Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 35

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 11 IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION 12 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. 13 USLANER IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL 14 APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND (II) LEAD 15 COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES 16 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 17 (Settlement Hearing Date) 18 November 19, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 35

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 EXHIBIT LIST ...... iii 4 I. HISTORY OF THE ACTION ...... 3 5 A. The Commencement of the Action and the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ...... 3 6 B. The Investigation and Filing of the Consolidated Complaint ...... 4 7 C. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss ...... 6 8 D. The Parties Conduct Discovery ...... 7 9 E. Work with Experts ...... 9 10 F. Class Certification ...... 10 11 G. The Parties’ Mediation Efforts and the Settlement of the Action ...... 10 12 H. The Court Grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement ...... 12 13 II. RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION ...... 12 14 A. Risks Concerning Liability ...... 13 15 1. Falsity ...... 13 16 2. Materiality ...... 15 17 3. Scienter ...... 15 18 B. Risks Related to Loss Causation and Damages ...... 16 19 C. The Settlement Amount Compared to Likely Damages that Could Be 20 Proved at Trial...... 17 21 III. LEAD PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER REQUIRING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE...... 19 22 IV. ALLOCATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT ...... 21 23 V. THE FEE AND EXPENSE APPLICATION ...... 24 24 A. The Fee Application ...... 24 25 1. Lead Plaintiff Has Authorized and Supports the Fee Application ...... 24 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER i BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 35

2. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Action by Plaintiff’s Counsel ...... 24 1 3. The Experience and Standing of Lead Counsel ...... 26 2 4. The Risks of the Litigation and the Need to Ensure the Availability 3 of Competent Counsel in High-Risk Contingent Securities Cases ...... 26 4 5. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to the Fee Application ...... 27 5 B. The Litigation Expense Application ...... 28 6 VI. CONCLUSION ...... 30 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER ii BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 35

1 EXHIBIT LIST 2 3 Ex. No. Description

4 1 Declaration of Michelle Yoshida in Support of Motion for Final Approval of 5 Class Action Settlement (“Yoshida Decl.”) 6 2 Declaration of Jeffrey R. Yates, Administrator of the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, in Support 7 of: (I) Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of Allocation; and (II) Lead Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation 8 Expenses (“Yates Decl.”) 9 3 Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Settlements: 2019 Review and 10 Analysis (2020)

11 4 Declaration of Eric J. Miller Regarding: (A) Mailing of the Notice and Claim Form; (B) Publication of the Summary Notice; and (C) Report on Requests for 12 Exclusion Received to Date (“Miller Decl.”) 13 5 Summary of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Lodestar and Expenses 14 5A Declaration of Jonathan D. Uslaner in Support of Lead Counsel’s Motion For 15 Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses, Filed on Behalf of Bernstein Litowitz 16 Berger & Grossmann LLP 17 5B Declaration of Bradley S. Keller in Support of Lead Counsel’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses, Filed on Behalf of Byrnes Keller 18 Cromwell LLP

19 5C Declaration of Guillaume Buell, David W. Hall, and Thomas Laughlin, IV in 20 Support of Lead Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses, Filed on Behalf of Counsel for New York Action Plaintiff 21 6 Breakdown of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Expenses by Category 22 23 Unpublished Authorities Cited in Fee Memorandum 7 In re QSI Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. SACV 13-01818-CJC-JPR, slip op. (C.D. Cal. 24 Nov. 19, 2018), ECF No. 120

25 8 Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018), ECF No. 364 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER iii BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 35

1 9 In re Novatel Wireless Sec. Litig., No. 08-CV-01689-AJB(RBB); slip op. (S.D. 2 Cal. June 23, 2014), ECF No. 520

3 10 McGuire v. Dendreon Corp., Case No. C07-800 MJP, slip op. (W.D. Wash. Dec. 20, 2010), ECF No. 235 4 5 11 In re BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Tr. Sec. Litig., No. C06-1505 MJP, slip op. (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2009), ECF No. 127 6 12 In re CTI Biopharma Corp. Sec. Litig., Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL, slip op. 7 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2018), ECF No. 118 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER iv BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 35

