004. Publications & Presentations: "Supreme Court Limits The Reach Of Alien Tort Statute In Kiobel," Legal Solutions Blog, April 2013; “The Rise of Bellwether Trials,” Legal Solutions Blog, March 2013; “Amgen: The Supreme Court Refuses to Erect New Class Action Bar,” Legal Solutions Blog, March 2013; “Are International Wrongdoers Above the Law?,” The Trial Lawyer Magazine, January 2013; “Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum: Supreme Court to Decide Role of US Courts Abroad,” ABA Journal, January 2013. “Legislation Protects the Guilty [in Deadly Meningitis Outbreak],” The Tennessean, December 2012; Litigating International Torts in United States Courts, 2012 ed., Thomson Reuters/West (2012); “Successfully Suing Foreign Manufacturers,” TRIAL Magazine, November 2008; “Washington Regulators Versus American Juries: The United States Supreme Court Shifts the Balance in Riegel v. Medtronic,” Nashville Bar Journal, 2008; “Washington Bureaucrats Taking Over American Justice System,” The Tennessean (December 2007); “The End of Meaningful Punitive Damages,” Nashville Bar Journal, November 2001; “Is Civility Dead?” Nashville Bar Journal, October 2003; “The FCC: The Constitution, Censorship, and a Celebrity Breast,” Nashville Bar Journal, April 2005. Member: American Bar Foundation (Fellow, 2016); American Association for Justice (Chair, Public Education Committee, 2015); American Bar Association (Past-Chair, YLD Criminal & Juvenile Justice Committee; Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Professionalism Committee); First Center for the Visual Arts (Founding Member, Young Professionals Program); Harry Phillips American Inn of Court; Kappa Chapter of Kappa Sigma Fraternity Alumni Association (President); Metropolitan Nashville Arts Commission (Grant Review Panelist); Nashville Bar Association (YLD Board of Directors; Nashville Bar Association YLD Continuing Legal Education and Professional Development Director); Nashville Bar Journal (Editorial Board); Tennessee Association for Justice (Board of Directors, 2008-2011; Legislative Committee); Tennessee Bar Association (Continuing Legal Education Committee); Tennessee Trial Lawyers

1043044.1 - 115 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 131 of 149

Association (Board of Directors); Historic Belcourt Theatre (Past Board Chair; Board of Directors); Nashville Cares (Board of Directors).

PAULINA do AMARAL, Admitted to practice in New York, 1997; California, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2004; U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2004; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2007. Education: University of California Hastings College of Law (J.D., 1996); Executive Editor, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; National Moot Court Competition Team, 1995; Moot Court Executive Board; University of Rochester (B.A., 1988). Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Judge Richard Alan Enslen, U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 1996-98. Awards & Honors: Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013. Member: Association of the Bar of the City of New York, (2007-2010, Committee on the Judiciary); American Bar Association; State Bar of New York; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; American Trial Lawyers Association; New York State Trial Lawyers Association.

KENNETH S. BYRD, Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 2004; U.S. District Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, 2009; U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2007; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2006; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2005. Education: Boston College Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2004), Law Student Association (President, 2003-2004), National Moot Court Team (Regional Champion, 2003- 2004), American Constitution Society (Secretary, 2002-2003), Judicial Process Clinic (2003), Criminal Justice Clinic (2003-2004); Samford University (B.S., cum laude, in Mathematics with Honors, minor in Journalism, 1995). Prior Employment: Harwell Howard Hyne Gabbert & Manner, P.C., 2004-2010; Summer Associate, Harwell Howard Hyne Gabbert & Manner, P.C., 2003; Summer Associate, Edward, Angell, Palmer, Dodger, LLP, 2003. Awards: “Paladin Award,” Tennessee Association for Justice, 2015; “Rising Star for Mid-South,” Super Lawyers, 2014. Member: American Bar Association; American Constitution Society, Nashville Chapter (Member & Chair of 2008 Supreme Court Preview Event); Camp Ridgecrest Alumni & Friends (Board Member); Harry Phillips American Inn of Court, Nashville Chapter (Associate Member, 2008-2010; Barrister, 2010-2014); Historic Edgefield, Inc. (President, 2009-2011); Nashville Bar Association; Tennessee Bar Association.

LIN Y. CHAN, Admitted to practice in California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2010; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2010. Education: Wellesley College (B.A. summa cum laude 2001); Stanford Law School (J.D. 2007); Editor-in-Chief, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; Fundraising Chair, Shaking the Foundations Progressive Lawyering Conference. Prior Employment: Associate, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (formerly Goldstein, Demchak Baller Borgen & Dardarian), 2008-2013; Law Clerk to Judge Damon J. Keith, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2007-2008; Clinic Student, Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, 2006-2007; Union Organizer, SEIU and SEIU Local 250, 2002-2004; Wellesley- Yenching Teaching Fellow, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001-2002. Awards & Honors: “Rising Star for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2015-2017. Presentations & Publications: Moderator, “Antitrust for HR: No-Poach and Wage Fixing Agreements,” Bar

1043044.1 - 116 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 132 of 149

Association of San Francisco (January 2018); Author, “Do Federal Associated General Contractors Standing Requirements Apply to State Illinois Brick Repealer Statutes?,” Business Torts & Rico News, Winter 2015; Panelist, “Federal and State Whistleblower Laws: What You Need to Know,” Asian American Bar Association (November 2014); Author, "California Supreme Court Clarifies State Class Certification Standards in Brinker,” American Bar Association Labor & Employment Law Newsletter (April 2013); Presenter, “Rule 23 Basics in Employment Cases,” Impact Fund’s 11th Annual Employment Discrimination Class Action Conference (February 2013); Chapter Author, The Class Action Fairness Act: Law and Strategies; Co-Author, “Clash of the Titans: Iqbal and Wage and Hour Class/Collective Actions,” BNA, Daily Labor Report, 80 DLR L-1 (April 2010); Chapter Co-Chair, Lindemann & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law Treatise, Fifth Edition; Chapter Monitor, Lindemann & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law Treatise 2010 Cumulative Supplement. Member: Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, Board Member, 2013 – Present, Annual Dinner Committee Co-Chair, 2015; Asian American Bar Association, Civil Rights Committee Co-Chair, 2011 - Present; American Bar Association, Fair and Impartial Courts Committee Vice-Chair, 2014 – Present; Bar Association of San Francisco; Public Justice; State Bar of California.

DANIEL P. CHIPLOCK, Admitted to practice in New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2011; U.S. Supreme Court, 2011. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D., 2000); Article Review Board, Stanford Environmental Law Journal; Recipient, Keck Award for Public Service; Columbia University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1994); Phi Beta Kappa. Awards & Honors: “Super Lawyer for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2016-2017. Member: State Bar of New York; American Association for Justice; Fight for Justice Campaign; Public Justice; National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (Executive Committee/Secretary); American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (Advocate’s Circle). Classes/Seminars: “Fraud on the Market,” Federal Bar Council, Feb. 25, 2014 (CLE panel participant).

DOUGLAS CUTHBERTSON, Admitted to practice in New York, 2008; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2017; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2015; U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2017; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2008; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2008; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2013; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013; U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2014; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014. Education: Fordham University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 2007); President, Fordham Law School Chapter of Just Democracy; Senior Articles Editor, Fordham Urban Law Journal; Fordham University School of Law Legal Writing Award, 2004-2005; Legal Writing Teaching Assistant, 2005-2006; Dean’s List, 2004-2007; Alpha Sigma Nu Jesuit Honor Society. Bowdoin College (B.A. summa cum laude, 1999), Sarah and James Bowdoin Scholar for Academic Excellence (1995-1999). Prior Employment: Associate, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, 2009-2012; Law Clerk to Honorable Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2007-2009. Awards & Honors: “Rising Star for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017. Member: Federal Bar Council; New York Civil Liberties Union, Board of Directors; New York State Bar Association.

1043044.1 - 117 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 133 of 149

NIMISH R. DESAI, Admitted to practice in California, 2006; US District Court, Northern District of California, 2007; Texas, 2017; US District Court, Central District of California, 2008; US District Court, Northern District of Florida, 2009; US District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2017; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2009. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 2006), Finalist and Best Brief, McBaine Moot Court Competition (2006), Moot Court Best Brief Award (2004); University of Texas, Austin, (B.S. & B.A., High Honors, 2002). Prior Employment: Extern, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, 2004; Researcher, Public Citizen, 2003; Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, 2001-2002. Awards & Honors: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in field of “Qui Tam Law,” 2016-2017; “Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2014; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; “Rising Star for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2012. Publications & Presentations: “BP, Exxon Valdez, and Class-Wide Punitive Damages,” 21 Class Action and Derivative Suit Committee Newsletter (Fall 2010); “American Chemistry Council v. Johnson: Community Right to Know, But About What? D.C. Circuit Takes Restrictive View of EPCRA,” 33 Ecology L.Q. 583 (Winter 2006); “Lessons Learned and Unlearned: A Case Study of Medical Malpractice Award Caps in Texas,” The Subcontinental, (Winter 2004, Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp. 81-87); “Separation of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Using Chemical Mass Balancing Techniques,” Environmental Science Technology, (2003; 37(17) pp. 3904-3909); “Analysis of Motor Vehicle Emissions in a Houston Tunnel during Texas Air Quality Study 2000,” Atmospheric Environment, 38, 3363- 3372 (2004). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; American Bar Association; American Constitution Society; East Bay Community Law Center (Board Member, 2010-present); South Asian Bar Association (Board Member, 2010-present). Languages: Gujarati (conversational).

NICHOLAS DIAMAND, Admitted to practice in England & Wales, 1999; New York, 2003; U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 2007; U.S. District Court, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York; US. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2016. Education: Columbia University School of Law (LL.M., Stone Scholar, 2002); College of Law, London, England (C.P.E.; L.P.C.; Commendation, 1997); Columbia University (B.A., magna cum laude, 1992). Awards & Honors: “Super Lawyer for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; “Rising Star for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2012. Prior Employment: Solicitor, Herbert Smith, London (1999-2001); Law Clerk to the Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (2002-03). Publications & Presentations: “Spokeo Still Standing: No Sign of a Circuit Split” (with Andrew Kaufman), Law360, 2016; “Spotlight on Spokeo: A Win for Consumers” (with Andrew Kaufman), Law360, 2016; “U.S. Securities Litigation & Enforcement Action,” Corporate Disputes magazine, April-June 2015; Speaker, Strafford CLE webinar “Ethical Risks in Class Litigation,” 2015; Speaker, International Corporate Governance Network Conference, 2014; “Fraud on the Market in a Post-Amgen World” (with M. Miarmi), Trial Magazine, November 2013; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Editor-in-Chief), 2006; Panelist, “Obstacles to Access to Justice in Pharmaceutical Cases,” Pharmaceutical Regulation and Product Liability, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, April 21, 2006; Panelist, “Pre-Trial Discovery in the United States,” Union Internationale des Avocats, Winter

1043044.1 - 118 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 134 of 149

Seminar, February 2006. Member: American Association for Justice (Chair, Consumer Privacy/Data Breach Litigation Group, 2016); New York City Bar Association; New York State Bar Association; Public Justice Foundation; International Corporate Governance Network; Peer Articles Reviewer; Trial magazine.

DEAN M. HARVEY, Admitted to practice in California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2008; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 2006); Articles Editor, California Law Review (2005-2006); Assistant Editor, Berkeley Journal of International Law (2004); University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (B.A. summa cum laude, 2002). Prior Employment: Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (2013-Present); Associate, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (2009-2013); Associate, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (2007-2008); Law Clerk, The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2006-2007); Law Clerk, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, San Francisco Field Office (2006); Summer Law Intern, U.S. Department of Justice (2005); Summer Associate, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (2005). Awards & Honors: “On the Rise – Top 40 Young Lawyers,” American Bar Association, 2017; “Top 40 Under 40” Lawyer in California, Daily Journal, 2017; “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award,” California Lawyer, 2016; “Super Lawyer for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; "Lawyers on the Fast Track," The Recorder, 2013; “Rising Star for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2010-2012; “William E. Swope Antitrust Writing Prize,” 2006. Publications & Presentations: Speaker, “Antitrust for HR: No-Poach and Wage Fixing Agreements,” Bar Association of San Francisco (January 2018); Co-Author, “Play Ball: Potential Private Rights of Action Emerging From the FIFA Corruption Scandal,” 11 Business Torts & RICO News 1 (Summer 2015); Contributing Author, The Class Action Fairness Act: Law and Strategy, American Bar Association, 2013; Contributing Author, Concurrent Antitrust Criminal and Civil Proceedings: Identifying Problems and Planning for Success, American Bar Association (2013); Co-Editor, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (2010-2013); Articles Editor, Competition (the Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California) (2012); Contributing Author, ABA Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments (2011); New Guidance for Standard Setting Organizations: Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. and In the Matter of Rambus, Inc., 5 ABA Sherman Act Section 1 Newsl. 35 (2008); Anticompetitive Social Norms as Antitrust Violations, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 769 (2006). Member: American Bar Association (Antitrust Section), and Vice-Chair, Competition Torts Committee; Bar Association of San Francisco; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

LEXI J. HAZAM, Admitted to practice in California, 2003; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2008; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2008; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2003; U.S. District Court, Southern District of CA, 2013; U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2017. Education: Stanford University (B.A., 1995, M.A., 1996), Phi Beta Kappa. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 2001); California Law Review and La Raza Law Journal (Articles Editor); Berkeley Law Foundation Summer Grant

1043044.1 - 119 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 135 of 149

for Public Service; Federal Practice Clinic; Hopi Appellate Clinic). Prior Employment: Law Clerk, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1999; Law Clerk, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2001-2002; Associate, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 2002-2006; Partner, Lieff Global LLP, 2006-2008. Honors & Awards: Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs” and “Qui Tam Law,” 2015-2017; “Lawyer of the Year,” The Best Lawyers in America, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions-Plaintiffs for San Francisco, 2017; “California Litigation Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2016; “California Future Star,” Benchmark Litigation, 2015; “Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2015; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2015-2017; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; “Northern California Rising Stars,” Super Lawyers, 2009-2011, 2013. Publications & Presentations: “Supreme Court Review of Escobar,” Qui Tam Litigation Group and “Opioid Litigation: the Next Tobacco?” Litigation at Sunrise, American Association for Justice Annual Convention, Boston, 2017; “Discovery Following the 2015 Federal Rules Amendments: What Does Proportionality Mean in the Class Action and Mass Tort Contexts?” ABA 4th Annual Western Regional CLE on Class Actions & Mass Torts, San Francisco, 2017; “Increasing the Number of Women & Minority Lawyers Appointed to Leadership Positions in Class Actions & MDLs,” Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies Conference, Atlanta, 2017; “2015 Rules Amendments,” “Search Methodology and Technology,” “New Forms of Communications and Data Protection,” Innovation in eDiscovery Conference, San Francisco, 2016; “Technology-Assisted Review: Advice for Requesting Parties,” Practical Law, October/November 2016; “Technology-Assisted Review,” Sedona Conference Working Group 1 Drafting Team, 2015; “The Benicar Litigation,” Mass Torts Made Perfect, Las Vegas, 2015; “The Benicar Litigation,” HarrisMartin’s MDL Conference, San Diego, 2015; “Now You See Them, Now You Don’t: The Skill of Finding, Retaining, and Preparing Expert Witnesses For Trial,” Women En Mass, Aspen; 2014. Member: American Association for Justice (Chair, Section on Toxic, Environmental, and Pharmaceutical Torts, 2017); American Association for Justice (Co-Secretary, Section on Qui Tam Litigation, 2016); Consumer Attorneys of California; Board of Governors, Consumer Attorneys of California (2015); Bar Association of San Francisco; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association; State Bar of California.

ROGER N. HELLER, Admitted to practice in California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2017; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2015; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2017; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2001. Education: Columbia University School of Law (J.D., 2001); Columbia Law Review, Senior Editor. Emory University (B.A., 1997). Prior Employment: Extern, Honorable Michael Dolinger, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1999; Associate, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 2001-2005; Senior Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Advocates, 2005-2008. Honors & Awards: “Partners Council Rising Star,” National Consumer Law Center, 2015; “Rising Star,” Law 360, 2014-2015; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; “Finalist for Consumer Attorney of the Year,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2012-2013; “Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist,” Public Justice, 2012; “Northern California Rising Star,” Super Lawyers, 2011-2012; Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1998-2001. Publications & Presentations: Co-author, Fighting For Troops on the Homefront, Trial Magazine (September 2006). Member: American Bar Association; Bar

1043044.1 - 120 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 136 of 149

Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; State Bar of California; Advisory Committee Member, Santa Venetia Community Plan.

DANIEL M. HUTCHINSON, Admitted to practice in California, 2005; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2012; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2008; U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013; U.S. District, Northern District of Illinois, 2014. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 2005), Senior Articles Editor, African-American Law & Policy Report, Prosser Prizes in Constitutional Law and Employment Law; University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) Teaching & Curriculum Committee (2003- 2004); University of California, Berkeley Extension (Multiple Subject Teaching Credential, 2002); Brown University (B.A., 1999), Mellon Mays Fellowship (1997-1999). Prior Employment: Judicial Extern to the Hon. Martin J. Jenkins, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2004; Law Clerk, Lewis & Feinberg, P.C., 2003-2004; Teacher, Oakland Unified School District, 1999-2002. Honors & Awards: “Rising Star,” Law360, 2014; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017; Legal 500 recommended lawyer, LegalEase, 2013; “50 Lawyers on the Fast Track,” The Recorder, 2012; “Northern California Rising Stars,” Super Lawyers, 2009-2012. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, “Employment Discrimination Class Actions Post-Dukes,” Consumer Attorneys of California 50th Annual Convention (2011); “Ten Points from Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” 20(3) CADS Report 1 (Spring 2010); Panelist, “Rethinking Pro Bono: Private Lawyers and Public Service in the 21st Century,” UCLA School of Law (2008); Author and Panelist, “Pleading an Employment Discrimination Class Action” and “EEO Litigation: From Complaint to the Courthouse Steps,” ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law Second Annual CLE Conference (2008); Co- Presenter, “Rule 23 Basics in Employment Cases,” Strategic Conference on Employment Discrimination Class Actions (2008). Member: American Bar Association (Section of Labor & Employment Law Leadership Development Program, 2009 - 2010); Association of Business Trial Lawyers (Leadership Development Committee, 2008 - 2010); Bar Association of San Francisco (Vice Chair, Cybersecurity and Privacy Law Section); Consumer Attorneys of California; Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (Board Chair, 2015; Chair-Elect, 2014; Board Secretary, 2011 - 2013; Board of Directors, 2009 - Present); National Bar Association; National Employment Lawyers Association; State Bar of California.

