DOCSLIB.ORG

Joint Declaration of Jon Gardner and Daniel Pfefferbaum With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Joint Declaration of Jon Gardner and Daniel Pfefferbaum With Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 34 1 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 2 CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER (201197) DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM (248631) 3 Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415/288-4545 5 415/288-4534 (fax) [email protected] 6 [email protected] 7 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP JONATHAN GARDNER 8 MICHAEL P. CANTY ROGER W. YAMADA 9 140 Broadway New York, New York 10005 10 Telephone: 212/907-0700 212/818-0477 (fax) 11 [email protected] [email protected] 12 [email protected] 13 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 In re UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. 12-cv-04677-YGR SECURITIES LITIGATION ) 17 ) CLASS ACTION ) 18 ) JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN This Document Relates To: ) GARDNER AND DANIEL J. 19 ) PFEFFERBAUM IN SUPPORT OF LEAD ALL ACTIONS. ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL 20 ) APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION ) SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF 21 ALLOCATION AND LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF 22 ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO. 12-CV-04677-YGR JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 2 of 34 1 We, JONATHAN GARDNER and DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM, declare as follows 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 3 1. Jonathan Gardner is a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP 4 (“Labaton Sucharow”) and Daniel J. Pfefferbaum is a partner of the law firm of Robbins Geller 5 Rudman & Dowd, LLP (“Robbins Geller”). Labaton Sucharow and Robbins Geller serve as 6 court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Bristol County Retirement System (“Bristol 7 County”) and Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT (“Inter-Local”) (together, “Lead Plaintiffs”).1 8 We have been actively involved in prosecuting and resolving the Action, are familiar with its 9 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 Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 13 and Plan of Allocation as well as Lead Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and 14 Payment of Litigation Expenses. Both motions have the full support of Lead Plaintiffs. See 15 Declaration of Lawrence C. Mitchell on Behalf of Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT and 16 Declaration on Behalf of Bristol County Retirement System, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 17 respectively.2 18 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 19 3. Lead Plaintiffs have succeeded in obtaining a recovery for the Settlement Class in 20 the amount of $6,800,000, in cash, which has been deposited in an interest-bearing escrow 21 account for the benefit of the Settlement Class. As set forth in the Stipulation, in exchange for 22 this payment, the proposed Settlement resolves all claims asserted by Lead Plaintiffs and the 23 Settlement Class in the Action and all Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties. 24 25 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as that set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of August 4, 2017 (the “Stipulation”, 26 ECF No. 113-1). 2 Citations to “Exhibit” or “Ex.___” herein refer to exhibits to this Declaration. For clarity, 27 exhibits that themselves have attached exhibits will be referenced as “Ex. __-__.” The first numerical reference refers to the designation of the entire exhibit attached hereto and the second 28 numerical reference refers to the exhibit designation within the exhibit itself. MASTER FILE NO. 12-CV-04677-YGR 1 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 3 of 34 1 4. The case has been vigorously litigated from its commencement in September 2 2012 through the execution of the Stipulation. The Settlement was achieved only after Lead 3 Counsel, 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 Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal 6 Securities Laws (the “CAC”); (iii) researched and drafted an omnibus opposition to Defendants’ 7 comprehensive motions to dismiss the CAC; (iv) prevailed, in part, on their appeal to the Ninth 8 Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Ninth Circuit”) of the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motions 9 to dismiss the CAC; (v) prepared and filed a detailed Consolidated Second Amended Complaint 10 for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “SAC”) following the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion 11 and remand; and (vi) engaged in thorough mediation efforts, which included the review of 12 approximately 60,000 pages of core documents produced prior to mediation, the exchange of 13 comprehensive mediation statements, and a full-day mediation session. At the time the 14 Settlement was reached, Lead Counsel had a thorough understanding of the strengths and 15 weaknesses of the Parties’ positions. 16 5. Further, as discussed below, Lead Plaintiffs retained experts to analyze loss 17 causation issues and estimate potential damages. Lead Plaintiffs’ consulting damages experts 18 have estimated maximum aggregate damages for the class of approximately $19 million. The 19 $6.8 million Settlement, therefore, represents a recovery of approximately 35% of Lead 20 Plaintiffs’ consulting expert’s estimated damages—an exceptional recovery in light of the 21 countervailing legal and factual arguments and litigation risks. See, e.g., In re Omnivision 22 Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ($13.75 million settlement yielding 23 6% of potential damages was “higher than the median percentage of investor losses recovered in 24 recent shareholder class action settlements”); see also Notice of Motion and Motion for Final 25 Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation and Memorandum of Points and 26 Authorities in Support Thereof (“Settlement Brief”), §III.B.4. 