1 JONATHAN D. USLANER declares as follows: 2 1. I am a partner of the law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 3 (“BLB&G”). BLB&G was appointed Lead Counsel for Employees’ Retirement System of the 4 City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (“Baton Rouge” or “Lead Plaintiff”) in the 5 above-captioned action (the “Action”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein 6 based on my active participation in all aspects of the prosecution and settlement of the Action.1 7 2. The proposed Settlement before the Court provides for the resolution of all claims 8 in the Action in exchange for a cash payment of $20,000,000.00, plus interest, for the benefit of 9 the Settlement Class. The Settlement Amount has been paid into an escrow account and is earning 10 interest. As detailed herein, the Settlement provides a benefit to the Settlement Class by conferring 11 a substantial, certain, and immediate recovery while avoiding the significant risks of continued 12 litigation, including the risk that the Settlement Class could recover nothing or less than the 13 Settlement Amount after years of additional litigation, appeals, and delay. 14 3. The proposed Settlement is the result of extensive efforts by Lead Plaintiff and 15 Lead Counsel, which included, among other things: (i) conducting an investigation into the alleged 16 fraud, including interviews of dozens of former employees of Impinj and a thorough review of 17 information such as filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), analyst 18 reports, conference call transcripts, news articles, and materials received in response to Lead 19 Counsel’s request to the SEC pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”); (ii) drafting

20 a detailed consolidated complaint based on Lead Counsel’s investigation; (iii) successfully 21 1 All capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in 22 the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 91-2) (the “Stipulation”), which was entered into by and among (i) Lead Plaintiff and plaintiff in the New 23 York Action, Plymouth County Retirement System (“New York Action Plaintiff” and, together 24 with Lead Plaintiff, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, and (ii) defendant Impinj, Inc. (“Impinj” or the “Company”) and defendants Chris Diorio, Evan Fein, 25 and Eric Brodersen (the “Individual Defendants” and, with Impinj, “Defendants”).

26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 35

1 opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss through briefing and oral argument; (iv) engaging in fact 2 discovery, including preparing and serving interrogatories and document requests to Defendants 3 and subpoenas to third parties and obtaining and reviewing nearly a half-million pages of 4 documents; (v) consulting with experts on accounting, damages, loss causation, and RFID 5 technology; and (vi) engaging in arm’s-length settlement negotiations, which included a full-day 6 mediation session with Michelle Yoshida, an experienced and highly respected mediator. As a 7 result of these efforts, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were well informed of the strengths and 8 weaknesses of the claims and defenses in the Action at the time they achieved the proposed 9 Settlement. 10 4. The $20 million Settlement was based on a recommendation made by the mediator, 11 Michelle Yoshida, following her review of the Parties’ submissions and a full-day mediation 12 session. Ms. Yoshida has submitted a declaration concerning the mediation and settlement 13 process. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto, at ¶¶ 6-13. 14 5. Lead Plaintiff, the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and 15 Parish of East Baton Rouge, is a sophisticated institutional investor, who actively participated in 16 the Action, closely supervised the work of Lead Counsel, and endorses the approval of the 17 Settlement. Jeffrey R. Yates, the Administrator of Lead Plaintiff, has also submitted a declaration 18 concerning this Action and Lead Plaintiff’s approval of the Settlement. See Exhibit 2, at ¶¶ 5-7. 19 6. As discussed in further detail below, the proposed Plan of Allocation, which was

20 developed with the assistance of Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert, provides for the equitable 21 distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members who submit Claim Forms 22 that are approved for payment by the Court on a pro rata basis, fairly based on losses attributable 23 to the alleged fraud. 24 7. Lead Counsel prosecuted this case on a fully contingent basis. For its efforts in 25 achieving the Settlement, Lead Counsel is applying for an award of attorneys’ fees for 25% of the 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 2 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 35

1 Settlement Fund for Plaintiffs’ Counsel and for payment of litigation expenses incurred by 2 Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the amount of $176,771.21. In addition, Lead Counsel is applying for 3 payment of $4,870.00 in expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff in representing the Settlement Class. 4 As discussed in the Fee Memorandum, the requested fee percentage of 25% is reasonable and well 5 within the range of fees that courts in this Circuit and elsewhere have awarded in securities class 6 actions and other complex class actions with comparable recoveries. Moreover, the requested fee 7 represents a multiplier of approximately 1.88 on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s total lodestar, which is well 8 within the range of multipliers typically awarded in class actions with significant contingency 9 risks. 10 I. HISTORY OF THE ACTION

11 A. The Commencement of the Action and the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel 12

13 8. On October 2, 2018, Baton Rouge filed an initial class-action complaint captioned 14 Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. 15 Impinj, Inc. et al., No. C18-1447-RSL. Baton Rouge’s complaint alleged claims under Sections 16 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against Defendants. 17 9. In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 18 § 78u-4 (the “PSLRA”), notice was published in a national newswire service on August 7, 2018 19 advising potential class members of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted, and the