SHARON M. LEE, Admitted to practice in New York, 2002; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2003; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2003; Washington State, 2005; U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2015. Education: St. John’s University School of Law (J.D. 2001); New York International Law Review, Notes & Comments Editor, 2000-2001; St. John’s University (M.A. 1998); St. John’s University (B.A. 1997). Prior Employment: Milberg Weiss & Bershad, LLP, 2003-2007. Publications & Presentations: Author, The Development of China’s Securities Regulatory Framework and the Insider Trading Provisions of the New Securities Law, 14 N.Y. Int’l L.Rev. 1 (2001); Co-author, Post-Tellabs Treatment of Confidential Witnesses in Federal Securities Litigation, 2 J. Sec. Law, Reg. and Compliance 205 (3d ed. 2009). Member: American Bar Association; Asian Bar

1043044.1 - 121 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 137 of 149

Association of Washington; Washington State Bar Association; Washington State Joint Asian Judicial Evaluation Committee.

BRUCE W. LEPPLA, Admitted to practice in California, 1976; New York, 1978; Colorado, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, 1976; U.S. District Court Central District of California, 1976; U.S. District Court Eastern District of California, 1976; U.S. District Court Northern District of California, 1976; U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2015. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., M.G. Reade Scholarship Award); University of California at Berkeley (M.S., Law and Economics, Quantitative Economics); Yale University (B.A., magna cum laude, Highest Honors in Economics). Prior Employment: California-licensed Real Estate Broker (2009-present); FINRA and California-licensed Registered Investment Adviser (2008-present); Chairman, Leppla Capital Management LLC (2008-present); Chairman, Susquehanna Corporation (2006- present); Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (2004-2008), Counsel (2002- 2003); CEO and President, California Bankers Insurance Services Inc., 1999-2001; CEO and President, Redwood Bank (1985-1998), CFO and General Counsel (1981-1984); Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1980); Davis Polk & Wardwell (1976-80). Publications: Author or co- author of 11 different U.S. and International patents in electronic commerce and commercial product design, including “A Method for Storing and Retrieving Digital Data Transmissions,” United States Patent No. 5,659,746, issued August 19, 1997; “Stay in the Class or Opt-Out? Institutional Investors Are Increasingly Opting-Out of Securities Class Litigation,” Securities Litigation Report, Vol. 3, No. 8, September 2006, West LegalWorks; reprinted by permission of the author in Wall Street Lawyer, October 2006, Vol. 10, No. 10, West LegalWorks; “Selected Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California, Part 1;” Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse and Bruce W. Leppla; Securities Litigation Report, May 2005, Vol. I, No. 9, pp. 1, 3-7; “Selected Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California, Part 2;” Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse and Bruce W. Leppla; Securities Litigation Report, June 2005, Vol. I, No. 10, pp. 1, 3-9; Author, “Securities Powers for Community Banks,” California Bankers Association Legislative Journal (Nov. 1987). Teaching Positions: Lecturer, University of California at Berkeley, Haas School of Business, Real Estate Law and Finance (1993-96); Lecturer, California Bankers Association General Counsel Seminars, Lending Documentation, Financial Institutions Litigation and similar topics (1993-96). Panel Presentations: Union Internationale des Avocats, Spring Meeting 2010, Frankfurt, Germany, “Recent Developments in Cross-Border Litigation;” Union Internationale des Avocats, Winter Meeting 2010, Park City, Utah, “Legal and Economic Aspects of Securities Class and Opt-out Litigation;” EPI European Pension Fund Summit, Montreux, Switzerland, “Legal and Global Economic Implications of the U.S. Subprime Lending Crisis,” May 2, 2008; Bar Association of San Francisco, “Impact of Spitzer’s Litigation and Attempted Reforms on the Investment Banking and Insurance Industries,” May 19, 2005; Opal Financial Conference, National Public Fund System Legal Conference, Phoenix, AZ, “Basic Principles of Securities Litigation,” January 14, 2005; American Enterprise Institute, “Betting on the Horse After the Race is Over— In Defense of Mutual Fund Litigation Related to Undisclosed After Hours Order Submission,” September 30, 2004. Member: American Association for Justice; Bar Association of San Francisco, Barrister’s Club, California Bankers Association, Director, 1993 – 1999, California State Small Business Development Board, 1989 – 1997, Community Reinvestment Institute, Founding Director, 1989 – 1990, National Association of Public Pension Attorneys, New York

1043044.1 - 122 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 138 of 149

State Bar Association, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Leadership Council, 1990 – 1992, State Bar of California, Union Internationale des Avocats, Winter Corporate Governance Seminar, Seminar Chairman, 2012; University of California at Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) Alumni, Board of Directors, 1993 – 1996, Wall Street Lawyer, Member, Editorial Board, Yale University Alumni Board of Directors, Director, 2001 - 2005.

JASON L. LICHTMAN, Admitted to practice in Illinois, 2006; New Jersey, 2011; New York, 2011; U.S. Supreme Court, 2012; District of Columbia, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2010; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2014; U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2013; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2006; U.S. District Court, New Jersey, 2011; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2010; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2012, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, 2015; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2014; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2016. Education: University of Michigan Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2006), Campbell Moot Court Executive Board; Clarence T. Darrow Scholar; Northwestern University (B.A. in Economics, 2000). Prior Employment: Judicial Law Clerk to Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2008-2010; Litigation Associate, Howrey LLP, 2006-2008; Summer Associate, Howrey LLP, 2005; Summer Associate, Reed Smith LLP, 2004. Awards & Honors: “Rising Star,” Consumer Protection, Law360, 2017; “Super Lawyer for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2017; “Rising Star for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2013- 2016. Member: American Association for Justice; Public Justice; Chair, Class Action Committee, Public Justice; Sedona Conference. Publications and Presentations: Contributing Author, “Ninth Circuit Reshapes California Consumer-Protection Law,” American Bar Association (July 2012).

SARAH R. LONDON, Admitted to practice in California, 2009; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2010; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2012. Education: National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Building Trial Skills: Boston (Winter 2013); University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 2009), Order of the Coif, National Runner-Up Constance Baker Motley Moot Court Competition; Northwestern University (B.A., cum laude, 2002). Prior Employment: Public Policy Manager, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (2004-2006). Publications & Presentations: “Reproductive Justice: Developing a Lawyering Model,” Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy (Volume 13, Numbers 1 & 2, 2011); “Building the Case for Closing Argument: Mass Torts,” Presentation at Consumer Attorneys of California Annual Conference (Fall 2014). Awards & Honors: “Street Fighter of the Year Award,” Consumer Attorneys of California,” 2015; "Rising Star for Northern California," Super Lawyers, 2012-2017; Coro Fellow in Public Affairs (St. Louis, 2002-2003). Member: American Association for Justice (Executive Committee Member, Section on Toxic, Environmental, and Pharmaceutical Torts, 2016); The Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California (Board of Governors 2012- 2013); San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association; State Bar of California; Bar Association San

1043044.1 - 123 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 139 of 149

Francisco; American Association for Justice; YWCA San Francisco and Marin County (Board of Directors 2014-2016).

ANNIKA K. MARTIN, Admitted to practice in New York, 2005; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2005; U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2005. Education: Law Center, University of Southern California (J.D., 2004); Review of Law & Women’s Studies; Jessup Moot Court; Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University (B.S.J., 2001); Stockholm University (Political Science, 1999). Publications & Presentations: Speaker, “Lawyers as Managers,” Emory Law’s Institute for Complex Litigation & Mass Claims Leadership Conference - Atlanta, GA, January 19, 2018; Speaker, “From Terabytes to Binders: Fusing Discovery and Advocacy Strategies,” Georgetown Law’s 14th Annual Advanced eDiscovery Institute - Washington DC, November 17, 2017; Co-Editor-in-Chief & Steering Committee Liaison, “The Sedona Conference Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 Primer,” The Sedona Conference Working Group Series, September 2017; Drafting Team Member, “The Sedona Conference Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery,” The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 18, May 2017; Producer & Moderator, “The Future of Class Actions,” AAJ Class Action Litigation Group seminar – Nashville, TN, May 11, 2017; Producer & Speaker, “Examining Amended Rule 34,” The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 Mid-Year Meeting – Minneapolis, MN, May 4-5, 2017; Speaker, “The Economic Influence and Role of the Class Representative – Ethical and Policy Issues,” Class Action Money & Ethics Conference – New York, NY, May 1, 2017; Producer & Speaker, “Diversity in Law: The Challenges and How to Overcome Them,” AAJ Education webinar, March 27, 2017; Co-chair, “Staying Ahead of the eDiscovery Curve: Retooling Your Practice Under the New Federal Rules,” 10th Annual Sedona Conference Institute Program on eDiscovery, March 2-3, 2017; Faculty Member, “The Sedona Conference eDiscovery Negotiation Training: Practical Cooperative Strategies,” Miami, FL, February 8-9, 2017; Speaker, “Proportionality: What’s Happened since the Amendments,” Western Trial Lawyers Association CLE, Steamboat Springs, CO, February 2017; “Quality In, Quality Out,” Trial Magazine, January 2017; Testified before the Federal Rules Advisory Committee concerning proposed amendments to Federal Rule 23, Phoenix, AZ, January 4, 2017; Profiled in “Women of Legal Tech: From Journalism to Law”, LegalTech News – December 8, 2016; Speaker, "Closure Mechanisms,” Federal Judicial Center / Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Conference, Atlanta, GA, December 15, 2016; Speaker, “Getting Selected for Leadership – What Decisionmakers Look For and How to Overcome Common Barriers,” Emory Law Insitute for Complex Litigation & Mass Claims, Atlanta, GA, December 14, 2016; Producer & Speaker, “Mitigating Explicit and Implicit Bias in Associate Recruitment and Retention,” AAJ Hot Topics: Diversity in the Law, Charlotte, NC, November 30, 2016; Speaker, “The New Rules x 1 Year: Sanctions,” Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute, Washington DC, November 10-11, 2016; Faculty Member, AAJ Effective Legal Writing Workshop, Washington DC, November 3-4, 2016; Speaker, “Proportionality under the Amended FRCP 26”, Complex Litigation E-Discovery Forum, Minneapolis, MN, September 25, 2016; Speaker, “Proportionality: What’s Happened since the Amendments,” Complex Litigation E-Discovery Forum, Minneapolis, MN, September 23, 2016; Moderator, “Who Will Write Your Rules—Your State Court or the Federal Judiciary?,” Pound Civil Justice Institute Forum for State Appellate Court Judges, Los Angeles, CA, July 23, 2016; Producer, Moderator & Speaker, “Dissecting the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,” American Association for Justice webinar, May 26, 2016; Moderator & Speaker, “Consumer Class Actions,” HB Litigation

1043044.1 - 124 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 140 of 149

Conference, San Juan, PR, May 4, 2016; Faculty Member, The Sedona Conference eDiscovery Negotiation Training: Practical Cooperative Strategies, Washington, DC, March 1-2, 2016; Producer & Speaker, “The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” New York, NY, February 9, 2016; “How to Stop Worrying and Love Predictive Coding,” Trial Magazine, January 2016; Speaker, “How Will New Rule 26(b)(1) on Proportionality Impact Search and the Use of Search Technology?,” Innovation in E-Discovery Conference, New York, NY, December 9, 2015; Speaker, “New Forms of Communication,” Innovation in E-Discovery Conference, New York, NY, December 9, 2015; Speaker, “2015 Amendments to Federal Civil Rules,” Tennessee Bar Association CLE, Nashville, TN, December 2, 2015; “Discovery Proportionality Guidelines and Practices,” 99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 47–60 (Complex Litigation Drafting Team Leader); Speaker, “Check Your Sources: Understanding the Technical Aspects of Data Collection”, Georgetown Advanced E-Discovery Institute, Washington, DC, November 19, 2015; Speaker, “The Contentious Battle over Search Protocols in e-Discovery”, Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists webinar, October 8, 2015; Speaker, “Proportionality in Preservation and Discovery,” The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 Mid-Year Meeting, Dallas, TX, April 30, 2015; Speaker, “Ethical Challenges in eDiscovery: Representing Clients Responsibly,” The Sedona Conference Institute, Nashville, TN, March 20, 2015; Speaker, “Issue Classes under Rule 23,” Western Trial Lawyers Association CLE, Squaw Valley, NV, February 2015; Speaker, “Issue Classes under Rule 23,” American Association for Justice Winter Convention, Palm Desert, CA, February 24, 2015; “An Introduction to Issue Classes under Rule 23(c)(4),” American Association for Justice Winter Convention published materials, February 2015; Speaker, “Shifting and Sharing the Costs of Preservation and Discovery: How, When, and Why,” Bloomberg BNA webinar, November 18, 2014; Speaker, “Application of Proportionality in Preservation and Discovery,” The Sedona Conference All Voices Meeting, New Orleans, LA, November 5, 2014; Speaker, “A Tour of TAR (Technology-Assisted Review),” The Sedona Conference All Voices Meeting, New Orleans, LA, November 7, 2014; Speaker, “Data Privacy and Security Are Front and Center in Litigation News – Substantive Claims and eDiscovery Issues Abound,” Georgetown Advanced E-Discovery Institute, Tysons Corner, VA, November 21, 2014; Interviewed re class action litigation regarding defective products on China Central Television for China’s national “Consumer Protection Week” feature programming – CCTV, March 15, 2014; Organizer & Speaker, “Introduction to TAR,” Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein CLE, New York, NY, August 18, 2014; Speaker, “Motions to Strike Class Allegations Using ‘Predominance’,” Strafford webinar, August 6, 2014; “Wit and Wisdom,” Trial Magazine, Volume 49, No. 12, December 2013;Speaker, “Status of Subsistence Claims in BP Oil Spill Settlement,” American Association for Justice Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA, July 2013; “Stick a Toothbrush Down Your Throat: An Analysis of the Potential Liability of Pro-Eating Disorder Websites,” Texas Journal of Women & the Law, Volume 14 Issue 2, Spring 2005; “The Gift of Legal Vision,” USC Law, Spring 2003; “Welcome to Law School,” monthly column on www.vault.com, 2001 - 2004. Awards and Honors: “Leaders in the Field - Litigation: E-Discovery,” Chambers USA, 2017; “Rising Star for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2015; Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services awarded by the State Bar of California for voluntary provision of legal services to the poor, 2005. Member: American Association for Justice (Co-Chair, Class Action Litigation Group, 2016); American Association for Justice (Steering Committee of the Public Education Committee); Barrister of the New York American Inn of Court; Emory University Law School Institute for Complex Litigation & Mass Claims (Next Generation Advisory Board Member);

1043044.1 - 125 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 141 of 149

Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute (Advisory Board and Planning Committee); New York City Bar Association; New York County Lawyer’s Association; New York State Bar Association; Swedish American Bar Association; The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 (Steering Committee Member). Languages: Swedish (fluent); French (DFA1-certified in Business French); Spanish (conversational).

MICHAEL J. MIARMI, Admitted to practice New York, 2006; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2012; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2007; U.S. Supreme Court, 2011. Education: Fordham Law School (J.D., 2005); Yale University (B.A., cum laude, 2000). Prior Employment: Milberg Weiss LLP, Associate, 2005-2007. Awards & Honors: “Rising Star for New York Metro,” Super Lawyers, 2013-2017. Publications & Presentations: Co-Author with Steven E. Fineman, “The Basics of Obtaining Class Certification in Securities Fraud Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard, Rejecting Fifth Circuit’s ‘Loss Causation’ Requirement,” Bloomberg Law Reports (July 5, 2011). Member: State Bar of New York; New York State Trial Lawyers Association; Public Justice Foundation; American Bar Association; New York State Bar Association.

DAVID RUDOLPH, Admitted to practice in California, 2004; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2008; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2012. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 2004); Moot Court Board; Appellate Advocacy Student Advisor; Berkeley Technology Law Journal; Berkeley Journal of International Law; Rutgers University (Ph.D. Program, 1999-2001); University of California, Berkeley (B.A. 1998). Prior Employment: Associate, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 2008-2012; Law Clerk to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 2007-2008.

DANIEL E. SELTZ, Admitted to practice in New York, 2004; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2005; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 2003); Review of Law and Social Change, Managing Editor; Hiroshima University (Fulbright Fellow, 1997-98); Brown University (B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1997). Awards & Honors: Super Lawyers, 2016-2017. Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Honorable John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2003-04. Publications & Presentations: Co-Author with Jordan Elias, “The Limited Scope of the Ascertainability Requirement,” American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, March 2013; Panelist, “Taking and Defending Depositions,” New York City Bar, May 20, 2009; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice & Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Editor-in-Chief, 2008); “Remembering the War and the Atomic Bombs: New Museums, New Approaches,” in Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in Public Space (Duke University Press, 2004), originally published in Radical History Review, Vol. 75 (1998); “Issue Advocacy in the 1998 Congressional Elections,” with Jonathan S. Krasno (Urban Institute, 2001); Buying Time: Television Advertising in the 1998 Congressional Elections, with Jonathan S. Krasno (Brennan

1043044.1 - 126 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 142 of 149

Center for Justice, 2000); “Going Negative,” in Playing Hardball, with Kenneth Goldstein, Jonathan S. Krasno and Lee Bradford (Prentice-Hall, 2000). Member: American Association for Justice; State Bar of New York.

ANNE B. SHAVER, Admitted to practice in California, 2008; Colorado, 2008; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2012; U.S. Supreme Court, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, 2009. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 2007), Order of the Coif; University of California, Santa Cruz (B.A. cum laude, 2003), Phi Beta Kappa. Awards & Honors: “Rising Star for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2012-2017. Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Honorable Betty Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008-2009; Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Litigation Associate, 2008; Public Defender’s Office of Contra Costa County, 2007; Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP, Summer Law Clerk, 2006; Centro Legal de la Raza, Student Director, Workers’ Rights Clinic, 2005-2006; Human Rights Watch, Legal Intern, 2005. Publications: “Winning Your Class Certification Motion Post-Brinker,” Consumer Attorneys of California, November 2013 (panelist); “Counseling HR on National Origin & Language Issues in the Workplace,” ABA Labor & Employment Section, November 2012 (moderator); “U.S. v. Fort and the Future of Work- Product in Criminal Discovery,” 44 Cal. W. L. Rev. 127, 12293 (Fall 2007); “Rule 23 Basics,” Impact Fund Class Action Training Institue, May 2011; “A Place At The Table? Recent Developments in LBGT Rights,” ABA Labor & Employment Section Conference, April 2012 (moderator); “Transgender Workplace Issues After the EEOC’s Landmark Macy Ruling,” Bar Association of San Francisco, September 2012 (moderator); CAOC, “Latest Developments in Employment and Wage and Hour Law,” February 25, 2014 (speaker). Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; National Employment Lawyers Association; American Bar Association's Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (Programs Committee).