27 6. In choosing to settle, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel took into consideration the 28 significant risks associated with advancing the remaining 1993 Act claims alleged in the SAC, as MASTER FILE NO. 12-CV-04677-YGR 2 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 4 of 34 1 well as the duration and complexity of the legal proceedings that remained ahead. As discussed 2 in more detail in Section VII, infra, the Settlement was achieved in the face of vigorous 3 opposition by Defendants who would have, had the Settlement not been reached, continued to 4 raise serious arguments concerning, among other things, the alleged material falsity of statements 5 and omissions in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the October 14, 2011 initial 6 public offering (“IPO”). Additionally, Lead Plaintiffs had not yet moved for class certification 7 and there was a risk that the Court would not certify the class. Further, Lead Plaintiffs faced 8 additional trial-related risks. Issues relating to causation and damages would likely have come 9 down to an inherently unpredictable and hotly disputed “battle of the experts,” with Defendants’ 10 experts likely rejecting Lead Plaintiffs’ experts’ model and opinions. Accordingly, in the 11 absence of a settlement, there was a very real risk that the Settlement Class could have recovered 12 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 Section IV of the Settlement Brief, the proposed Plan of Allocation was developed 15 with the assistance of one of Lead Plaintiffs’ consulting damages experts, and provides for the 16 fair and equitable distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members who 17 submit Claim Forms that are approved for payment. 18 8. With respect to the Fee and Expense Application, as discussed in Lead Counsel’s 19 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Payment of 20 Litigation Expenses (“Fee Brief”), the requested fee of 25% of the Settlement Fund is fair both to 21 the Settlement Class and to Lead Counsel, and warrants the Court’s approval. This fee request is 22 consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s “benchmark” for common fund cases; within the range of fee 23 percentages frequently awarded in this type of action; and, under the particular facts of this case, 24 justified in light of the benefits that Lead Counsel conferred on the Settlement Class, the risks 25 they undertook, the quality of their representation, the nature and extent of the legal services, and 26 the fact that Lead Counsel pursued the case at their financial risk. 27 28 MASTER FILE NO. 12-CV-04677-YGR 3 JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 5 of 34 1 II. SUMMARY OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS 2 9. Ubiquiti designs, manufactures, and sells broadband wireless solutions 3 worldwide. SAC ¶¶2. The Company offers a portfolio of wireless networking products and 4 solutions, including systems, high performance radios, antennas, and management tools designed 5 for wireless networking and other applications in the unlicensed radio frequency spectrum. Id. 6 10.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LEONARD SOKOLOW, Individually and on Behalf of All O
    Case: 1:18-cv-01039 Document #: 209 Filed: 11/13/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:3098 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LEONARD SOKOLOW, Individually and on ) Case No. 1:18-cv-01039 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LJM FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LTD., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DECLARATION OF JAMES W. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES I, JAMES W. JOHNSON, declare as follows pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 1. I am a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”). Labaton Sucharow and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) serve as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Justin and Jenny Kaufman, Joseph N. Wilson, Dr. Larry and Marilyn Cohen, Tradition Capital Management LLC (“Tradition”), and SRS Capital Advisors, Inc. (“SRS”) (collectively, “Lead Plaintiffs”), and the proposed Settlement Class in the Action.1 I have been actively involved in prosecuting and resolving the Action, am 1 All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Partial Settlement, dated as of August 19, 2019 (ECF No. 192) (the “Stipulation”), which was entered into by and among (a) Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class; and (b) defendants Two Roads Shared Trust (the “Trust”), Northern Lights Distributors, LLC (“NLD”), NorthStar Financial Services Group, LLC (“NorthStar”), and Mark D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Telecom Meltdown for a Listing of Recent Titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, Turn to the Back of This Book
    The Great Telecom Meltdown For a listing of recent titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, turn to the back of this book. The Great Telecom Meltdown Fred R. Goldstein a r techhouse. com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the U.S. Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Goldstein, Fred R. The great telecom meltdown.—(Artech House telecommunications Library) 1. Telecommunication—History 2. Telecommunciation—Technological innovations— History 3. Telecommunication—Finance—History I. Title 384’.09 ISBN 1-58053-939-4 Cover design by Leslie Genser © 2005 ARTECH HOUSE, INC. 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 All rights reserved. Printed and bound in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have been appropriately capitalized. Artech House cannot attest to the accuracy of this information. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark. International Standard Book Number: 1-58053-939-4 10987654321 Contents ix Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) Gave Cable Providers an Advantage on “Triple Play” 122 RBOCs Took the Threat Seriously 123 Hybrid Fiber-Coax Is Developed 123 Cable Modems
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of South Carolina (Columbia Division)
    3:17-cv-02616-MBS Date Filed 04/23/20 Entry Number 229 Page 1 of 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA (COLUMBIA DIVISION) In re SCANA Corporation Securities Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2616-MBS Litigation JOINT DECLARATION OF JOHN C. BROWNE AND JAMES W. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES 3:17-cv-02616-MBS Date Filed 04/23/20 Entry Number 229 Page 2 of 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION.............................................................................. iii I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION .................................................................................. 6 A. Factual Background of the Claims .......................................................................... 6 B. Filing of the Initial Complaint and Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel .......................................................................................................... 8 C. Lead Counsel’s Investigation and the Consolidated Class Action Complaint ................................................................................................................ 9 D. Continued Informal Discovery Following Filing of Complaint ........................... 11 E. Defendants’ Motions to