20 deadline by which putative class members could move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff. 21 10. Baton Rouge, represented by Lead Counsel, moved for appointment as Lead 22 Plaintiff and consolidation of related actions on October 9, 2018. (ECF No. 5.) Two other movants 23 filed competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff on the same day. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) 24 11. On January 14, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating the actions, ordered 25 that the Action be captioned In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL, 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 3 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 35

1 appointed Baton Rouge as Lead Plaintiff, and approved Lead Plaintiff’s selection of Bernstein 2 Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel and Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP as liaison 3 counsel. (ECF No. 24.) 4 12. On January 17, 2019, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulated motion establishing 5 a schedule for filing the Consolidated Complaint and briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 6 (ECF No. 31.) 7 13. Meanwhile, on January 31, 2019, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a class 8 action complaint in New York State Supreme Court entitled Plymouth County Retirement System 9 v. Impinj, Inc. et al., Index No. 650629/2019 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. N.Y. County) (the “New York 10 Action”). The New York Action alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities 11 Act”) based on purchases of Impinj common stock in or traceable to the Company’s stock 12 offerings during the Class Period. On March 15, 2019, the New York Action was stayed on 13 consent of all parties to that litigation in light of this Action. 14 B. The Investigation and Filing of the Consolidated Complaint 15 14. Beginning before Lead Plaintiff filed its initial complaint, and continuing through 16 preparation of the Consolidated Complaint, Lead Counsel undertook an extensive investigation 17 into the alleged fraud and potential claims that could be asserted in this Action. Lead Counsel’s 18 investigation included a review and analysis of: (a) Impinj’s public filings with the SEC; 19 (b) research reports by securities and financial analysts; (c) transcripts of Impinj’s earnings and

20 other conference calls with analysts and investors; (d) Impinj presentations, press releases, and 21 reports; (e) Impinj marketing materials; (f) news and media reports concerning Impinj; (g) video 22 interviews of Impinj executives; (h) materials received in response to Lead Counsel’s request to 23 the SEC pursuant to FOIA; (i) accounting rules, standards and concepts, including Generally 24 Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); (j) price and volume data for Impinj securities; and 25 (k) information from consultations with experts. 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 4 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 35

1 15. In addition, Lead Counsel and its in-house investigators conducted an extensive 2 search to locate former Impinj employees and industry participants who might have relevant 3 information pertaining to the claims asserted in the Action. This included developing a database 4 of over 300 potential witnesses and contacting 86 former Impinj employees who were believed to 5 have potentially relevant information. Lead Counsel and/or its in-house investigators spoke to 60 6 of these individuals. 7 16. In connection with the preparation of the Consolidated Complaint, Lead Counsel 8 also consulted with Dr. Michael Hartzmark of Hartzmark Economics Litigation Practice, LLC, a 9 well-respected economist with extensive experience providing expert analyses and testimony 10 regarding loss causation and damages in securities class actions. Lead Counsel consulted with Dr. 11 Hartzmark and his colleagues concerning the impact of Defendants’ alleged misstatements and 12 omissions on the market price of Impinj’s common stock, and the damages suffered by Impinj 13 shareholders. 14 17. On February 13, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed and served the Consolidated Class 15 Action Complaint (ECF No. 35) (the “Consolidated Complaint” or “Complaint”). The detailed 16 Complaint, which included the accounts of certain former Impinj employees, asserts claims against 17 all Defendants under Section 10(b) of Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and against the Individual 18 Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class 19 Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements or material omissions about

20 demand for and the capabilities of the Impinj Platform. The Complaint further alleges that the 21 price of Impinj common stock was inflated during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’ 22 misstatements and omissions and declined when the truth was revealed through a series of 23 disclosures from August 3, 2017 through February 15, 2018. 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 5 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 35

1 C. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 2 18. On March 19, 2019, Defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss the Complaint. 3 (ECF No. 42.) Defendants’ motion to dismiss was accompanied by 125 pages of exhibits. (ECF 4 No. 43.) Defendants argued that the Complaint failed to adequately plead actionable 5 misstatements because many of the alleged misstatements were purportedly not objectively false 6 when made and were purportedly merely vague, immaterial puffery. Defendants argued further 7 that the Complaint failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter and failed to 8 adequately plead loss causation. 9 19. On April 9, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed and served its memorandum of law in 10 opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 51.) Among other things, Lead Plaintiff 11 argued that Defendants’ statements about the Impinj Platform’s supposed ability to provide the 12 unique location of tagged items and the demand for the Company’s products were false and 13 misleading given the locationing problems plaguing the Impinj Platform. Lead Plaintiff also 14 argued that the alleged misstatements did not constitute puffery because they were specific and 15 concrete representations of existing fact that could be objectively verified. 16 20. Lead Plaintiff argued further that the Complaint alleged facts giving rise to a strong 17 inference of scienter by alleging that (i) Defendants’ statements about the Impinj Platform’s ability 18 to deliver the unique location of tagged items were contradicted by contemporaneous reports, 19 presentations, and emails about the products’ locationing shortcomings; (ii) the alleged