KATHERINE LUBIN BENSON, Admitted to practice in California, 2008; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D., 2008); University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) Mock Trial Team, 2006-2008; First Place, San Francisco Lawyer’s Mock Trial Competition. University of California Los Angeles (B.A., Political Science, minor in Spanish, cum laude); Phi Beta Kappa; UCLA Honors Program; Political Science Departmental Honors; GPA 3.8. Universidad de Sevilla (2003). Awards & Honors: “Rising Star for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2016-2017. Prior Employment: Associate, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff, LLP, 2008-2013; Summer Associate, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff, LLP, 2007; Judicial Extern to Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, 2006. Member: American Bar Association; State Bar of California; Board of Directors, Northern District Court Practice Program; Board of Directors, East Bay Community Law Center.

KEVIN R. BUDNER, Admitted to practice in California; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2016; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2014; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2014; U.S. District Court of Colorado, February 25, 2014. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of

1043044.1 - 127 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 143 of 149

Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 2012); American Jurisprudence Award in Advanced Legal Research (first in class); Prosser Prize in Negotiation (second in class); Edwin A. Heafey, Jr. Trial Fellowship Recipient; Board of Advocates Trial Team Member; American Association of Justice Trial Competition, 2012 National Semi-finalist, 2011 Regional Finalist; Berkeley Journal of International Law, Senior Editor. University of California Hastings College of the Law (2009- 2010); CALI and Witkins Awards (first in class); Wesleyan University (B.A., Political Science, 2005). Prior Employment: Judicial Clerk to U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn, 2012-2013; Certified Student Counsel, East Bay Community Law Center, 2011-2012; Research Assistant, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier, LLP, 2011-2012; Summer Associate, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP , 2011-2012; Judicial Extern to U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, 2010; Homeless Policy Assistant, Office of Mayor Gavin Newsom, 2009; Project Manager, Augustyn & Co. 2007-2009; Visiting Professor, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, 2006-2007; Researcher, Rockridge Institute, 2005, 2006. Languages: Spanish (proficient), Portuguese (proficient), Bengali (basic). Publications: Co-Author, “Play Ball: Potential Private Rights of Action Emerging From the FIFA Corruption Scandal,” 11 Business Torts & RICO News 1 (Summer 2015). Member: American Association for Justice, Bar Association of San Francisco, Consumer Attorneys of California, State Bar of California, San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

PHONG-CHAU G. NGUYEN, Admitted to practice in California, 2012; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2013; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2013. Education: University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D. 2012); Development Director, USF Moot Court Board; Merit Scholar; Zief Scholarship Recipient; University of California, Berkeley (B.A., Highest Honors; Distinction in General Scholarship, 2008). Prior Employment: Attorney, Minami Tamaki, 2013; Post-Bar Law Clerk, Velton Zegelman PC, 2012; Law Clerk, Minami Tamaki, 2011-2012; Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, 2011; Greenlining Institute, 2008-2009, 2012. Member: State Bar of California; Asian American Bar Association for the Greater Bay Area; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

OF COUNSEL

ROBERT L. LIEFF, Admitted to practice in California, 1966; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1969; U.S. Supreme Court, 1969; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1972; U.S. Tax Court, 1974; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986. Education: Columbia University (M.B.A., 1962; J.D., 1962); Cornell University; University of Bridgeport (B.A., 1958). Member, Columbia Law School Dean’s Council; Member, Columbia Law School Board of Visitors (1992-2006); Member, Columbia Law School Center on Corporate Governance Advisory Board (2004). Awards & Honors: AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; Selected for inclusion by peers in The Best Lawyers in America in fields of “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs,” 2015-2017; “Super Lawyer for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2005-2009, “Lawdragon Finalist,” Lawdragon, 2005. Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California (Member: Committee on Rules of Court, 1971-74; Special Committee on Multiple Litigation and Class Actions, 1972-73); American Bar Association (Section on Corporation, Banking and Business Law); Lawyers Club of San Francisco; San Francisco Trial Lawyers

1043044.1 - 128 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 144 of 149

Association; California Trial Lawyers Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; Fight for Justice Campaign.

LYDIA LEE, Admitted to practice in Oklahoma 1983; U.S. District Court, Western and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma; U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit. Education: Oklahoma City University, School of Law (J.D., 1983); University of Central Oklahoma (B.A., 1980). Prior Employment: Partner, Law Office of Lydia Lee (2005-2008); Partner, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (1985-2005); Associate, law firm of Howell & Webber (1983- 1985). Publications & Presentations: “QDROs for Oklahoma’s Public Pension Plans,” Oklahoma Family Law Journal, Vol. 13, September, 1998; Co-Author, “Special Problems in Dividing Retirement for Employees of the State of Oklahoma,” OBA/FLS Practice Manual, Chapter 27.3, 2002; Featured Guest Speaker, Saturday Night Law, KTOK Radio; Contributor and Editor, INFRE Course Books for CRA program. Member: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Inn of Court (2015- present), Outstanding Master of the Bench (2016-2017); Edmond Neighborhood Alliance Board of Directors (2005-Present), President (2012-2013, 2006-2007); Oklahoma Bar Association, Member (1983-present); OBA Women in Law Committee (2007-2013); Bench and Bar Committee (2013-present); National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (1988-Present), President (2002-2004), Vice-President (2001-2002), Executive Board member (1998-2004), Chair of Benefits Section, Emeritus Board member (2004); Edmond Planning Commission (2008-2010); Central Edmond Urban Development Board (2006-2008); Midwest City Regional Hospital, Board of Governors, Served on Physician/Hospital Organization Board, Pension and Insurance Trust Committees, and Chairman of Woman’s Health Committee (1992-1996); City of Midwest City, Planning Commission (1984-1998), Chairman (1990-1995), Vice-Chairman (1987-1990), Served on Capital Improvement Committee, Airport Zoning Commission (Tinker AFB), and Parkland Review Board, served on Midwest City Legislative Reapportionment Committee (1991).

ASSOCIATES

FACUNDO BOUZAT, Admitted to practice in California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Education: University of Michigan Law School (J.D. 2017); Michigan Law Review, Associate Editor; Judge Avern Cohn Summer Fellowship; Vice-President, ACLU Michigan Law Chapter; Bowling Green State University(B.A., summa cum laude, 2013). Publications: American Medical Tourism: Regulating a Cure that Can Damage Consumer Health, 25 L. Consumer L. Rev. 319 (2013); The Contingent Ethics of Market Transactions: Linking the Regulation of Business to Specific Forms of Markets, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 163 (2012); Changing Demographics and Language: A New Challenge to Legal Services Programs, 26 J. Mgmt. Info. Exchange (Winter Issue) 9 (2011). Member: State Bar of California.

WILSON M. DUNLAVEY, Admitted to practice in California, 2015; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2016; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2016; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2016; U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2016. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 2015); Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Associate Editor; University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) Queer Caucus, Co-Chair; Board of Advocates Moot Court Team. Humboldt University in Berlin (Ph.D., cum laude, Modern History, 2015; Dual

1043044.1 - 129 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 145 of 149

M.A., Magister Artium, History and Philosophy, 2015); Friedrich-Naumann Foundation; Master's and Ph.D. Fellow; Queer Initiative, Director; Student Government, Executive Counsel. St. John's College (B.A., History of Math and Science, Philosophy, 2003); Faculty Toast Prize; Delegate Council. Prior Employment: Summer Associate, McDermott Will & Emery (2014); Law Clerk, Transgender Law Center (2014); Legal Research and Writing Teaching Assistant, First Year Skills Program, UC Berkeley School of Law (2013-2014); Judicial Extern to the Honorable William A. Alsup, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2013); Legal Counselor, Berkeley Workers' Rights Clinic (2012-2013). Member: State Bar of California.

MELISSA GARDNER, Admitted to practice in California, 2013; New York, 2013; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2013. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D. 2011); Student Attorney, Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project and South Brooklyn Legal Services; Semi-Finalist, Harvard Ames Moot Court Competition; Harvard International Law Journal. Western Washington University (B.A. magna cum laude, 2005). Awards & Honors: “Rising Star for Northern California,” Super Lawyers, 2017. Prior Employment: Associate, Emery Celli Brinckherhoff & Abady (2012); Law Clerk, South Brooklyn Legal Services (2011- 2012); Peace Corps Volunteer, China (2005-2008). Publications: Co-Author, “Play Ball: Potential Private Rights of Action Emerging From the FIFA Corruption Scandal,” 11 Business Torts & RICO News 1 (Summer 2015). Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; New York State Bar Association; State Bar of California.

ADAM GITLIN, Admitted to practice in California, 2017; New York, 2009; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2018; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2018. Education: University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 2007), Executive Editor and Editorial Board Member, University of Michigan Law Review. Princeton University (A.B., 2003). Publications & Presentations: The Justice Department’s Voter Fraud Scandal: Lessons (with Wendy Weiser), New York: Brennan Center for Justice (January 2017); Lecturer, “Voter Intimidation and Discrimination in the 2016 Election: Rhetoric and Reality,” U.S. Presidential Election of 2016 Conference on Domestic & International Aspects, Inter-Disciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel (January 2017); Lecturer, “Modernizing Elections,” Washington House of Representatives State Government Committee (January 2017); Dangers of “Ballot Security” Operations: Preventing Intimidation, Discrimination, and Disruption (with Wendy Weiser), New York: Brennan Center for Justice (August 2016); Automatic Motor-Voter Registration Now Law in Four States, BillMoyers.com (May 2016); Lecturer, “Nonpartisan Voter Education Workshop,” Nassau County, NY (October 2016); Lecturer, “Voting in 2016: The Good, the Bad, and the Potentially Very Ugly,” Westchester Women’s Bar Association, White Plains, NY (September 2016); Witness, Voting Rights Town Hall Meeting: “Setting the Democracy Agenda,” Hon. John Conyers & Hon. Brenda Lawrence, U.S. House of Representatives, Detroit, MI (June 2016); Witness, Congressional Forum: “Fragile at fifty: The urgent need to strengthen and restore the Voting Rights Act,” Hon. Nydia Velazquez, Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, and Hon. Grace Meng, U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Outreach and Engagement Task Force, New York, NY (May 2016); Witness, Hearing on SB 350 [automatic voter registration bill], Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, Maryland Senate (February 2016); Christie Misses a Golden Opportunity for the Garden State, The Huffington Post (November 2015); Panelist, “Voting Rights Panel,” SiX National Legislator Conference, Washington, DC

1043044.1 - 130 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 146 of 149

(October 2015). Prior Employment: Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (2015-2017); Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Litigation I Section (2008-2015); Law Clerk to Judge Noël A. Kramer, District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2007- 2008).

AVERY S. HALFON, Admitted to practice in New York, 2016; District of Columbia, 2017; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2017. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D. cum laude 2015) (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Law & Policy Review). Stanford University (B.A. 2010). Prior employment: Judicial Clerk to Judge Jane B. Stranch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Fellow, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC. Member: State Bar of New York, Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

LAURA B. HEIMAN, Admitted to practice in New York, 2012; District of Columbia 2012. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D. 2011); Member Editor, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; Vice President for Academic Affairs, Women of Stanford Law; Certified Law Student, Stanford Community Law Clinic. Yale University (B.A. cum laude, 2007). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to the Honorable Jane B. Stranch, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2015-2016); Law Clerk to the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2014-2015); Morrison & Foerster, LLP (2011-2014).

ANDREW KAUFMAN, Admitted to practice in New York, 2013; Tennessee, 2015; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2015. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D. cum laude, 2012); Executive Editor, Harvard Law and Policy Review; Dean’s Scholar Prizes in Federal Courts, Civil Procedure, and Legislation & Regulation. Carleton College (B.A. magna cum laude, Political Science, 2007). Professional Associations & Memberships: Member, Nashville Bar Foundation Leadership Forum, 2017 – 2018, Publications: “Spokeo Still Standing: No Sign of a Circuit Split” (with Nicholas Diamand), Law360, 2016; “Spotlight on Spokeo: A Win for Consumers” (with Nicholas Diamand), Law360, 2016; “Lochner for the Executive Branch: The Torture Memo as Anticanon,” 7 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 199 (2013); “American Foreign Policy Opinion in 2004: Exploring Underlying Beliefs,” 27 Am. Rev. of Pol. 295 (2007). Prior Employment: Law clerk to the Honorable Martha Craig Daughtrey, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (2014-15); Law Clerk to the Honorable Stephen Glickman, D.C. Court of Appeals (2013-14); Fellow, Public Citizen Litigation Group (2012-13).

ABBYE R. KLAMANN, Admitted to practice in California, 2016. Education: University of Michigan Law School (J.D. 2016); Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award: Outstanding 2L Student of the Year (2015); American Association for Justice Mike Eidson Scholarship (2015); Campbell Moot Court, Semi-Finalist (2014-2015); Williams Moot Court (2015-2016); Michigan Law School Associate International Law Dean Selection Advisory Board (2015); Jessup International Moot Court, President (2014-2016), 7th Place Individual Oralist (Regionals 2015); National Lawyer’s Guild Chapter, Board Member and Legal Observer Coordinator (2014-2016); Outlaws LGBT Student Group, Co-President (2014-2015) and 1L Representative (2013-2014); Syrian Accountability Project (2015-2016); American Civil Liberties Union Chapter, Social Chair (2013-2014). University of Missouri-Columbia (Bachelor of Journalism, Multicultural Certificate 2009-2011); Mock Trial, All-Region Attorney Award, Regional Champion (2010). Northwestern University (2008-2009).

1043044.1 - 131 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 147 of 149

MICHELLE LAMY, Admitted to practice in California, 2015; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2017; U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2016. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D. 2015); Gerald Gunther Prize for Outstanding Performance in Research and Legal Writing; Gerald Gunther Prize for Outstanding Performance in Statutory Interpretation; Executive Board, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. College of Arts & Sciences, Boston College (B.A. summa cum laude, 2009); Phi Beta Kappa; Dean’s List First Honors, Dean’s Scholar - Economics; Rev. Robert Cheney Economics Scholar. Prior Employment: Law Clerk to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Member: American Bar Association; State Bar of California.

MICHAEL LEVIN-GESUNDHEIT, Admitted to practice in California, 2013; New Mexico, 2017; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2015. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D. 2013), Managing Editor, Stanford Law & Policy Review; Gerald Gunther Prize for Outstanding Performance in Intellectual Property. Harvard University (A.B. magna cum laude, 2008). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to the Honorable Jacqueline Nguyen, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2014-2015); Law Clerk to the Honorable Garland Burrell, Jr., U.S. District Court, Sacramento, California (2013-2014).

KATHERINE MCBRIDE, Admitted to practice in New York, 2016. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D. pro bono distinction 2015) (Levin Center Public Interest Fellow; Stanford Law Association; Stanford Journal of International Law; Iraqi Legal Education Initiative Rule of Law Project; Policy Director, Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project; Student Leader, DACA Pro Bono Project). Boston College (B.A. summa cum laude, 2011) (Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Sigma Nu). Prior employment: Judicial Clerk to Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Ford Foundation Public Interest Fellow, Human Rights First. Member: State Bar of New York.

KELLY MCNABB, Admitted to practice in Minnesota, 2012; New York, 2015; U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2012. Education: University of Minnesota Law School (J.D. cum laude 2012); Managing/Research Editor, Minnesota Law Review, 2010-2012; University of Minnesota Twin Cities College of Liberal Arts (B.A. 2008). Publications: What “Being a Watchdog” Really Means: Removing the Attorney General from the Supervision of Charitable Trusts, Minnesota Law Review, 2012. Prior Employment: Pritzker Olsen, P.A., Attorney, 2012-2014. Member: American Association for Justice, Minnesota Association for Justice, Minnesota Women Lawyers.

MIKE SHEEN, Admitted to practice in California, 2012; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2013; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2015. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 2012); Articles Editor (2010-2012), Executive Editor (2011-2012), Berkeley Technology Law Journal; Senior Articles Editor, Asian American Law Journal; Student Member, Berkeley Law Admissions Committee; Funding Officer, U.C. Berkeley Graduate Assembly. University of California, Berkeley (B.A. 2004). Prior Employment: Judicial Clerk to Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. Member: State Bar of California.

1043044.1 - 132 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 148 of 149

JOHN T. SPRAGENS, Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 2012; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2014, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2015, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2015, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2016. Education: Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, Tennessee (J.D. 2012); Executive Editor, Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review. Kenyon College (B.A., magna cum laude, International Studies, 2004); Phi Beta Kappa. Prior Employment: Associate, Bass, Berry & Sims, 2013-14; Law Clerk, United States District Judge Kevin H. Sharp, 2012-13; Legal Intern, Metropolitan Nashville Public Defender’s Office, 2011; Summer Associate, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, 2011; Legal Clerk, New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice, 2010; Strategic Advisor, Center for Charter School Excellence, 2010; Communications Director and Legislative Assistant to U.S. Congressman Jim Cooper, 2006-09; Staff Writer, Nashville Scene, 2004-06. Member: Tennessee Bar Association; Tennessee Association for Justice.

SHIRA TEVAH, Admitted to practice in California, 2015; U.S. District Court Court, District of Columbia, 2017; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2016. Education: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) (J.D. 2015) (Book Reviews & Essays Editor, California Law Review; Order of the Coif; Thelen Marrin Award for Academic Excellence; Jurisprudence Award, International Human Rights Law; Prosser Prize, Employee Benefits Law, Federal Courts, Torts, Criminal Law). University of Chicago (B.A. with Honors, 2009). Prior employment: Judicial Clerk to Chief Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2016-2017; Judicial Clerk to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 2015-2016. Member: State Bar of California.

ADAM H. WEINTRAUB, Admitted to practice in Louisiana, 2011; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2011; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2011; U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2011; U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2011; New Jersey, 2010; U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2010; Pennsylvania, 2010; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010. Education: Villanova University School of Law, (JD, 2010); Villanova Law Review: Managing Editor of Student Works. Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S., Industrial & Systems Engineering , 2005); Hope Scholarship; Certificate in Philosophy of Science & Technology. Prior Employment: Manager, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (2015-2016); Associate, Herman, Herman & Katz, L.L.C. (2010-2015). Publications: “Landlords Needed, Tolerance Preferred”: A Clash of Fairness and Freedom in Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, 54 Vill. L. Rev. 337 (2009). Member: The American Bar Association; The Federal Bar Association; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; The American Association for Justice.

ABBY R. WOLF, Admitted to practice in California, 2016; U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2017. Education: University of California, Davis School of Law (J.D. 2016) (Senior Articles Editor, Business Law Journal; French Translator, Journal of International Law and Policy; Trial Practice Honors Board). University of California, Berkeley (B.A. 2011) (Phi Alpha Theta). Prior employment: Judicial Clerk to Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Member: State Bar of California.