    [Show full text]
  • America's Top Technology Companies
    NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY Title: America's Top Technology Companies. By: Willis, Clint, Forbes ASAP, 10789901, 4/5/1999 ASAP, Vol. 163, Issue 7 Database: Business Source Premier America's Top Technology Companies Listen American Accent COMPILING THIS LIST OF THE MOST dynamic technology companies is a lot like naming the world's hottest 100 mountaineers. You can be sure that by next year (or maybe next month) many "of your picks will have tumbled off the roster into the cold wastes of oblivion. The second annual Forbes ASAP "Dynamic 100" includes 52 repeaters. So what happened to the others, and where did the new guys come from? The two-word answer: dot.com. The revolution, it seems, will be Webcast: Dynamic companies are supposed to cope with change. That's one of the-six factors we used .to make our selections. The painful truth is that dynamism itself is subject to change: Shifts in a company's operations, its competition, or its markets can quickly transform today's 'dynamic company into next year's shoulda-been. With two-year development cycles and nine-month product life spans; everyone's got to move very quickly," says venture capitalist Kevin Compton of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. "It you're not building your technology, you're at risk." And even if you do, you might still be in trouble: "Asian demand just dried up, and no one saw it co coming," says Wasatch Advisors analyst Ajay Krishnan. Result: Semitool (#8 semiconductor company last year) fell off the list after the capital equipment sector slowed down and its growth rate slumped.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
    Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 41 PageID: 2679 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE: DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES Case No. 3:17-cv-06436-PGS-DEA LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. ROGERS IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 41 PageID: 2680 I, MICHAEL H. ROGERS, declare as follows pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 1. I am a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”). Labaton Sucharow serves as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (“Mississippi PERS”) and the Settlement Class in the Action. I have been actively involved in prosecuting and resolving the Action, am familiar with its proceedings, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based upon my supervision and participation in all material aspects of the Action.1 2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I submit this declaration in support of Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation. I also submit this declaration in support of Lead Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Payment of Litigation Expenses. Both motions have the full support of Lead Plaintiff.
    [Show full text]
  • International Journal of Entrepreneurship
    Volume 6 ISSN 1099-9264 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP An official Journal of the Academy of Entrepreneurship ®, Inc. Reagan McLaurin Editor University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Academy Information is published on the Allied Academies web page www.alliedacademies.org The Academy of Entrepreneurship®, Inc. is a non-profit corporation chartered under the laws of North Carolina in the United States. The Academy is an association of scholars and practitioners whose purpose is to advance the knowledge, understanding, and teaching of entrepreneurship throughout the world. W hitney Press, Inc. Printed by Whitney Press, Inc. PO Box 1064, Cullowhee, NC 28723 www.whitneypress.com Authors retain copyright for their manuscripts and provide the Academy with a publication permission agreement. Neither the Academy of Entrepreneurship nor the Allied Academies is responsible for the content of the individual manuscripts. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of manuscripts for publication from among those submitted for consideration. The Editors accept final manuscripts in digital form and the Publishers make adjustments solely for the purposes of pagination and organization. The Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal is owned by the Academy of Entrepreneurship®, Inc., and published by the Allied Academies, Inc., PO Box 2689, 145 Travis Road, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA, (828) 293-9151, FAX (828) 293-9407. Those interested in subscribing to the Journal,
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Tools Managers Can Use to Get Long-Term Committed Shareholders
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2020 CULTIVATING QUALITY: TEN TOOLS MANAGERS CAN USE TO GET LONG-TERM COMMITTED SHAREHOLDERS Lawrence A. Cunningham George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ohio State U. Business Law Journal (2020). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CULTIVATING QUALITY: TEN TOOLS MANAGERS CAN USE TO GET LONG-TERM COMMITTED SHAREHOLDERS Lawrence A. Cunningham George Washington University Center for Law, Economics & Finance ABSTRACT Considerable effort goes into forging tools a corporation can use to shape its shareholder base. Much effort is geared toward promoting long investor time horizons, presumed to be a valuable but rare appetite among many shareholders. Less attention has been focused on promoting greater commitment, though attracting shareholders willing to stake large percentages of their portfolio in a given company’s stock may prove way more valuable than having numerous large index funds on the shareholder list. In three ways, this article adds to the toolkit on shareholder cultivation. First, this article stresses that a shareholder’s relative portfolio concentration in a particular company’s stock is as important as average holding periods. Such an orientation is unusual in corporate life. But today’s world is dominated by index fund investors whose portfolio diversification limits their ability to act as informed shareholders.
    [Show full text]