20 misstatements concerned the most critical issue facing Impinj given that the Impinj Platform 21 accounted for 99% of the Company’s revenues; and (iii) Defendants’ false statements were 22 motivated by an interest to complete the long-desired initial public offering that would allow 23 Defendants and the Company’s venture-capital financiers to cash out. 24 21. Lastly, Lead Plaintiff showed that the Complaint adequately pled loss causation by 25 alleging that the price of Impinj shares dropped significantly on several days when news partially 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 6 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 35

1 revealed the falsity of Defendants’ statements. Lead Plaintiff showed further that Defendants’ 2 loss-causation challenge ignored and was inconsistent with controlling Ninth Circuit law. 3 22. Defendants filed and served their reply memorandum in support of their motion to 4 dismiss on April 30, 2019. (ECF No. 57.) 5 23. The Court held oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 24, 6 2019. (ECF No. 65.) On October 4, 2019, the Court entered a written order granting in part and 7 denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 66.) The Court found that the Complaint 8 (i) adequately alleged numerous actionable false statements and omissions about the Impinj 9 Platform’s ability to identify the unique location of tagged items and the demand for the 10 Company’s products; (ii) sufficiently pled facts to support a strong inference that Defendants made 11 their false statements with the requisite scienter, and (iii) adequately pled facts showing that 12 Defendants’ alleged false statements and omissions caused the losses Impinj investors suffered. 13 24. Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on November 15, 2019. (ECF No. 14 77.) In their Answer, Defendants denied that any of the statements at issue were materially false 15 or misleading, or were made with scienter. Defendants additionally asserted five affirmative 16 defenses, including that their statements were protected by the PSLRA’s safe-harbor provisions 17 and that investors were aware of the alleged misstatements and omissions and/or did not rely on 18 them when purchasing Impinj securities. 19 D. The Parties Conduct Discovery

20 25. Discovery in the Action commenced in October 2019, following the Court’s denial 21 of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2019, the parties conducted a conference in 22 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). 23 26. The Parties exchanged their Initial Disclosure Statements under Rule 26(a)(1) of 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 1, 2019. 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 7 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 35

1 27. The Parties also negotiated a Joint Status Report with a proposed trial date and pre- 2 trial schedule, which they submitted to the Court on October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 69.) The Joint 3 Status Report set forth the Parties’ views on the scope of discovery to be conducted, e-discovery 4 procedures, and proposed scheduling. 5 28. The Court thereafter entered an Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates on 6 October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 70.) Under that order, Lead Plaintiff was to file its motion for class 7 certification by May 7, 2020, fact discovery was to be completed by October 4, 2020, and 8 dispositive motions filed by November 3, 2020. Trial was set for February 1, 2021. 9 29. The Parties also negotiated the terms of a protective order governing the treatment 10 of confidential documents and other information produced in discovery, which the Parties 11 submitted to the Court on November 18, 2019. (ECF No. 78.) The Court entered the stipulated 12 protective order on November 22, 2019. (ECF No. 81.) 13 30. The parties also negotiated and entered into a Stipulated Agreement Regarding 14 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (the “ESI Stipulation”), which they submitted to 15 the Court on December 16, 2019. (ECF No. 82.) The Court entered an order approving the ESI 16 Stipulation on December 17, 2019. (ECF No. 83.) 17 31. Lead Plaintiff served its First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents to 18 all Defendants on October 21, 2019, requesting 37 categories of documents. 19 32. Defendants served their Responses and Objections to Lead Plaintiff’s First Request

20 for Production of Documents on November 20, 2019. In the months that followed, Lead Counsel 21 engaged in numerous meet and confers with Defendants’ Counsel by telephone and conducted 22 extensive negotiations over the scope and adequacy of Defendants’ discovery responses, including 23 relating to the search terms to be used and custodians whose documents should be searched. Lead 24 Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel exchanged numerous letters in furtherance of those efforts. 25 After extensive, hard-fought negotiations, Defendants agreed to conduct searches of over 30 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 8 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 35