TISEME ZEGEYE, Admitted to practice in New York, 2013; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 2014; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2014; U.S. Supreme Court,

1043044.1 - 133 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-6 Filed 01/23/18 Page 149 of 149

2016. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D. 2011), BLAPA Kim Barry ’98 Memorial Graduation Prize for Academic Excellence and Commitment to International and Human Rights Work; Dean’s Scholarship. The College of William and Mary (B.A. cum laude, 2008). Prior Employment: Staff Attorney, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York; Legal Fellow, American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project. Member: American Bar Association, Labor & Employment Law Section (Employee-side Vice-Chair of the Member Services Committee); American Constitution Society Bay Area Lawyer Chapter (Board Member); Equal Rights Advocates (Litigation Committee Member).

Notice on the Firm’s AV Rating: AV is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review process that rates lawyers. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories—legal ability and general ethical standards.

1043044.1 - 134 -

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 41

Exhibit 7 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 41

Exhibit A Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 41

Exhibit B Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 41

Exhibit C Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 41

Exhibit D Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 22 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 24 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 30 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 31 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 32 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 33 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 34 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 35 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 36 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 37 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 38 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 40 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-7 Filed 01/23/18 Page 41 of 41 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-8 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 8 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-8 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 2

Hatamian, et. al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et. al. Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (N.D. Cal. )

SUMMARY TABLE OF LODESTARS AND EXPENSES

FIRM HOURS LODESTAR EXPENSES

Bernstein Liebhard LLP 174.5 $102,662.50 $145,398.60

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 143.3 $65,569.00 $19,035.42

Labaton Sucharow LLP 29,530.8 $14,556,648.50 $1,305,476.29

Motley Rice LLC 32,917.2 $16,398,078.75 $1,342,907.21

TOTALS 62,765.8 $31,122,958.75 $2,812,817.52

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-9 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit 9 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-9 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-9 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-9 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-9 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 29

Exhibit 10 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 29

Economic and Financial Consulting and Expert Testimony Securities Class Action Settlements

2016 Review and Analysis Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 29 Table of Contents

Highlights 1 2016 Findings and Perspectives 2 Total Settlement Dollars 3 Mega Settlements 4 Settlement Size 5 Damages Estimates and Market Capitalization Losses 6 “Estimated Damages” 6 Damages Estimation Approaches 9 Disclosure Dollar Loss 10 Analysis of Settlement Characteristics 11 Nature of Claims 11 Accounting Allegations 12 Third-Party Codefendants 13 Institutional Investors 14 Derivative Actions 15 Corresponding SEC Actions 16 Time to Settlement and Case Complexity 17 Litigation Stages 18 Cornerstone Research’s Settlement Prediction Analysis 19 Research Sample 20 Data Sources 20 Endnotes 21 Appendices 22 About the Authors 24

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, who are responsible for the content, and do not necessarily represent the views of Cornerstone Research.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com i Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 29 Table of Figures and Appendices

Figure 1: Settlement Statistics 1 Figure 2: Total Settlement Dollars 3 Figure 3: Mega Settlements 4 Figure 4: Distribution of Post–Reform Act Settlements 5 Figure 5: Median and Average “Estimated Damages” 6 Figure 6: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” 7 Figure 7: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” by Damages Ranges 8 Figure 8: Damages Estimation Approaches 9 Figure 9: Median and Average Disclosure Dollar Loss 10 Figure 10: Settlements by Nature of Claims 11 Figure 11: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” and Accounting Allegations 12 Figure 12: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” and Third-Party Codefendants 13 Figure 13: Median Settlement Amounts and Public Pensions 14 Figure 14: Frequency of Derivative Actions 15 Figure 15: Frequency of SEC Actions 16 Figure 16: Median Settlement by Duration from Filing Date to Settlement Hearing Date 17 Figure 17: Litigation Stages 18 Appendix 1: Settlement Percentiles 22 Appendix 2: Select Industry Sectors 22 Appendix 3: Settlements by Federal Circuit Court 23

Analyses in this report are based on 1,621 securities class actions filed after passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act) and settled from 1996 through year-end 2016. See page 20 for a detailed description of the research sample. For purposes of this report and related research, a settlement refers to a negotiated agreement between the parties to the securities class action that is publicly announced to potential class members by means of a settlement notice.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com ii Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 29 Highlights

• The number of securities class action settlements • Median settlements as a percentage of “estimated approved in 2016 grew to 85—the highest level since damages” in 2016 increased 24 percent from the 2011– 2010. (page 3) 2015 median and were higher than any annual percentage in the last five years. (page 8) • Total settlement dollars approved by courts in 2016 was nearly $6 billion, almost double the total in 2015 • Median Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) associated with and the second highest in the past 10 years. (page 3) 2016 settlements was 50 percent more than the prior year. (page 10) • The total value of mega settlements (settlements over $100 million) in 2016 represented more than two times • The year 2016 had the highest percentage of cases the value for these cases in 2015. (page 4) settling within two years of the filing date since 2006. (page 17) • The median settlement amount in 2016 was $8.6 million, about 40 percent higher than the 2015 median of $6.1 million. (page 5)

• Compared to the prior five years (2011–2015), 2016 average “estimated damages” were 30 percent higher while median “estimated damages” were almost 15 percent lower. (page 6)

Figure 1: Settlement Statistics (Dollars in Millions)

1996–2015 2015 2016

Minimum $0.1 $0.4 $0.9

Median $8.3 $6.1 $8.6

Average $55.5 $38.4 $70.5

Maximum $8,611.2 $982.8 $1,575.0

Total Amount $85,266.6 $3,072.8 $5,990.0

Number of Settlements 1,536 80 85

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 1 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 29 2016 Findings and Perspectives

Continuing the growth observed in the prior year, the number of settlements approved in 2016 increased to 85— “Higher settlements in 2016 were substantially higher than the levels in 2011 through 2014. driven not only by higher ‘estimated This escalation can be attributed to the recent increase in case filings. damages’ but also by other case factors, leading to a six-year high in Mega Settlements settlements as a percentage of Ten mega settlements in 2016—the highest number over the ‘estimated damages.’” last 10 years—contributed to an almost twofold increase in the average settlement amount from 2015 to 2016. Two of Dr. Laura E. Simmons the mega settlements exceeded $1 billion. This was the first Senior Advisor year since 2006 with multiple settlements over $1 billion. Cornerstone Research “Estimated Damages” To understand the latest settlement trends, it is helpful to Developing Trends consider the important determinants of settlement amounts. 1 The most important factor in explaining settlement amounts The record number of case filings in 2016, coupled with is a proxy (“estimated damages”) for shareholder damages. four consecutive year-over-year increases, may continue to For settlements approved in 2016, average “estimated fuel growth in the number of settlements into the coming damages” reached the second-highest amount over the last years. 10 years. Settlements as a percentage of “estimated While the number of settlements may increase, the most damages” also increased over 2015, indicating that other recent data on case filings, however, indicate a potential factors likely contributed to the rise in settlement amounts decline in very large cases, as measured by market as well. In particular, the percentage of settlements with capitalization losses. This suggests that, at some point in the public pension plans as lead plaintiffs and the number of next few years, a drop in mega settlements may follow. restatement cases increased in 2016. In addition, the size of the issuer defendant (as measured by total assets) was Industry trends among securities class actions have substantially higher in 2016 as compared to 2015. All of fluctuated in the last 20 years but, according to Cornerstone these factors are associated with higher settlement Research’s Securities Class Action Filings—2016 Year in amounts. Review, healthcare and related industry sectors, such as biotech and pharmaceuticals, may play a growing role in both the number and total dollar amounts of settlements in securities class actions.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 2 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 29 Total Settlement Dollars

• The total value of settlements approved by courts in • The number of settlements approved in 2016 increased 2016 was more than $5.9 billion, almost double the only modestly from 2015, but grew substantially over amount approved in 2015. the annual numbers from 2011 to 2014.

• The higher number of mega settlements in 2016 and the corresponding higher average settlement value for these cases contributed to the substantial increase in 2016 total settlement dollars exceeded total settlement dollars. inflation-adjusted totals for eight of the nine prior years.

Figure 2: Total Settlement Dollars 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions)

$8,377

$5,990

$4,917 $4,154 $3,586 $3,336 $3,080 $3,073

$1,453 $1,164

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 N=109 N=97 N=99 N=85 N=65 N=56 N=66 N=63 N=80 N=85

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 3 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 8 of 29 Mega Settlements

• Four of the 10 approved mega settlements in 2016 • The number of mega settlements as a percentage of all were between $100 million and $250 million; four were settlements in 2016 was the highest over the last 10 between $250 million and $500 million; and two years. exceeded $1 billion. The last observed settlement over • Mega settlements have accounted for 72 percent of all $1 billion was in 2013. settlement dollars on average from 2007–2016. • The median mega settlement in 2016 was $318 million, almost twice the median in 2015.

• In 2016, $4.8 billion of the total $6 billion settlement The total value of mega settlements in value came from mega settlements. 2016 was more than two times the prior year’s value.

Figure 3: Mega Settlements 2007–2016

Total Mega Settlement Dollars as a Percentage of All Settlement Dollars Number of Mega Settlements as a Percentage of All Settlements 84% 79% 81% 73% 74% 73%

60% 52%

41% 34%

11% 10% 12% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 5% 3%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 4 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 9 of 29 Settlement Size

• The proportion of cases settling for $2 million or less • In 2016, 56 percent of settlements fell between (often referred to as “nuisance suits”) in 2016 was $5 million and $50 million, 18 percent higher than the 12 percent (10 cases), a drop from 25 percent rate for all prior post–Reform Act years. (20 cases) in 2015 and a return to 2013 and 2014 • Among all post–Reform Act settlements, 79 percent proportions. have been for amounts equal to or less than • The percentage of cases settling for less than $5 million $25 million. also decreased in 2016 compared to prior years. • The higher proportion of 2016 cases settling for $150 million or more reflects the record number of The median settlement amount mega settlements compared to the last 10 years. • Median total assets for issuer defendants settling in increased more than 40 percent from 2016 were more than 41 percent higher than the $6.1 million in 2015 to $8.6 million median asset value for 2015 settlements (adjusted for in 2016. inflation) and 15 percent higher than the median total assets for issuers settling in the prior 10 years.

Figure 4: Distribution of Post–Reform Act Settlements (Dollars in Millions)

34.8% 1996–2015 2016

28.2% 27.1%

20.5% 18.4%

15.3% 12.9% 13.4%

4.7% 2.9% 3.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.4% 2.1% 2.5% 2.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8%

< $5 $5–$10 $10–$20 $20–$50 $50–$75 $75–$100 $100–$150 $150–$250 $250–$500 > $500

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 5 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 29 Damages Estimates and Market Capitalization Losses

“Estimated Damages”

“Estimated damages” are a simplified measure of potential • Average and median “estimated damages” for 2016 shareholder losses that allows for use of a consistent method increased modestly from 2015 (9 percent and in this study and therefore the identification and analysis of 8 percent, respectively). potential trends. While “estimated damages” are found to be • Compared to the average and median values for the the most important factor in predicting settlement amounts, previous five years (2011–2015), however, 2016 they are not necessarily linked to the allegations in the average “estimated damages” were 30 percent higher associated court pleadings.2 The damages estimates while median “estimated damages” were 14 percent presented in this report are not intended to be indicative of lower. actual economic losses borne by shareholders. • Overall, higher “estimated damages” are associated with larger issuer defendants (measured by total assets Average “estimated damages” in 2016 of the issuer) and more mature firms (measured by the length of time publicly traded). In addition, plaintiffs are were the second highest in the last more likely to name third-party defendants in larger 10 years. cases (as measured by “estimated damages”).

Figure 5: Median and Average “Estimated Damages” 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions)

Median “Estimated Damages” $5,890 Average “Estimated Damages” $4,833 $4,452 $4,434

$3,270

$2,423 $2,201 $2,092 $2,169 $1,766

$666 $599 $476 $284 $344 $314 $349 $351 $335 $361

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Note: “Estimated damages” are adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 6 Damages EstimatesCase and Market 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Capitalization Losses (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 11 of 29

“Estimated Damages” continued

• In 2016, median settlements as a percentage of “estimated damages” increased 39 percent over 2015. In 2016, median settlements as a

• While the median settlement as a percentage of percentage of “estimated damages” “estimated damages” for mega settlements has often jumped from 2015’s historic low. been lower than for non-mega settlements, in 2016 it was slightly higher (2.7 percent and 2.5 percent for mega settlements and non-mega settlements, respectively).

Figure 6: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” 2007–2016

2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% 2.1% 1.8%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 7 Damages EstimatesCase and Market 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Capitalization Losses (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 12 of 29

“Estimated Damages” continued

• Smaller cases settled for a lower percentage of “estimated damages” in 2016 relative to mid-range The rise in the 2016 median settlement cases when compared to prior years. as a proportion of “estimated • Median settlements as a percentage of “estimated damages” puts it in line with the damages” in 2016 increased 24 percent from the 2011– median for the prior 10 years. 2015 median and were higher than any percentage in the last five years.

Figure 7: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” by Damages Ranges (Dollars in Millions)

10.8%

2006–2015 2016

7.3%

5.8%

4.5%

3.4% 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.5% 1.9% 1.8% 1.3% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.7%

Total Sample Less Than $50 $50–$124 $125–$249 $250–$499 $500–$999 $1,000–$4,999 $5,000 or Greater

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 8 Damages EstimatesCase and Market 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Capitalization Losses (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 13 of 29

Damages Estimation Approaches

“Estimated Damages” vs. Tiered Damages estimate damages. The methodology for tiered damages also accounts for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 landmark Tiered damages are an alternative damages measure based decision in Dura whereby damages cannot be associated on the dollar value of stock price movements on dates with shares sold before information regarding the alleged detailed in the settlement plan of allocation. They provide fraud reaches the market.4 an alternative measure of potential investor losses for more recent securities class action settlements.3 Tiered damages, like “estimated damages,” are highly correlated with settlement amounts and are an important As a measure that is based on specific company stock price component in ongoing analyses of settlement outcome declines (either at the end or during the class period), rather determinants. than daily deviations from movements in an index, tiered damages are conceptually more closely aligned with the approach typically followed by plaintiffs in recent years to

Figure 8: Damages Estimation Approaches 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions)

$800 Median Tiered Damages 10% Median Settlements Median "Estimated Damages" 9% $700 as a Percentage of Tiered Damages 8% $600 7% $500 6% Median Settlements as a Percentage of $400 "Estimated Damages" 5%

4% $300 3% $200 2% $100 1%

$0 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Note: Damages figures are adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 9 Damages EstimatesCase and Market 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Capitalization Losses (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 14 of 29

Disclosure Dollar Loss

Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) captures the stock price reaction • With an increase in both the average and median DDL to the class-ending disclosure that resulted in the first filed over 2015, the trend in DDL for cases settled in 2016 complaint. DDL is calculated as the decline in the market follows a pattern similar to that for “estimated damages.” capitalization of the defendant firm from the trading day • While the aggregate trends in DDL and “estimated immediately preceding the end of the class period to the damages” are often similar, for individual cases, the two trading day immediately following the end of the class period measures typically differ substantially. and, as such, does not incorporate any estimate of the number of shares traded during the class period.5 • Total DDL associated with settlements approved in 2016 was nearly $81 billion, 20 percent below the average from 2007 through 2015. Median DDL in 2016 was 50 percent more than 2015.

Figure 9: Median and Average Disclosure Dollar Loss 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions)

Median DDL $1,870 Average DDL

$1,317

$1,120 $1,090

$928 $839 $793

$642 $598

$448

$175 $193 $202 $144 $161 $126 $135 $111 $125 $90

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Note: DDL is adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 10 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 29 Analysis of Settlement Characteristics

Nature of Claims

• In 2016, there were 10 settlements involving Section 11 • As reported in Cornerstone Research’s Securities Class and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims (’33 Act claims) that did Action Filings—2016 Year in Review, the frequency of not involve Rule 10b-5 allegations, the second most filings involving Section 11 claims in California state active year in the last decade.6 courts has increased in recent years.7

• Cases settling in 2016 involving combined claims (Rule • Four of the five state court settlements in 2016 were 10b-5 and Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims) for California state cases with ’33 Act claims only. had, on average, twice as many federal docket entries as cases involving just Rule 10b-5 claims—indicating the more complex nature of such matters. Settlements as a percentage of “estimated damages” are considerably higher for cases with only Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims because these cases typically have smaller “estimated damages” compared to other claim types.

Figure 10: Settlements by Nature of Claims 1996–2015 (Dollars in Millions) Median Settlement Number of Median “Estimated Median Settlement as a Percentage of Settlements Damages” “Estimated Damages”

Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) Only 97 $4.0 $55.6 7.4%

Both Rule 10b-5 and Section 11 281 $13.6 $537.2 3.0% and/or 12(a)(2)

Rule 10b-5 Only 1,220 $8.1 $373.4 2.5%

Note: Settlement dollars and “estimated damages” are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used. “Estimated damages” are adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 11 Analysis of SettlementCase Characteristics 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 16 of 29

Accounting Allegations

This research examines three types of accounting issues • In 2016, no settlements involved reported accounting among settled cases: (1) alleged GAAP violations, (2) irregularities, and there was only one such case among restatements, and (3) reported accounting irregularities.8 For 2015 settlements. Historically, approximately 6 percent further details regarding settlements of accounting cases, of cases involve accounting irregularities. see Cornerstone Research’s annual report on Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements.

• Among all post–Reform Act settlements, alleged GAAP The percentage of cases alleging GAAP violations are included in approximately 60 percent of violations declined for a second straight cases. In 2016, however, the frequency of GAAP year in 2016. violation allegations was 54 percent.

• Restatements were involved in more than 30 percent of cases settled in 2016. These cases were associated with higher settlements as a percentage of “estimated damages” compared to cases without restatements.

Figure 11: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” and Accounting Allegations 1996–2016

Accounting Irregularities Alleged No Restatement GAAP Alleged 3.9% No Accounting No Violations GAAP 3.5% Irregularities Restatement 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.7%

N=967 N=631 N=518 N=1,080 N=102 N=1,496

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 12 Analysis of SettlementCase Characteristics 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 17 of 29

Third-Party Codefendants

• Third parties, such as an auditor or an underwriter, are • Underwriter defendants were named in 79 percent of often named as codefendants in larger, more complex cases with Section 11 claims in 2016. cases.

• In 2016, however, the median settlement for cases with a third-party named defendant was 26 percent lower On average, 27 percent of post–Reform than for cases without a third-party named defendant. Act settlements involved a named

• Only 17 percent of accounting-related case settlements auditor or underwriter codefendant. in 2016 had a named auditor defendant.

Figure 12: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Estimated Damages” and Third-Party Codefendants 1996–2016

Underwriter Named

5.2%

Auditor Named No No Auditor 3.7% Underwriter Named Named 2.9% 2.7%

N=255 N=1,343 N=246 N=1,352

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 13 Analysis of SettlementCase Characteristics 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 18 of 29

Institutional Investors

• In 2016, the median settlement amount for cases with • Cases in which public pension plans serve as lead or co- institutional investor lead plaintiffs was more than two- lead plaintiff also tend to involve larger issuer and-a-half times that of cases with no institutional defendants, longer class periods, securities in addition investor as a lead plaintiff, but settlements as a to common stock, accounting allegations, and other percentage of “estimated damages” were only slightly indicators of more serious cases such as criminal higher. charges. These cases are also associated with longer periods to reach settlement. • Institutions, including public pension plans—a subset of institutional investors—tend to be involved as plaintiffs in larger cases (i.e., cases with higher “estimated damages”). Public pension involvement rose for the second consecutive year. • In 2016, 55 percent of settlements with “estimated damages” greater than $500 million involved a public pension plan as lead plaintiff, compared to 30 percent for cases with “estimated damages” of $500 million or less.

Figure 13: Median Settlement Amounts and Public Pensions 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions)

Public Pension as Lead Plaintiff $25 No Public Pension as Lead Plaintiff $24 $23 $22 Percentage of Settlements with $19 $19 Public Pension as $19 Lead Plaintiff $18 $16 46% 44% 40% 41% 38% 39% $13 37% 33% 34% $11 26% $8 $7 $6 $5 $5 $4 $4 $3 $3

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 14 Analysis of SettlementCase Characteristics 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 19 of 29

Derivative Actions

• In 2016, 40 percent of settled cases were accompanied • As a percentage of all derivative actions, the prevalence by derivative actions, compared to 34 percent for all of companion derivative actions filed in California has prior post–Reform Act years. increased annually from 14 percent in 2012 to 35 percent in 2016.. • Historically, accompanying derivative actions have been associated with relatively large securities class actions.9 In 2016, however, 38 percent of cases with “estimated damages” of $500 million or less involved a companion In 2016, the median settlement for a derivative action—just below the 42 percent of cases case with a companion derivative with “estimated damages” of more than $500 million. action was $12 million versus $8.5 million for those without.

Figure 14: Frequency of Derivative Actions 2007–2016

Settlements without a Companion Derivative Action Settlements with a Companion Derivative Action

53 57

50 39 51

39 35 41 27

62 46 40 41 35 34 29 24 27 28

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 15 Analysis of SettlementCase Characteristics 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (continued) Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 20 of 29

Corresponding SEC Actions

Cases with a corresponding SEC action related to the • While cases with accompanying SEC actions tend to allegations (evidenced by the filing of a litigation release or involve larger issuer defendants, they are also more administrative proceeding prior to settlement) are typically frequently associated with delisted firms. In addition, associated with significantly higher settlement amounts and these cases often involve settlements prior to the first have higher settlements as a percentage of “estimated ruling on a motion to dismiss. damages.”10 For related research on SEC enforcement activity, see t Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED).11 After doubling in 2015, the number of 2016 settlements with a corresponding • In 2016, however, the median settlement for cases with an SEC action ($8.4 million) differed only slightly from SEC action returned to the lower levels the median settlement for cases without a observed for 2012–2014. corresponding SEC action ($8.6 million). • Across all post–Reform Act cases, for settlements of cases involving accompanying SEC actions, the issuer defendant’s assets have averaged $65 billion, as compared to only $18 billion for settlements without accompanying SEC actions.

Figure 15: Frequency of SEC Actions 2007–2016

Settlements without a Corresponding SEC Action Settlements with a Corresponding SEC Action

75 77 62 60 71

53 58 53 45

31 22 22 23 20 13 14 7 11 10

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 16 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 29 Time to Settlement and Case Complexity

• The percentage of settlements in 2016 occurring within • In 2016, the median settlement for cases settling within two years after the filing date was at its highest level in two years was 70 percent lower than for cases taking the last 10 years. longer to settle.

• The median number of docket entries for cases settling • The spike in the median settlement for 2016 cases within two years in 2016 was 19 percent higher than settling after five years from filing is driven, in large the median for the prior 10 years, indicating a relatively part, by five mega settlements out of the 14 high level of activity during the tenure of these cases. settlements in this category.

• Overall, the time to settlement tends to be longer for larger cases (as measured by issuer defendant size and In 2016, the median time from filing “estimated damages”), cases involving third-party date to settlement was less than defendants, and cases with distressed issuer firms. three years.

Figure 16: Median Settlement by Duration from Filing Date to Settlement Hearing Date (Dollars in Millions)

$56.0

2006–2015 2016

$16.6 $13.3 $14.0 $11.0 $9.0 $7.6 $8.3 $4.0 $3.3

Less Than 2 Years 2–3 Years 3–4 Years 4–5 Years More Than 5 Years

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 17 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 22 of 29 Litigation Stages

This report studies three stages in the litigation process that • Public pensions are involved as lead plaintiffs in may be considered an indication of the strength of the 17 percent of cases that settle in Stage 1 and in merits of a case (e.g., surviving a motion to dismiss) and/or 30 percent of cases that settle in Stage 3. the time and effort invested by the lead plaintiff counsel: Stage 1: Settlement before the first ruling on a motion to dismiss Higher settlement amounts but lower Stage 2: Settlement after a ruling on motion to dismiss, but settlements as a percentage of before a ruling on motion for summary judgment “estimated damages” are associated Stage 3: Settlement after a ruling on motion for summary with cases settling after a ruling on judgment motion for summary judgment.

• In 2016, 25 percent of settlements occurred in Stage 1, an increase from 18 percent for cases settled in 2015.

• Among all post–Reform Act settlements, cases settling in Stage 1 have the smallest median “estimated damages” and the smallest median assets whereas Stage 3 settlements have the highest medians.

Figure 17: Litigation Stages 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions)

Median Settlements Median Settlements as a Percentage $13.3 of "Estimated Damages"

$8.6 3.5%

$6.8

2.4% 2.2%

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 N=410 N=1,008 N=98 N=98 N=410 N=1,008 Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 18 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 23 of 29 Cornerstone Research’s Settlement Prediction Analysis

This research applies regression analysis to examine which Determinants of characteristics of securities cases were associated with settlement outcomes. The regression analysis is designed to Settlement Outcomes better understand and predict the total settlement amount, Based on the research sample of post–Reform Act cases that given the characteristics of a particular securities case. This settled through December 2016, the factors that were analysis can also be applied to estimate the probabilities important determinants of settlement amounts included the associated with reaching alternative settlement levels as well following: as to explore hypothetical scenarios, including, but not limited to, the effects on settlement amounts given the • “Estimated damages” presence or absence of particular factors found to • Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) significantly affect settlement outcomes. • Most recently reported total assets of the defendant • Settlements were higher when “estimated damages,” firm DDL, defendant asset size, or the number of docket entries were larger. • Number of entries on the lead case docket • • Settlements were also higher in cases involving The year in which the settlement occurred intentional misstatements or omissions in the issuer’s • Whether the issuer reported intentional misstatements financial statements, financial restatements, a or omissions in financial statements corresponding SEC action, a codefendant underwriter and/or auditor, an accompanying derivative action, a • Whether a restatement of financials related to the public pension involved as lead plaintiff, a noncash alleged class period was announced component to the settlement, filed criminal charges, or • Whether there was a corresponding SEC action against securities other than common stock alleged to be the issuer, other defendants, or related parties damaged. • Whether the plaintiffs named an auditor and/or • Settlements were lower if the settlement occurred in underwriter as a codefendant 2009 or later, if the issuer was distressed, or if the issuer traded on a non-major exchange. • Whether the issuer defendant was distressed • Whether a companion derivative action was filed • Whether a public pension was a lead plaintiff

• Whether noncash components, such as common stock or warrants, made up a portion of the settlement fund

• Whether the plaintiffs alleged that securities other than common stock were damaged

• Whether criminal charges/indictments were brought with similar allegations to the underlying class action

• Whether the issuer traded on a non-major exchange

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 19 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 24 of 29 Research Sample Data Sources

• The database used in this report focuses on cases In addition to SCAS, data sources include Dow Jones Factiva, alleging fraudulent inflation in the price of a Bloomberg, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) corporation’s common stock (i.e., excluding cases with at University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Standard alleged classes of only bondholders, preferred & Poor’s Compustat, court filings and dockets, SEC registrant stockholders, etc., and excluding cases alleging filings, SEC litigation releases and administrative fraudulent depression in price and M&A cases). proceedings, LexisNexis, and public press. • The sample is limited to cases alleging Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims brought by purchasers of a corporation’s common stock. These criteria are imposed to ensure data availability and to provide a relatively homogeneous set of cases in terms of the nature of the allegations.

• The current sample includes 1,621 securities class actions filed after passage of the Reform Act (1995) and settled from 1996 through 2016. These settlements are identified based on a review of case activity collected by Securities Class Action Services LLC (SCAS).12

• The designated settlement year, for purposes of this report, corresponds to the year in which the hearing to approve the settlement was held.13 Cases involving multiple settlements are reflected in the year of the most recent partial settlement, provided certain conditions are met.14

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 20 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 25 of 29 Endnotes

1 Securities Class Action Filings—2016 Year in Review, Cornerstone Research, 2017. 2 The simplified “estimated damages” model is applied to common stock only. For all cases involving Rule 10b-5 claims, damages are calculated using a market-adjusted, backward-pegged value line. For cases involving only Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims (1933 Act Claims), damages are calculated using a model that caps the purchase price at the offering price. Volume reduction assumptions are based on the exchange on which the issuer’s common stock traded. Finally, no adjustments for institutions, insiders, or short sellers are made to the underlying float. 3 The dates used to identify the applicable inflation bands may be supplemented with information from the operative complain t at the time of settlement. 4 Tiered damages are calculated for cases that settled after 2005. The calculation of tiered damages utilizes a single value line when there is one alleged corrective disclosure date (at the end of the class period) or a tiered value line when there are multiple dates identified in the settlement notice. 5 This measure does not incorporate additional stock price declines during the alleged class period that may affect certain purchasers’ potential damages claims. As this measure does not isolate movements in the defendant’s stock price that are related to case allegations, it is not intended to represent an estimate of investor losses. The DDL calculation also does not apply a model of investors’ share-trading behavior to estimate the number of shares damaged. 6 Intensified activity in the U.S. IPO market in recent years, in tandem with the increase in Section 11 filings (either alone or together with Rule 10b-5 claims), suggests that these cases are likely to be more prevalent in the near future. However, a slowdown in IPO activity reported in 2016 may eventually contribute to a reduction in ’33 Act claim only cases. 7 See Securities Class Action Filings—2016 Year in Review, Cornerstone Research, 2017, page 4. 8 The three categories of accounting issues analyzed in this report are: (1) GAAP violations—cases with allegations involving Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (2) restatements—cases involving a restatement (or announcement of a restatement) of financial statements; and (3) accounting irregularities—cases in which the defendant has reported the occurrence of accounting irregularities (intentional misstatements or omissions) in its financial statements. 9 This is true whether or not the settlement of the derivative action coincides with the settlement of the underlying class action, or occurs at a different time. 10 It could be that the merits in such cases are stronger, or simply that the presence of an accompanying SEC action provides plaintiffs with increased leverage when negotiating a settlement. 11 The Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED) tracks and records information for SEC enforcement actions filed against public companies traded on major U.S. exchanges and their subsidiaries. Created by the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business in cooperation with Cornerstone Research, SEED facilitates the analysis and reporting of SEC enforcement actions through regular updates of new filings and settlement information for ongoing enforcement actions. 12 Available on a subscription basis. 13 Movements of partial settlements between years can cause differences in amounts reported for prior years from those presented in earlier reports. 14 This categorization is based on the timing of the settlement approval. If a new partial settlement equals or exceeds 50 percent of the then-current settlement fund amount, the entirety of the settlement amount is re-categorized to reflect the settlement hearing date of the most recent partial settlement. If a subsequent partial settlement is less than 50 percent of the then-current total, the partial settlement is added to the total settlement amount and the settlement hearing date is left unchanged.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 21 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 26 of 29 Appendices

Appendix 1: Settlement Percentiles (Dollars in Millions) Average 10th 25th Median 75th 90th

2016 $70.5 $1.9 $4.2 $8.6 $33.0 $146.0

2015 $38.4 $1.3 $2.1 $6.1 $15.5 $92.1

2014 $18.5 $1.7 $2.9 $6.1 $13.4 $50.7

2013 $74.5 $2.0 $3.1 $6.7 $22.8 $85.0

2012 $64.0 $1.3 $2.8 $9.8 $37.1 $120.2

2011 $22.4 $2.0 $2.7 $6.1 $19.2 $44.6

2010 $39.2 $2.2 $4.7 $12.4 $27.5 $87.6

2009 $42.0 $2.6 $4.3 $9.0 $22.4 $74.3

2008 $31.8 $2.2 $4.2 $8.9 $21.2 $56.2

2007 $76.9 $1.7 $3.4 $10.4 $20.3 $92.4

1996–2016 $43.7 $1.7 $3.5 $8.3 $20.9 $74.0

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2016 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Appendix 2: Select Industry Sectors 1996–2016 (Dollars in Millions) Median Settlement Number of Median Median Industry as a Percentage of Settlements Settlement “Estimated Damages” “Estimated Damages”

Technology 361 $7.8 $324.9 2.8%

Financial 195 $14.5 $812.8 2.5%

Telecommunications 151 $9.1 $501.8 2.2%

Retail 131 $7.1 $246.7 3.8%

Pharmaceuticals 125 $8.3 $387.6 2.4%

Healthcare 64 $8.6 $296.1 3.3%

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 22 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 27 of 29

Appendix 3: Settlements by Federal Circuit Court 2007–2016 (Dollars in Millions) Median Median Settlement Number of Median Circuit Number of Docket as a Percentage of Settlements Settlement Entries “Estimated Damages”

First 34 143 $7.0 2.6%

Second 204 117 $11.9 2.1%

Third 76 113 $9.0 2.2%

Fourth 33 137 $8.3 1.8%

Fifth 44 104 $6.6 2.0%

Sixth 38 140 $19.8 3.1%

Seventh 44 146 $10.2 2.7%

Eighth 20 195 $10.7 3.3%

Ninth 206 164 $7.9 2.2%

Tenth 23 153 $8.4 1.6%

Eleventh 53 134 $5.2 2.2%

DC 3 267 $48.1 5.0%

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 23 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 29 About the Authors

Laarni T. Bulan Ph.D., Columbia University; M.Phil., Columbia University; B.S., University of the Philippines Laarni Bulan is a principal in Cornerstone Research’s Boston office, where she specializes in finance. Her work has focused on securities damages and class certification issues, insider trading, merger valuation, risk management, market manipulation and trading behavior, and real estate markets. She has consulted on cases related to financial institutions and the credit crisis, municipal bond mutual funds, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, credit default swaps, foreign exchange, and securities clearing and settlement. Dr. Bulan has published several academic articles in peer-reviewed journals. Her research covers topics in dividend policy, capital structure, executive compensation, corporate governance, and real options. Prior to joining Cornerstone Research, Dr. Bulan had a joint appointment at Brandeis University as an assistant professor of finance in its International Business School and in the economics department.

Ellen M. Ryan M.B.A., American Graduate School of International Management; B.A., Saint Mary’s College Ellen Ryan is a director in Cornerstone Research’s Boston office, where she works in the securities practice. Ms. Ryan has consulted on economic and financial issues in a variety of cases, including securities class actions, financial institution breach of contract matters, and antitrust litigation. She also has worked with testifying witnesses in corporate governance and breach of fiduciary duty matters. Prior to joining Cornerstone Research, Ms. Ryan worked for Salomon Brothers in New York and Tokyo. Currently she focuses on post–Reform Act settlement research as well as general practice area business and research.

Laura E. Simmons Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; M.B.A., University of Houston; B.B.A., University of Texas at Austin Laura Simmons is a senior advisor with Cornerstone Research. She is a certified public accountant (CPA) and has more than 25 years of experience in accounting practice and economic and financial consulting. Dr. Simmons has focused on damages and liability issues in litigation, as well as on accounting issues arising in a variety of complex commercial litigation matters. She has served as a testifying expert in cases involving accounting analyses, securities case damages, research on securities lawsuits, and other issues involving empirical analyses. Dr. Simmons’s research on pre– and post–Reform Act securities litigation settlements has been published in a number of reports and is frequently cited in the public press and legal journals. She has spoken at various conferences and appeared as a guest on CNBC addressing the topic of securities case settlements. She has also published in academic journals, with recent research focusing on the intersection of accounting and litigation. Dr. Simmons was previously an accounting faculty member at the Mason School of Business at the College of William & Mary. From 1986 to 1991, she was an accountant with Price Waterhouse.

The authors acknowledge the research efforts and significant contributions of their colleagues at Cornerstone Research. Please direct any questions and requests for additional information to the settlement database administrator at [email protected].

Many publications quote, cite, or reproduce data, charts, or tables from Cornerstone Research reports. The authors request that you reference Cornerstone Research in any reprint, quotation, or citation of the charts, tables, or data reported in this study.

Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis cornerstone.com 24 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-10 Filed 01/23/18 Page 29 of 29

Boston 617.927.3000 Chicago 312.345.7300 London +44.20.3655.0900 Los Angeles 213.553.2500 New York 212.605.5000 San Francisco 415.229.8100 Silicon Valley 650.853.1660 Washington 202.912.8900 cornerstone.com

© 2017 by Cornerstone Research. All rights reserved. Cornerstone Research is a registered service mark of Cornerstone Research, Inc. C and design is a registered trademark of Cornerstone Research, Inc. Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 59

Exhibit 11 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 59

1 Compendium of Slip Opinions

2 In re Amazon.com Inc. Sec. Litig. 3 Case No. 01-0358 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 11, 2005) ...... 1

4 In re Broadcom Corp. Class Action Litig., 5 Case No. CV-06-5036-R (CWx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012) ...... 2

6 In re Celestica Inc. Sec. Litig., 7 Case No. 07-CV-00312 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2015) ...... 3

8 Grasso v. Vitesse SemiConductor Corp., 9 Case No. 06-CV-2639 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008) ...... 4

10 In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Sec. Litig., 11 Case No. 11-1404-AG- (RNBx) (Sept. 15, 2014) ...... 5

12 In re NII Holdings Inc. Sec. Litig., 13 Case No. 14:cv-00227 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2016) ...... 6

14 In re OSG Sec. Litig., 15 Case No. 12-cv-07948-SAS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 02, 2015) ...... 7

16 In re PETCO Corp. Sec. Litig., 17 Case No. 05-CV-0823 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008) ...... 8 18 In re Sunpower Sec. Litig., 19 Case No. 09-5473 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) ...... 9 20 Weston v. RCS Capital Corp., 21 Case No. 14-cv-10136 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017) ...... 10 22

26 27 28

COMPENDIUM OF SLIP OPINIONS

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 59

TAB 1

CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 2:01-cv-00358-RSL Document Document 351-11 266 Filed Filed 11/10/05 01/23/18 Page Page 1 4 of of 2 59

1 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 AT SEATTLE 11 In re AMAZON.COM, INC. SECURITIES ) 12 LITIGATION ) Master File No. C-01-0358-L ) 13 ) CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ) 14 ) ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES ALL ACTIONS. ) AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 15 )

17 This matter having come before the Court on September 22, 2005, on the motion of 18 plaintiffs’ counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in the 19 Litigation, the Court, having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted herein, having 20 found the settlement of this action to be fair, reasonable and adequate and otherwise being fully 21 informed in the premises and good cause appearing therefor; 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 23 1. All of the capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in 24 25 the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated as of May 13, 2005 (the “Amended Stipulation”). 26

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1600 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (C-01-0358-L) San Diego, CA 92101 - 1 - Telephone: 619/231-1058 • Fax: 619/231-7423

CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 2:01-cv-00358-RSL Document Document 351-11 266 Filed Filed 11/10/05 01/23/18 Page Page 2 5 of of 2 59

1 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this application and all matters

2 relating thereto, including all Members of the Class who have not timely and validly requested 3 exclusion. 4 3. The Court hereby awards Plaintiffs’ Settlement Counsel attorneys’ fees of twenty-five 5 percent (25%) of the Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of 6 $912,988.49, together with the interest earned thereon for the same time period and at the same rate 7 8 as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The Court finds that the “benchmark” percentage is

9 appropriate and that the amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable under the “percentage-of-

10 recovery” method. 11 4. The fees and expenses shall be allocated among plaintiffs’ counsel in a manner 12 which, in Plaintiffs’ Settlement Counsel’s good-faith judgment, reflects each such counsel’s 13 contribution to the institution, prosecution and resolution of the Litigation. 14 15 5. The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses and interest earned thereon shall 16 immediately be paid to Plaintiffs’ Settlement Counsel subject to the terms, conditions and

17 obligations of the Amended Stipulation, and in particular ¶6.2 thereof, which terms, conditions and

18 obligations are incorporated herein. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated this 10th day of November, 2005. 21

22 A 23 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 24

25 26

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1600 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (C-01-0358-L) San Diego, CA 92101 - 2 - Telephone: 619/231-1058 • Fax: 619/231-7423

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 59

TAB 2

Case 2:06-cv-05036-R-CWCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 454 351-11Filed 12/04/12 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of Page 3 Page 7 of 59ID #:8022

1 JOSEPH J. TABACCO, JR. #75484 Email: [email protected] 2 NICOLE LAVALLEE #165755 Email: [email protected] 3 BERMAN DeVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 5 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382

6 Liaison Counsel for Class Representative New Mexico State Investment Council and the Class 7 THOMAS A. DUBBS (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Email: [email protected] JOSEPH A. FONTI (admitted pro hac vice) 9 Email: [email protected] STEPHEN W. TOUNTAS (admitted pro hac vice) 10 Email: [email protected] LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 11 140 Broadway New York, New York 10005 12 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 13 Class Counsel for Class Representative 14 New Mexico State Investment Council and the Class

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 WESTERN DIVISION

18 ) In re BROADCOM CORPORATION ) Lead Case No.: CV-06-5036-R (CWx) 19 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ) 20 ) ORDER AWARDING CLASS ) COUNSEL ATTORNEYS’ FEES 21 ) AND REIMBURSEMENT OF 22 ) LITIGATION EXPENSES ) 23 ) Date: December 3, 2012 24 ) Time: 10:00 a.m.

25 ) Before: The Hon. Manuel L. Real ) 26 ) 27 )

[PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES L EAD CASE NO. V-06-5036-R (CWX)

Case 2:06-cv-05036-R-CWCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 454 351-11Filed 12/04/12 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of Page 3 Page 8 of 59ID #:8023

1 THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Class Counsel’s 2 Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses 3 and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; the Court having 4 considered all papers filed and proceedings had therein, having found the 5 settlement of this action to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and otherwise being 6 fully informed; 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 8 1. All of the capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings 9 as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Ernst & Young 10 LLP, dated as of September 27, 2012 (the “Stipulation”), and filed with the Court. 11 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this application 12 and all matters relating thereto, including all Members of the Class who have not 13 timely and validly requested exclusion. 14 3. The Court hereby awards Class Counsel attorneys’ fees of 18.5% of 15 the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of 16 $______, together with the interest earned thereon for the same 17 time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. 18 The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is appropriate and is fair and 19 reasonable under the “percentage-of-the-recovery” method, given the results 20 obtained for the Class, the substantial risks of non-recovery, the time and effort 21 involved, and the quality of Class Counsel’s work. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft 22 Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 4. The fees shall be allocated among counsel for the Class 24 Representatives by Class Counsel in a manner that reflects each such counsel’s 25 contribution to the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the captioned action. 26 5. The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses, and interest earned 27 thereon, shall be paid to Class Counsel subject to the terms, conditions, and 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES L EAD CASE NO. V-06-5036-R (CWX)

Case 2:06-cv-05036-R-CWCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 454 351-11Filed 12/04/12 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of Page 3 Page 9 of 59ID #:8024

1 obligations of the Stipulation, and pursuant to the timing set forth in ¶12 thereof, 2 which terms, conditions and obligations are incorporated herein. 3 6. The Court hereby awards Class Representative New Mexico State 4 Investment Council, as Class Representative, reimbursement of its reasonable lost 5 wages directly relating to its representation of the Class, pursuant to the Private 6 Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). 7 The Court awards Class Representative the requested amount of $21,087, which 8 may be paid upon entry of this Order.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: Dec. 4, 2012, 2012 11 ______12 THE HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [P ROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES 2 LEAD CASE NO. V-06-5036-R (CWX)

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 10 of 59

TAB 3

Case 1:07-cv-00312-GBD-MHD4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 351-11 267 Filed Filed 01/23/18 07/28/15 Page Page 11 1of of 59 4

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x !. Civil Action No.: 07-CV-00312-GBD

IN RE CELESTICA INC. SEC. LITIG. (ECF CASE)

Hon. George B. Daniels

••••(ORDER AW ARD ING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on July 28, 2015 for a hearing to determine, among other things, whether and in what amount to award Class Counsel in the above-captioned consolidated securities class action (the "Action") attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and Class Representative New Orleans Employees' Retirement System ("New

Orleans") expenses relating to its representation of the Class. All capitalized terms used herein have the meanings as set forth and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 17, 2015 (the "Stipulation"). The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing and otherwise; and it appearing that a notice of the hearing, substantially in the form approved by the Court (the "Notice"), was mailed to all reasonably identified Class

Members; and that a summary notice of the hearing (the "Summary Notice"), substantially in the form approved by the Court, was published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted over PR

Newswire; and the Court having considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses requested;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

I. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all parties to the Action, including all Class Members and the Claims Administrator. Case 1:07-cv-00312-GBD-MHD4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 351-11 267 Filed Filed 01/23/18 07/28/15 Page Page 12 2of of 59 4

2. Notice of Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses was given to all Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Class of the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses met the requirements of Rules 23 and 54 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, I 5 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), due process, and any other applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

3. Class Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,000,000 plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund (or 30% of the Settlement Fund, which includes interest earned thereon) and payment of litigation expenses in the amount of

$1,392,450.33, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, which sums the

Court finds to be fair and reasonable.

4. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), for its representation of the Class, the

Court hereby awards New Orleans reimbursement of its reasonable lost wages and expenses directly related to its representation of the Class in the amount of $3,645.18.

5. The award of attorneys' fees and expenses may be paid to Class Counsel from the

Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated herein.

6. In making the award to Class Counsel of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that:

(a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $30 million in cash and that numerous Class Members who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim will benefit from the

2 Case 1:07-cv-00312-GBD-MHD4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 351-11 267 Filed Filed 01/23/18 07/28/15 Page Page 13 3of of 59 4

Settlement created by the efforts of plaintiffs' counsel;

(b) The requested attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by Class Representatives, sophisticated institutional investors that have been directly involved in the prosecution and resolution of the

Action and which have a substantial interest in ensuring that any fees paid to Class Counsel are duly earned and not excessive;

Counsel would be moving for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement

Fund, plus accrued interest, and payment of litigation expenses, and the expenses of Class

Representatives for reimbursement of their reasonable lost wages and costs directly related to their representation of the Class, in an amount not to exceed $2 million, plus accrued interest;

( d) There were no objections to the requested litigation expenses or to the expense request by New Orleans. The Court has received one objection to the fee request, which was submitted by Jeff M. Brown. The Court finds and concludes that Mr. Brown has not established that he is a Class Member with standing to bring the objection and it is overruled on that basis. The Court has also considered the issues raised in the objection and finds that, even if

Mr. Brown were to have standing to object, the objection is without merit. The objection is therefore overruled in its entirety;

(e) Plaintiffs' counsel have expended substantial time and effort pursuing the

Action on behalf of the Class;

(f) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain;

(g) Plaintiffs' counsel pursued the Action on a contingent basis, having

3 ------Case 1:07-cv-00312-GBD-MHD4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 351-11 267 Filed Filed 01/23/18 07/28/15 Page Page 14 4of of 59 4

received no compensation during the Action, and any fee award has been contingent on the result

achieved;

(h) Plaintiffs' counsel conducted the Action and achieved the Settlement with

skillful and diligent advocacy;

(i) Public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys' fees in

securities class action litigation;

(j) The amount of attorneys' fees awarded are fair and reasonable and

consistent with awards in similar cases; and

(k) Plaintiffs' counsel have devoted more than 28, 130.35 hours, with a

lodestar value of$14,324,709.25 to achieve the Settlement.

7. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval of any attorneys' fee

and expense application shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered

with respect to the Settlement.

8. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained over the subject matter of this Action and

over all parties to the Action, including the administration and distribution of the Net Settlement

Fund to Class Members.

9. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become Final or the

Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, this order shall be

rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation and shall be vacated in

acco(dance with the Stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______, 2015 e rge B. Daniels TES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 15 of 59

TAB 4

Case 2:06-cv-02639-R-CTCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 222 351-11Filed 11/17/08 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of Page 5 Page 16 of ID 59 #:1548

1 PAUL R. KIESEL (SBN 119854) 2 KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard 3 Beverly Hills, California 90211-2910 4 Telephone: 310/854.4444 310/854.0812 (fax) 5 6 Liaison Counsel

7 HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS 8 Attorneys at Law 9 PAUL O. PARADIS 28 West 44th Street, 16th Floor 10 New York, NY 10036 11 Telephone: 212/404-2200 212/404-2226 (fax) 12 13 Lead Counsel for the Rodriguez Lead Plaintiff Group

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 WESTERN DIVISION 17 LOUIS GRASSO, individually and on ) No. CV 06-02639 behalf of all others similarly situated, 18 ) Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION 19 ) vs. [PROPOSED] ORDER 20 ) AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR ) AND REIMBURSEMENT OF 21 CORPORATION, DR. VINCENT EXPENSES CHAN, PH.D., JAMES A. COLE, ALEX ) 22 DALY, MOSHE GAVRIELOV, JOHN C. 23 LEWIS, DR. LOUIS TOMASETTA, ) PH.D., YATIN MODY, EUGENE F. 24 HOVANEC, EDWARD ROGAS, JR., ) and KPMG LLP. 25 ) Defendants. 26 )

27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

Case 2:06-cv-02639-R-CTCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 222 351-11Filed 11/17/08 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of Page 5 Page 17 of ID 59 #:1549

1 WHEREAS, this consolidated class action entitled Grasso v. Vitesse 2 Semiconductor, Case No. 06-2639R(CTx) (the “Litigation”), is pending before the 3 Court; 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal dated 5 April 7, 2008, the Court finally approved the partial settlement of the Litigation 6 against defendants Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (“Vitesse”), Dr. Vincent 7 Chan, Ph.D., James A. Cole, Alex Daly, Moshe Gavrielov, John C. Lewis, Dr. 8 Louis Tomasetta, Ph.D., Yatin Mody, Eugene F. Hovanec, Edward Rogas, Jr. 9 (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), pursuant to which these defendants 10 caused to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of the Class $10,200,000 in 11 cash and 3,922,669 shares of Vitesse common stock (the “Vitesse Settlement 12 Fund”); 13 WHEREAS, pursuant to a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal dated 14 15 November 17, 2008, the Court finally approved the settlement of the Litigation 16 against defendant KPMG LLP, pursuant to which KPMG paid into a settlement 17 fund for the benefit of the Class $7.75 million in cash (the “KPMG Settlement 18 Fund”); 19 WHEREAS, this matter having come before the Court on November 17, 20 2008 on the motion of Lead Plaintiff for an award of attorneys’ fees and 21 reimbursement of expenses incurred, the Court having considered all proceedings 22 conducted herein and papers filed, including Lead Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law 23 in Support of Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and 24 Reimbursement of Expenses, the Declarations of the Rodriguez Lead Plaintiff 25 Group in support thereof, the Declaration of Hon. Dickran Tevrizian (Retired) in 26 Support of Lead Counsel’s Motion for Final Approval of KPMG Settlement and 27 Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, the 28 Declaration of Howard B. Wiener in Support of Lead Counsel’s Application for an 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES Case 2:06-cv-02639-R-CTCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 222 351-11Filed 11/17/08 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of Page 5 Page 18 of ID 59 #:1550

1 Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, and having found the 2 Vitesse Partial Settlement and the KPMG Settlement of this Litigation to be fair, 3 reasonable and adequate, and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and 4 good cause appearing, 5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. The Court hereby awards Plaintiffs’ Counsel: 7 a. attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25% of the $17,950,000 cash 8 portion of the Settlement Fund; and 25% of the 3,922,669 shares of 9 Vitesse common stock from the Vitesse Settlement Fund (or the 10 cash equivalent thereof if said shares are sold pursuant to an order 11 of the Court), together with interest on the cash portions thereon 12 for the same period and at the same rate as that earned by the 13 Vitesse Settlement Fund and KPMG Settlement Fund until paid, 14 15 plus 16 b. reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred in the amount of 17 $591,989.46, which amounts the Court finds to be fair and 18 reasonable. 19 2. In accordance with the terms of the Vitesse and KPMG Stipulations of 20 Settlement, the attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be paid to Lead Counsel from 21 the KPMG Settlement Fund and Vitesse Settlement Fund held by the Escrow 22 Agents. Lead Counsel shall allocate the attorneys’ fees among Plaintiffs’ Counsel 23 in a manner in which Lead Counsel in good faith believes reflects the contributions 24 of counsel to the prosecution and resolution of the Litigation. 25 3. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of 26 expenses to be paid from the KPMG and Vitesse Settlement Funds, the Court has 27 considered and found that: (a) the Settlements will create a fund of approximately 28 $20 million in cash, plus interest thereon, and that numerous Class members who 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES Case 2:06-cv-02639-R-CTCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 222 351-11Filed 11/17/08 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of Page 5 Page 19 of ID 59 #:1551

1 submit valid Proofs of Claim will benefit from the Settlements created by Lead 2 Counsel; (b) over 150,000 copies of each of the Vitesse and KPMG Settlement 3 Notices were disseminated to putative Class Members indicating that Lead 4 Counsel were moving for attorneys’ fees in an amount of approximately twenty- 5 eight percent (28%) of the amount of the KPMG and Vitesse Settlement Funds; (c) 6 Lead Counsel have conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlements with 7 skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy; (d) the Litigation involves complex 8 factual and legal issues and was actively prosecuted over two years and, in the 9 absence of a settlement, would have involved further lengthy proceedings with 10 uncertain resolution of the complex factual and legal issues; (e) had Lead Counsel 11 not achieved the Settlements, there would remain a significant risk that Lead 12 Plaintiff and the Class might have recovered less or nothing from the Defendants; 13 (f) the requested fee award is based on a percentage that was negotiated by the 14 15 Lead Plaintiff; (g) Plaintiffs’ Counsel have devoted over 5,917 hours, with a 16 lodestar of over $3,538,157, to achieve the Settlements; and (h) the amount of 17 attorneys’ fees awarded and expenses reimbursed from the Settlement Funds are 18 fair and reasonable and consistent with awards in similar cases. 19 4. The Court hereby awards Dr. Ernesto Rodriguez of the Rodriguez 20 Lead Plaintiff Group $15,900.00 in order to compensate him for his reasonable 21 costs and expenses incurred in connection with the representation of the Class in 22 this action. 23 5. The Court hereby awards Mr. Mark Coleman of the Rodriguez Lead 24 Plaintiff Group $16,802.50 in order to compensate him for his reasonable costs and 25 expenses incurred in connection with the representation of the Class in this action. 26 6. The Court hereby awards Mr. Syed Hasan of the Rodriguez Lead 27 Plaintiff Group $4,187.15 in order to compensate him for his reasonable costs and 28 expenses incurred in connection with the representation of the Class in this action. 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES Case 2:06-cv-02639-R-CTCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 222 351-11Filed 11/17/08 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of Page 5 Page 20 of ID 59 #:1552

1 7. The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses and interest earned thereon 2 are to be paid 45 days after entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions and 3 obligations of the Stipulations of Settlement herein. 4 8. Exclusive continuing jurisdiction is hereby retained over the parties 5 and the Class for all matters relating to this Litigation, including the administration 6 of the Settlements and any application for fees and expenses. 7 9. There is no reason for delay in entry of this Order Awarding 8 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is 9 expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 DATED: _November 17, 13 2008______

15 THE HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 21 of 59

TAB 5

Case 8:11-cv-01404-AG-RNBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 167 351-11 Filed 09/15/14 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 Pageof 6 22Page of 59ID #:4386

1 ISAACS FRIEDBERG & LABATON LLP Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) 2 [email protected] 3 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4250 Los Angeles, California 90071 4 Telephone: (213) 929-5550 5 Facsimile: (213) 955-5794 6 MOTLEY RICE LLC LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 7 Gregg S. Levin (pro hac vice) Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice) [email protected] [email protected] 8 28 Bridgeside Boulevard 140 Broadway 9 Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 New York, New York 10005 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 10 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 11 Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Institutional Investor Group 12 and Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SOUTHERN DIVISION 16 IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD ) Case No. SACV 11-1404-AG (RNBx) 17 COMPANY SECURITIES ) LITIGATION ) ORDER AWARDING 18 ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PAYMENT 19 ) OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, ) AND REIMBURSEMENT OF 20 ) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ EXPENSES 21 ) INCLUDING LOST WAGES ) 22 ) 23 ) Judge: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford ) Dept.: Courtroom 10D 24 ) Hearing Date: September 15, 2014 25 ) Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. ) 26 27 28 [PROPOSED REVISED] ORDER AWARDING ATTYS’ FEES, LITIG. EXPENSES & LEAD PLS.’ EXPENSES CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) Case 8:11-cv-01404-AG-RNBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 167 351-11 Filed 09/15/14 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 Pageof 6 23Page of 59ID #:4387

1 THIS MATTER having come before the Court on September 15, 2014 for a 2 hearing to determine, among other things, whether and in what amount to award: 3 (1) Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees and litigation expenses relating to their 4 representation of the Settlement Class in the above-captioned securities class 5 action (the “Action”); and (2) Lead Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses (including lost 6 wages). The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing and 7 otherwise; and it appearing that a notice of the hearing, substantially in the form 8 approved by the Court (the “Notice”), was mailed to all reasonably identified 9 Persons who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Hewlett-Packard 10 Company in the open market during the period from November 22, 2010 to 11 August 18, 2011, inclusive; and that a summary notice of the hearing (the 12 “Summary Notice”), substantially in the form approved by the Court, was 13 published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted over PR Newswire; and the 14 Court having considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of: 15 (1) the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses requested; and (2) the 16 costs and expenses (including lost wages) requested by Lead Plaintiffs; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 18 that: 19 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and 20 over all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members and the 21 Claims Administrator. 22 2. All capitalized terms used in this order have the meanings as set forth 23 and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), 24 dated as of March 31, 2014. 25 3. Settlement Class Members were notified that Plaintiffs’ Counsel 26 would be applying for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and, 27 further, that such application also might include a request for an award to Lead 28 [PROPOSED REVISED] ORDER AWARDING ATTYS’ 1 FEES, LITIG. EXPENSES & LEAD PLS.’ EXPENSES CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) Case 8:11-cv-01404-AG-RNBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 167 351-11 Filed 09/15/14 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 Pageof 6 24Page of 59ID #:4388

1 Plaintiffs for reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses, including lost 2 wages, in an amount not to exceed $75,000. The form and method of notifying 3 the Settlement Class of the application for attorneys’ fees and expenses met the 4 requirements of Rules 23 and 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 5 21(D)(a)(7) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(7), as amended by 6 the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), due process, 7 and any other applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the 8 circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities 9 entitled to it. 10 4. Plaintiffs’ Counsel are awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 11 $14,250,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund (i.e., 12 25% of the Settlement Fund, which includes interest earned thereon), and payment 13 of litigation expenses in the amount of $333,443.39, plus interest at the same rate 14 earned by the Settlement Fund, which sums the Court finds to be fair and 15 reasonable. 16 5. The award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses shall be paid to 17 Co-Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Order, 18 subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, 19 conditions, and obligations are incorporated into this order. 20 6. Lead Plaintiffs are awarded costs and expenses (which includes lost 21 wages) in the following amounts, which sums the Court finds to be fair and 22 reasonable:

23 LEAD PLAINTIFF AMOUNT AWARDED 24 Arkansas Teacher Retirement System $5,654.61 25 Union Asset Management Holding AG $4,970.00 26 Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central 27 and Eastern Canada $2,922.24 28 [PROPOSED REVISED] ORDER AWARDING ATTYS’ 2 FEES, LITIG. EXPENSES & LEAD PLS.’ EXPENSES CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) Case 8:11-cv-01404-AG-RNBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 167 351-11 Filed 09/15/14 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 Pageof 6 25Page of 59ID #:4389

1 LIUNA National (Industrial) Pension Fund and 2 LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund $6,570.00 3 The foregoing sums shall be paid to the Lead Plaintiffs from the Settlement Fund 4 immediately upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and 5 obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are 6 incorporated into this order. 7 7. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and 8 reimbursement of Lead Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses (including lost wages) to be 9 paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that: 10 (a) The Settlement has created a fund of $57 million in cash and 11 that numerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim 12 will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs’ Counsel; 13 (b) The requested attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation 14 expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by Lead 15 Plaintiffs, sophisticated institutional investors that were directly involved in the 16 prosecution and resolution of the Action and who have a substantial interest in 17 ensuring that any fees paid to Plaintiffs’ Counsel are duly earned and not 18 excessive; 19 (c) Notice was disseminated to putative Settlement Class 20 Members stating that Plaintiffs’ Counsel would be submitting an application for 21 attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus 22 interest, and payment of litigation expenses incurred in connection with the 23 prosecution of this Action in an amount not to exceed $525,000, plus interest, and 24 that such application also might include a request that Lead Plaintiffs be 25 reimbursed their reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly 26 related to their representation of the Settlement Class in an amount not to exceed 27 28 [PROPOSED REVISED] ORDER AWARDING ATTYS’ 3 FEES, LITIG. EXPENSES & LEAD PLS.’ EXPENSES CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) Case 8:11-cv-01404-AG-RNBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 167 351-11 Filed 09/15/14 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 Pageof 6 26Page of 59ID #:4390

1 $75,000. No Settlement Class Members have filed an objection to the application 2 for fees and expenses submitted by Plaintiffs’ Counsel; 3 (d) Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted the Action and achieved the 4 Settlement with skillful and diligent advocacy; 5 (e) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in 6 the absence of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution 7 would be uncertain; 8 (f) Plaintiffs’ Counsel undertook the Action on a contingent basis 9 and have devoted more than 13,000 hours, with a lodestar value of $7,525,051.75 10 to achieve the Settlement; and 11 (g) The amount of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and 12 reimbursement of Lead Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses (including lost wages) paid 13 from the Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and consistent with awards in 14 similar cases. 15 8. Any appeal or challenge affecting this Court’s approval of any 16 attorneys’ fee, expense application, or award of costs and expenses (including lost 17 wages) to Lead Plaintiffs in the Action shall in no way disturb or affect the finality 18 of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement. 19 9. Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the subject matter of this 20 Action and over all parties to the Action, including the administration and 21 distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members. 22 10. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become 23 Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of the 24 Stipulation, this order shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the 25 Stipulation and shall be vacated in accordance with the Stipulation. 26 27 28 [PROPOSED REVISED] ORDER AWARDING ATTYS’ 4 FEES, LITIG. EXPENSES & LEAD PLS.’ EXPENSES CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) Case 8:11-cv-01404-AG-RNBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 167 351-11 Filed 09/15/14 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 Pageof 6 27Page of 59ID #:4391

1 SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2014 2 3 4 ______5 ANDREW J. GUILFORD 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED REVISED] ORDER AWARDING ATTYS’ 5 FEES, LITIG. EXPENSES & LEAD PLS.’ EXPENSES CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx) Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 28 of 59

TAB 6

Case 1:14-cv-00227-LMB-JFACase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 266 351-11 Filed 09/16/16Filed 01/23/18 Page Page1 of 4 29PageID# of 59 5680

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

IN RE Nil HOLDINGS, INC. Civ. No. l:14-cv-00227-LMB-JFA SECURITIES LITIGATION

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

This matter having come before the Court for hearing on September 16, 2016 (the

"Settlement Hearing") on Class Counsel's motion for an award ofattorneys' fees, payment of

litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs' counsel, and reimbursement ofcosts and expenses to

Class Representatives in connection with their representation ofthe Class in the above-captioned

class action ("Action"); the Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement

Hearing and otherwise; it appearing that notice of the Settlement Hearing substantially in the

form approved by the Court was mailed to all Class Members who or which could be identified

with reasonable effort, and that a summary notice ofthe hearing substantially in the form

approved by the Court was published in the WallStreet Journal and was transmitted over PR

Newswire in accordance with the specifications of the Court; and the Court having considered

and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses

requested,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulationand

Agreement of Settlement dated April 18, 2016 (the "Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order have the same meanings as defined in the Stipulation. Case 1:14-cv-00227-LMB-JFACase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 266 351-11 Filed 09/16/16Filed 01/23/18 Page Page2 of 4 30PageID# of 59 5681

2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order and over the subject matter ofthe

Action and all parties to the Action, including all Class Members.

3. Notice ofClass Counsel's motion for an award ofattorneys' fees, payment of

litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs' counsel, and reimbursement ofcosts and expenses to

Class Representatives in connection with their representation ofthe Class was given to all Class

Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. The form and method ofnotifying the

Class ofthe motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses satisfied the requirements of

Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the

Due Process Clause), and Section 21D(a)(7) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.

§78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; constituted

the best notice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted due and sufficient notice to

all persons and entities entitled to notice.

4. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of25% ofthe Settlement

Fund (which amount includes accrued interest) and payment of litigation expenses in the amount

of$1,467,617.60, plus interest earned on this amount at the same rate earned by the Settlement

Fund, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Class Counsel will allocate the

attorneys' fees awarded amongst Plaintiffs' counsel.

5. In making this award ofattorneys' fees and expenses to be paid from the

Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that:

(a) The Settlement has created a fund of $41,500,000 in cash that has been

funded into escrow under the Stipulation, and numerous Class Members who submit acceptable

Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because ofthe efforts ofPlaintiffs'

counsel; Case 1:14-cv-00227-LMB-JFACase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 266 351-11 Filed 09/16/16Filed 01/23/18 Page Page3 of 4 31PageID# of 59 5682

(b) The fee sought by Class Counsel has been reviewed and approved as

reasonable by Class Representatives, institutional investors that oversaw the prosecution and

resolution ofthe Action;

Members and nominees stating that Class Counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs' Counsel, would

apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees from the Settlement Fund in an amount not to

exceed 25%) ofthe Settlement Fund and payment of litigation expenses incurred in prosecuting

the Action in an amount not to exceed $1.75 million, plus interest. The Notice advised Class

Members oftheir right to object to Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses,

and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons who are Class Members to be heard

with respect to the motion. No objections to the fees and expenses requested by Class Counsel

have been received;

(d) Plaintiffs' counsel have conducted the litigation and achieved the

Settlement with skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy;

(e) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues, and, in the absence

ofsettlement, would involve further lengthy proceedings with uncertain resolution if the case

were to proceed to trial;

(f) Class Counsel pursued the Action on a contingent basis, having received

no compensation during the Action, and any fee award has been contingent on the result

achieved;

(g) Plaintiffs' counsel have devoted more than 39,000 hours to this Action,

with a lodestar value of $19,191,280.25, to achieve the Settlement; Case 1:14-cv-00227-LMB-JFACase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 266 351-11 Filed 09/16/16Filed 01/23/18 Page Page4 of 4 32PageID# of 59 5683

(h) The amount of attorneys' fees is consistent with awards in similar cases

and supported by public policy; and

(i) The amount ofexpenses awarded is fair and reasonable and was

necessarily incurred in the prosecution and settlement ofthe Action.

6. The Court awards the following amounts from the Settlement Fund to Class

Representatives as reimbursement for their reasonable costs and expenses directly related to their

representation ofthe Class: $15,150.00 to Danica Pension, Livsforsikringsaktieselskab;

$6,795.00 to Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S; $8,720.00 to IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA

Funds; and $6,696.00 to Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund.

7. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval ofany attorneys' fees

and expense application will in no way disturb or affect the finality ofthe Judgment entered with

respect to the Settlement.

8. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and the Class Members

for all matters relating to this Action, including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or

enforcement ofthe Stipulation and this Order.

9. If the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date ofthe Settlement otherwise

fails to occur, this Order will be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.

10. There is no just reason for delay in the entry ofthis Order, and immediate entry

by the Clerk ofthe Court is expressly directed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

hi // f/7

TAB 7

CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:12-cv-07948-SAS Document Document 351-11 261 FiledFiled 12/02/1501/23/18 PagePage 134 of of 5 59 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:12-cv-07948-SAS Document Document 351-11 261 FiledFiled 12/02/1501/23/18 PagePage 235 of of 5 59 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:12-cv-07948-SAS Document Document 351-11 261 FiledFiled 12/02/1501/23/18 PagePage 336 of of 5 59 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:12-cv-07948-SAS Document Document 351-11 261 FiledFiled 12/02/1501/23/18 PagePage 437 of of 5 59 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:12-cv-07948-SAS Document Document 351-11 261 FiledFiled 12/02/1501/23/18 PagePage 538 of of 5 59 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 39 of 59

TAB 8

Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18290 Page 40 Page of 59 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re PETCO CORPORATION CASE NO. 05-CV-0823 H (RBB) SECURITIES LITIGATION, 12 ORDER FINALLY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 13 ______AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 14 AND GRANTING LEAD PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S 15 This Document Relates To: MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND 16 ALL ACTIONS EXPENSES 17 18 Presently before the Court is a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in 19 this class action, as well as a motion by Lead Plaintiff’s counsel for approval of an award of 20 attorney fees and expenses. (Doc. Nos. 394, 395.) On September 2, 2008, the Court held a 21 hearing on the motions. Keith Park and Daniel S. Drosman appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 22 Peter H. Benzian and Michael Weaver represented Defendants. 23 For the following reasons, the Court finally approves the parties’ proposed settlement, 24 and approves an award to Lead Plaintiff’s counsel of attorney fees in the amount of 25 $5,062,500, plus reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $2,023,462.23. 26 Background 27 On August 17, 2005, the Court consolidated four securities lawsuits instituted on 28 behalf of the stockholders of PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. (“PETCO”), into this class

- 1 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18291 Page 41 Page of 59 2 of 10

1 action. (Doc. No. 12.) On October 17, 2005, lead plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 2 51 Pension Fund (“Plaintiffs”) filed a consolidated complaint for violations of the federal 3 securities laws. (Doc. No. 16.) On April 19, 2007, the Court certified a plaintiff class 4 defined as “[a]ll persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of 5 PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. during the period from November 18, 2004 through April 6 15, 2005, inclusive (the “Class”), excluding the defendants herein, members of the 7 immediate family of the defendants, any entity in which any defendant has a controlling 8 interest and the legal affiliates, representatives, heirs, controlling persons, successors and 9 predecessors in interest or assigns of any such excluded party.” (See Doc. No. 115.) 10 On April 29, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part 11 Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 368.) The Court granted 12 preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and approved procedures for 13 providing notice to the class of the proposed settlement, following a hearing. (Doc. No. 14 393.) 15 In accordance with the Court’s preliminary approval order, the Claims Administrator 16 has mailed copies of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action to the over 18,000 17 members of the Plaintiff class. (See Decl. of Carole K. Sylvester ¶¶ 3-8.) The notice 18 described the terms of the proposed settlement for $20.25 million in cash, the allocation 19 plan which will determine each qualifying class member’s share of the net settlement fund, 20 and Lead Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorney fees in the amount of 25% of the 21 settlement fund, plus expenses not to exceed $2.2 million. (Id.) The Court set August 15, 22 2008 as the deadline for class members to file and serve any objections to the proposed 23 settlement. (Prelim. Approval Order ¶ 11.) No class member has filed objections to the 24 settlement. (See Supp. Mem. ISO Motion for Final Approval, Doc. No. 395.) 25 After due consideration of the evidence and arguments presented to the Court in the 26 parties’ moving papers as well as the hearing held on September 2, 2008, the Court 27 concludes that good cause exists to finally approve the proposed settlement. Additionally, 28 as discussed below, the Court grants Lead Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for an order

- 2 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18292 Page 42 Page of 59 3 of 10

1 approving an award of attorney fees in the amount of $5,062,500, plus expenses in the 2 amount of $2,023,462.23. 3 Discussion 4 I. Approval of Proposed Settlement – Legal Standards 5 Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court must 6 approve any settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise of the claims, issues or 7 defenses of a certified class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(A). The Rule further states, “[t]he 8 court may approve a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise that would bind class 9 members only after a hearing and on finding that the settlement, voluntary dismissal, or 10 compromise is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C); see Class 11 Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). In evaluating a 12 settlement, the court must balance “several factors which may include, among others, some 13 or all of the following: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, 14 and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status 15 throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, 16 and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a 17 governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed 18 settlement.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 19 1982). “The relative degree of importance to be attached to any particular factor will 20 depend upon and be dictated by the nature of the claims advanced, the types of relief 21 sought, and the unique facts and circumstances presented by each individual case.” Id. 22 Here, the Court concludes that the proposed settlement considered as a whole is fair, 23 adequate and reasonable. First, the settlement is the product of extensive arms-length 24 negotiations facilitated by the magistrate judge assigned to this case, who possesses a 25 detailed understanding of the case and the parties’ respective strengths and weaknesses. In 26 addition to the assistance of the magistrate judge, the parties participated in multiple 27 mediation sessions before retired judges. (See Decl. of Daniel S. Drosman ISO Motion for 28 Final Approval (“Drosman Decl.”) ¶¶ 139-145.)

- 3 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18293 Page 43 Page of 59 4 of 10

1 Second, the Court concludes that the stage of litigation at which the proposed 2 settlement was reached supports its approval by the Court. See Officers for Justice v. Civil 3 Serv. Comm’n., 688 F.2d at 625. This case has been vigorously litigated for over three 4 years, and the agreement to settle occurred shortly before trial. (See Drosman Decl. ¶ 145.) 5 By that time, Lead Plaintiff’s counsel had conducted detailed interviews of witnesses 6 including former PETCO employees, obtained class certification, reviewed more than 7 7 million pages of documents and conducted or participated in more than 40 depositions, 8 litigated numerous discovery motions and completed expert discovery, and extensively 9 prepared for trial including the preparation of a memorandum of contentions of fact and 10 law, a joint pretrial order and exhibit lists. (See Drosman Decl.) The litigation and 11 discovery conducted prior to that point enabled counsel for both sides to achieve a 12 comprehensive understanding of the merits and potential weaknesses of each party’s claims 13 and defenses, as well as the risks and delays involved in proceeding to trial and potential 14 appellate litigation. (See Drosman Decl. ¶ 145.) Additionally, after the parties agreed in 15 principle to a settlement, extensive arms-length negotiations occurred regarding the terms 16 of the settlement, see Drosman Decl. ¶ 149, further supporting the conclusion that the 17 proposed settlement was “not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion 18 between, the negotiating parties.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. 19 Next, the Court concludes that the amount of the proposed settlement supports its 20 approval at this time. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n., 688 F.2d at 625. 21 Particularly in light of the uncertainty and problems of proof involved in this complex case 22 involving competing expert testimony, the Court concludes that the amount offered in the 23 proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable to the members of the class. Id. The 24 amount of the proposed settlement represents approximately 40% of the damages that Lead 25 Plaintiff’s expert believed could be recovered at trial, and significantly exceeded the 26 amount of damages that Defendants’ experts believed could be established. (See Drosman 27 Decl. ¶ 149; see also Decl. of Scott D. Hakala, Ph.D., CFA, In Supp. of Motion for Final 28 Approval.)

- 4 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18294 Page 44 Page of 59 5 of 10

1 Finally, the Court concludes that the class members’ reaction to the proposed 2 settlement has been favorable and further supports granting final approval at this time. See 3 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n., 688 F.2d at 625. In addition to the factors 4 discussed above, the fact that no member of the class has objected to the terms of the 5 proposed settlement is entitled to significant weight in the Court’s determination that the 6 proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. See id. Based on all the evidence 7 before the Court, the Court concludes that the proposed plan of allocation constitutes a fair 8 and reasonable method of allocating the net settlement fund to the members of the Plaintiff 9 class. 10 II. Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses 11 Also before the Court is Lead Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for approval of the 12 payment of attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses to counsel. (Doc. No. 394.) 13 Counsel requests an award of attorney fees in the amount of 25% of the settlement fund, as 14 well as litigation expenses in the amount of $2,023,462.23. 15 In a class action the court upon motion “may award reasonable attorney fees and 16 nontaxable costs authorized by law or by agreement of the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). 17 In “common fund” cases such as this one, the Ninth Circuit has stated that the district court 18 has discretion to use either a percentage or “lodestar” method to determine what constitutes 19 a reasonable fee. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998); In re 20 Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 1994) (“WPPSS”). 21 As discussed below, the Court concludes that the fee requested in this case is reasonable 22 under either method. 23 When using the percentage method, the court “awards the attorneys a percentage of 24 the fund sufficient to provide class counsel with a reasonable fee.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 25 1029. The Ninth Circuit has established 25% of the common fund as a “benchmark” for 26 what constitutes a reasonable fee. Id.; see Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus 27 Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). The percentage can be adjusted based on 28 the circumstances of a particular case. Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Gaulty, 886 F.2d

- 5 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18295 Page 45 Page of 59 6 of 10

1 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Here, the Court concludes that the amount sought by Lead Plaintiff’s counsel is 3 reasonable and appropriate under all the circumstances of this case. First, the requested 4 award is consistent with the 25% benchmark established by the Ninth Circuit. See Six 5 Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d at 1311. Second, the Court 6 concludes that the requested fee award is reasonable in light of the favorable result obtained 7 for class members by Lead Plaintiff’s counsel. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 8 436 (1983) (“most critical factor is the degree of success obtained”). Here, the efforts of 9 counsel resulted in a cash recovery of $20.25 million, which is a substantial benefit for the 10 members of the class, particularly measured against the parties’ different estimates of 11 recoverable damages. The Court is familiar with the entire history of this case and notes 12 that Lead Plaintiff’s counsel achieved the settlement result only after three years of 13 contentious litigation regarding difficult legal and factual questions. 14 Next, the Court notes that for the duration of this case Lead Plaintiff’s counsel faced 15 significant risks and uncertainties regarding whether a favorable result could be obtained. 16 Although Lead Plaintiff’s counsel succeeded in surviving (at least in part) Defendants’ 17 challenges to the pleadings and motions for summary judgment, proceeding to trial would 18 have involved substantial uncertainty. Even if Lead Plaintiff succeeded in proving 19 Defendants’ liability, numerous legal and factual uncertainties could have resulted in a 20 recovery (if any) of much less than the settlement amount, and appellate litigation would 21 have brought additional risk, delay and uncertainty. As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, 22 the risk faced by counsel is an important factor to consider when determining a reasonable 23 fee amount. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002); 24 WPPSS, 19 F.3d at 1299-1301. Additionally, the contingent nature of the fee involved 25 substantial risk for Lead Plaintiff’s counsel. Here, considering the entire circumstances of 26 this litigation, the Court concludes that the risk involved supports a fee award of 25% of the 27 settlement fund. Additionally, the Court concludes that the quality of work performed by 28 Lead Plaintiff’s counsel supports an award of 25% of the settlement amount. The Court

- 6 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18296 Page 46 Page of 59 7 of 10

1 also concludes that 25% is consistent with (and, in many cases, lower than) the fees 2 awarded in comparable cases in this district and others, as documented in Appendix A to 3 Lead Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for an award of attorney fees. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft 4 Corp., 290 F.3d at 1050 n. 4. In sum, the Court concludes that 25% of the settlement fund 5 constitutes a reasonable fee amount under all the circumstances of this case. 6 The Court also concludes that the fee award is reasonable when evaluated using the 7 lodestar method. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998); In re 8 Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 1994) (“WPPSS”). 9 As documented in the declaration of Keith F. Park filed in support of Lead Plaintiff’s 10 counsel’s request for an award of attorney fees, lead counsel and their experts, investigators 11 and other professionals have expended nearly 20,000 hours over the more than three year 12 duration of this litigation, with a resulting lodestar of $8,305,961. The requested fee 13 amount $5,062,500 represents a negative multiplier (i.e., a 39% discount) of the lodestar. 14 The Court concludes that this confirms the reasonableness of the requested fee amount, 15 particularly since courts in the Ninth Circuit generally consider positive multipliers of 2.0 16 through 4.0 to be reasonable. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d at 1051. 17 Accordingly, the Court concludes that when evaluated using the lodestar method, the 18 requested award is reasonable and appropriate under all the circumstances of this case. 19 The Court also approves the reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred by Lead 20 Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $2,023,462.23. (See Decl. of Keith F. Park ISO App. 21 for Award of Atty. Fees & Exp’s ¶ 5.) The Court concludes that the expenses – which 22 include experts, consultants and investigators; mediation fees; travel costs; court reporting 23 and deposition costs; and legal research, as detailed and itemized in the declaration of Keith 24 F. Park, the Drosman Declaration, and the declarations of D. Paul Regan, Frank Partnoy 25 and Scott D. Hakala – are compensable in common fund cases such as this one, since they 26 are the type of costs typically billed by attorneys to fee paying clients in the marketplace. 27 See Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court has reviewed the 28 submissions by Lead Plaintiff’s counsel and concludes that the categories of expenses for

- 7 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18297 Page 47 Page of 59 8 of 10

1 which counsel seeks reimbursement are the type of expenses routinely charged to hourly 2 fee paying clients, are reasonable in amount, and were necessarily incurred in achieving the 3 result for the class members. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Lead Plaintiff’s 4 counsel is entitled to reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $2,023,462.23, and the 5 Court approves the payment of that amount out of the common settlement fund of $20.25 6 million. 7 Conclusion 8 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 9 1. Terms used in this Order have the same meanings as set forth in the 10 Stipulation of Settlement dated as of June 5, 2008 (the “Stipulation”). 11 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over 12 all parties to the Litigation, including all Members of the Class. 13 3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 14 approves the settlement set forth in the Stipulation and concludes that said settlement is, in 15 all respects, fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Class. 16 4. The Court concludes that the Stipulation and settlement are fair, just, 17 reasonable and adequate as to each of the Members of the Class. Accordingly, the 18 Stipulation and settlement are finally approved in all respects, and the Settling Parties are 19 directed to perform its terms. 20 5. The Court concludes that the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action 21 given to the Class was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including the 22 individual notice to all Members of the Class who could be identified through reasonable 23 effort. Said notice constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances of those 24 proceedings, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Stipulation, to all Persons 25 entitled to such notice, and the Court concludes that said notice fully satisfied the 26 requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities 27 Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and due process. 28 6. Neither the Stipulation nor the settlement, nor any act performed or document

- 8 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11 Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18298 Page 48 Page of 59 9 of 10

1 executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the settlement: (a) is or may be 2 deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any 3 Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the Defendants or their respective 4 Related Parties, or (b) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or 5 evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Defendants or their respective Related 6 Parties in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative 7 agency or other tribunal. Defendants and/or their respective Related Parties may file the 8 Stipulation and/or the Judgment in this matter in any other action that may be brought 9 against them in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res 10 judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction, or 11 any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim. 12 7. Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in this case, this Court retains 13 continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of this settlement and any award or 14 distribution of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned; (b) disposition of the 15 Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining applications for attorney fees, interest and 16 expenses in the Litigation; and (d) all parties hereto for the purpose of construing, 17 enforcing and administering the Stipulation. 18 8. The Court concludes that during the course of the Litigation, the Settling 19 parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21 9. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 22 concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to all Persons who are Class Members 23 advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to object, and a full and fair 24 opportunity was accorded to all Persons who are Class Members to be heard with respect to 25 the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation. 26 10. The Court concludes that the formula for the calculation of the claims of 27 Authorized Claimants, which is set forth in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class 28 Action (the “Notice”) sent to Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon

- 9 - 05cv823 Case 3:05-cv-00823-H-RBBCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 397 351-11Filed 09/02/08 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.18299 Page 49 Page of 59 10 of 10

1 which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund established by the Stipulation 2 among Class Members, with consideration having been given to administrative 3 convenience and necessity. 4 11. The Court concludes that the Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice is in 5 all respects fair and reasonable and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation. 6 12. The Court awards Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel attorney fees of 25% of the 7 Settlement Fund, as well as expenses in an aggregate amount of $2,023,462.23, together 8 with the interest earned for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the 9 Settlement Fund until paid. The fees are to be allocated by Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel in a 10 manner which, in their good faith judgment, reflects each counsel’s contribution to the 11 institution, prosecution and resolution of the Litigation. The Court concludes that the 12 amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable under the “percentage of recovery” method, 13 and further that the amount of fees awarded is reasonable when cross-checked using the 14 “lodestar” method. 15 13. The awarded attorney fees and expenses, and interest earned, are to be 16 paid to Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund after the date this Order is 17 executed subject to the terms, conditions and obligations of the Stipulation and in particular 18 ¶ 6.2. 19 14. Judgment is entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice, on the 20 merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against any party. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: September 2, 2008 23 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 25 26 27 28

- 10 - 05cv823 Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 50 of 59

TAB 9

CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 3:09-cv-05473-RS Document Document 351-11 270 Filed Filed 07/03/13 01/23/18 Page Page 1 51 of 3of 59

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 IN RE SUNPOWER SECURITIES Case No. CV 09-5473-RS 11 LITIGATION (Consolidated)

12 CLASS ACTION

13 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 14 AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES Case No. CV 09-5473-RS CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 3:09-cv-05473-RS Document Document 351-11 270 Filed Filed 07/03/13 01/23/18 Page Page 2 52 of 3of 59

1 WHEREAS, Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement 2 of litigation expenses (the “Motion,” ECF No. 260) came before the Court for hearing on 3 July 3, 2013, pursuant to the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Providing for 4 Notice, and Scheduling Settlement Hearing dated March 25, 2013 (“Preliminary Approval 5 Order,” ECF No. 257), and due and adequate notice having been given to the Settlement Class as 6 required in the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Court, having read and considered the 7 Motion and supporting declarations and exhibits and being fully informed of the related 8 proceedings, now FINDS, CONCLUDES AND ORDERS as follows: 9 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation of

10 Settlement (“Stipulation,” ECF No. 248), and all capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, 11 shall have the same meanings as in the Stipulation. 12 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all 13 parties to the Action, including all Members of the Settlement Class. 14 3. Notice of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation 15 Expenses was directed to Settlement Class Members in a reasonable manner and complies with 16 Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17 4. Settlement Class Members and any party from whom payment is sought have 18 been given the opportunity to object to the Motion in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 23(h)(2). 20 5. The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses is 21 hereby GRANTED. 22 6. The Court hereby awards attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,804,035.19, which is 23 25% of the Settlement Fund net of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Court-approved Litigation Expenses. 24 The Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees of 25% is fair and reasonable in light of the 25 following factors, among others: the contingent nature of the case; the risks of this complex 26 litigation; the quality of the legal services rendered; the benefits obtained for the Settlement 27 Class; the institutional Lead Plaintiffs’ support of the fee and expense application; the fees 28 awarded in similar actions; and the reaction of the Settlement Class. Further, the requested

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES -1- Case No. CV 09-5473-RS CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 3:09-cv-05473-RS Document Document 351-11 270 Filed Filed 07/03/13 01/23/18 Page Page 3 53 of 3of 59

1 award of attorneys’ fees is also supported by a lodestar multiplier cross-check, which results in a 2 negative multiplier. The fee award is further justified by the risk Plaintiffs’ Counsel undertook 3 and the results they achieved for the Settlement Class through the quality of their representation 4 of Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class in this complex litigation. 5 7. The Court also grants Lead Counsel’s request for reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ 6 Counsel’s Litigation Expenses in the amount of $483,859.23. The Litigation Expenses incurred 7 by Plaintiffs’ Counsel have been adequately documented and were reasonably incurred for the 8 benefit of the Settlement Class, and the Court finds that reimbursement of those expenses is 9 justified.

10 8. Interest is awarded on the amounts awarded above in Paragraphs 6 and 7, at the 11 same rate and for the same periods as earned by the Settlement Fund. 12 9. Pursuant to Paragraph 7.2 of the Stipulation, the amounts stated in Paragraphs 6, 13 7, and 8 herein shall be paid to Lead Counsel from the Escrow Account within five (5) calendar 14 days after the later of (i) the date they are awarded by the Court; or (ii) the date the Court grants 15 final approval of the Settlement, notwithstanding the existence of any timely filed objections 16 thereto, or potential for appeal therefrom, or collateral attack on the Settlement or any part 17 thereof, subject to Lead Counsel’s obligation to repay all such amounts pursuant to Paragraph 7.3 18 of the Stipulation. 19 10. The finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement shall not be 20 affected in any manner by this Order, or an appeal from this Order. 21 11. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order, and immediate entry of 22 this Order by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 DATED: July 3, 2013 26 ______THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES -2- Case No. CV 09-5473-RS Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 351-11 Filed 01/23/18 Page 54 of 59

TAB 10

.,...... '· ...._ __ J. ,., .....-...... ,

CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:14-cv-10136-GBD Document Document 351-11 147 FiledFiled 09/28/1701/23/18' ':..' PagePage 155 ~-of of 5 59 . . '"<'..::.:'.:,~'.':"' ~.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT "ill,}' . ~ ______so_u_T_H_E-RN-DI_s_TR-ICT OF NEW YORK. : ~tf~g~ ~"§b --. ~~ GRADY SCOTT WESTON, Individually and Civ. No. 1:14-CV-10136-GBD On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

RCS CAPITAL CORPORATION, RCAP HOLDINGS, LLC, RCAP EQUITY, LLC, NICHOLAS S. SCHORSCH, BRIANS. BLOCK, EDWARD MICHAEL WEIL, WILLIAM M. KAHANE, BRIAN D. JONES, PETER M. BUDKO, MARK AUERBACH, JEFFREY BROWN, C. THOMAS MCMILLEN, and HOWELL WOOD,

Defendants.

---- ORDER AW ARD ING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

THIS MATTER came before the Court on September 28, 2017, for a hearing to

determine, among other things, whether and in what amount to award Lead Counsel in the

above-captioned consolidated securities class action (the "Action") attorneys' fees and litigation

expenses and Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System

("Oklahoma Police") and City of Providence, Rhode Island ("Providence") expenses relating to

their representation of the Settlement Class. All capitalized terms used herein have the meanings

as set forth and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 2, 2017

(the "Stipulation"). The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing and

otherwise; and it appearing that a notice of the hearing, substantially in the form approved by the

Court (the "Notice"), was mailed to all reasonably identified Settlement Class Members; and that

1 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:14-cv-10136-GBD Document Document 351-11 147 FiledFiled 09/28/1701/23/18 PagePage 256 of of 5 59

a summary notice of the hearing (the "Summary Notice"), substantially in the form approved by the Court, was published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted over PR Newswire; and the

Court having considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses requested;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members and the Claims Administrator.

2. Notice of Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses met the requirements of Rules 23 and 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), due process, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

3. Lead Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,300,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, and payment of litigation expenses in the amount of $174,333.68, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable.

4. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), for their representation of the

Settlement Class, the Court hereby awards Oklahoma Police reimbursement of its reasonable lost wages and expenses directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class in the amount of

$5,000, and hereby awards Providence reimbursement of its reasonable lost wages and expenses

2 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:14-cv-10136-GBD Document Document 351-11 147 FiledFiled 09/28/1701/23/18 PagePage 357 of of 5 59

directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class in the amount of $5,000.

5. The award of attorneys' fees and expenses may be paid to Lead Counsel from the

Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated herein.

6. In making the award to Lead Counsel of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that:

(a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $31 million in cash and that numerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel;

(b) The requested attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by the Lead Plaintiffs, who are sophisticated institutional investors that have been directly involved in the prosecution and resolution of the

Action and which have a substantial interest in ensuring that any fees paid to Lead Counsel are duly earned and not excessive;

(c) Notice was disseminated to putative Settlement Class Members stating that Lead Counsel, on behalf of all Plaintiffs' Counsel, would be moving for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund, plus accrued interest, and payment of litigation expenses not to exceed $425,000, plus accrued interest, and the expenses of Lead

Plaintiffs for reimbursement of their reasonable lost wages and costs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class;

(d) There were no objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or the Fee and Expense Application;

(e) Plaintiffs' Counsel have expended substantial time and effort pursuing the

3 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:14-cv-10136-GBD Document Document 351-11 147 FiledFiled 09/28/1701/23/18 PagePage 458 of of 5 59

Action on behalf of the Settlement Class;

(f) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain;

(g) Plaintiffs' Counsel pursued the Action on a contingent basis, having received no compensation during the Action, and any fee award has been contingent on the result achieved;

(h) Plaintiffs' Counsel conducted the Action and achieved the Settlement with skillful and diligent advocacy;

(i) Public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys' fees in securities class action litigation;

U) The amount of attorneys' fees awarded are fair and reasonable and consistent with awards in similar cases; and

(k) Plaintiffs' Counsel have devoted more than 5, 700 hours, with a lodestar value of $4, 149,852.50 to achieve the Settlement.

7. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval of any attorneys' fee and expense application shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement.

8. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained over the subject matter of this Action and over all parties to the Action, including the administration and distribution of the Net Settlement

Fund to Settlement Class Members.

9. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become Final or the

Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, this order shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation and shall be vacated in

4 CaseCase 4:14-cv-00226-YGR 1:14-cv-10136-GBD Document Document 351-11 147 FiledFiled 09/28/1701/23/18 PagePage 559 of of 5 59

accordance with the Stipulation. ' ' "' 1 ~ :~ • •

.. -) ') 0 "0\1 Dated: StJ c.. 0 ~2011 \ eorge B. Daniels ! ATES DISTRICT JUDGE