1 custodians, including their central files, hardcopy files, emails, and text messages. Defendants 2 also agreed to conduct searches of shared drives and folders and to produce board materials. 3 33. Defendants began a rolling production of documents responsive to Lead Plaintiff’s 4 requests on November 22, 2019. Over the next several months, Defendants produced more than 5 122,000 documents, totaling nearly 500,000 pages. 6 34. Lead Plaintiff also issued subpoenas to several third-parties, including Impinj board 7 members, the Company’s outside auditor, and the law firm that conducted an internal investigation 8 of allegations of fraud made by a former employee. Those third-parties produced more than 7,500 9 pages of additional documents. 10 35. Defendants served their First Request for Production of Documents to Lead 11 Plaintiff on November 20, 2019, which requested 33 categories of documents. Among other 12 things, Defendants sought documents concerning Lead Plaintiff’s transactions in Impinj securities 13 and Lead Plaintiff’s involvement in the Action and engagement of Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff 14 served its Responses and Objections to Defendants’ requests on December 12, 2019. Defendants 15 also served subpoenas on Lead Plaintiff’s investment advisor. All totaled, Lead Plaintiff and its 16 investment advisor produced more than 16,000 pages of documents to Defendants. 17 36. In addition to document requests, Lead Plaintiff served on Defendants a set of 18 interrogatories aimed at identifying the persons and reports with relevant information. Defendants 19 provided detailed responses to the interrogatories on December 23, 2019.

20 37. On November 20, 2019, Defendants also served on Lead Plaintiff a set of 10 21 interrogatories that, among other things, requested information about Lead Plaintiff and its 22 investments in Impinj. 23 E. Work with Experts 24 38. Lead Plaintiff consulted with highly qualified experts and consultants in such 25 disciplines as accounting, damages, loss causation, and RFID technology to assist in the 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 9 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 35

1 prosecution of this Action. Lead Plaintiff’s experts and consultants included Dr. Hartzmark and 2 his colleagues, who provided Lead Plaintiff with expert advice on damages and loss causation 3 issues, and Dr. Zachary Nye of Stanford Consulting Group, who drafted an expert report on the 4 efficiency of the market for Impinj securities. After the Settlement was reached, Lead Counsel 5 worked with Dr. Hartzmark and his colleagues to develop the Plan of Allocation. 6 F. Class Certification 7 39. As noted above, the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its motion for class 8 certification was May 7, 2020. To meet that deadline, Lead Counsel prepared the motion and 9 supporting memorandum of law and had Dr. Nye prepare an expert report on the efficiency of the 10 market for Impinj common stock in order to establish the predicate for the class-wide presumption 11 of reliance under Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). As the deadline for filing the motion 12 approached, the parties were actively discussing a possible mediation. The Parties therefore filed 13 with the Court a stipulation to extend the deadline for filing the motion until June 8, 2020. (ECF 14 No. 84.) The Court entered an order approving the stipulation on April 9, 2020. (ECF No. 85.) 15 After the Parties selected the mediator and scheduled the mediation session, the Parties submitted 16 a further stipulation extending the deadline for Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification until 17 June 22, 2020. (ECF No. 87.) The Court entered an order approving the stipulation on June 3, 18 2020. (ECF No. 88.) The Parties reached their agreement in principle to settle just days before 19 the motion for class certification was due under the extended deadline.

20 G. The Parties’ Mediation Efforts and the Settlement of the Action 21 40. After considerable discussion, the Parties agreed to participate in a mediation and 22 on a designated neutral, Michelle Yoshida of Phillips ADR. Ms. Yoshida is an experienced 23 mediator of securities class actions and other complex litigation, who has facilitated settlements in 24 several complicated securities class actions like this one. See Yoshida Decl. (Ex. 1) at ¶¶ 3-4. 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 10 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 35

1 41. Mediation was scheduled for May 28, 2020. In advance of the mediation, the 2 Parties exchanged and sent to Ms. Yoshida detailed mediation statements supported by dozens of 3 exhibits. At the mediation session, which lasted for almost twelve hours, the Parties engaged in 4 vigorous settlement negotiations with the assistance of Ms. Yoshida. The participants in the 5 mediation included Lead Counsel, Defendants’ in-house and outside counsel, representatives from 6 each of Impinj’s D&O carriers, and counsel for parties in the New York Action. Despite the 7 Parties’ and the mediators’ best efforts, the Parties were unable to reach agreement at the 8 mediation. 9 42. In the days following the conclusion of the mediation session, Ms. Yoshida issued 10 a mediator’s recommendation to the Parties that the Action be resolved in exchange for payment 11 of $20,000,000.00 in cash for the benefit of the Settlement Class. The proposal was issued on a 12 double-blind basis, meaning that if one of the parties rejected the proposal, it would not find out 13 whether the other party had accepted the proposal. Both Lead Plaintiff and Defendants informed 14 Ms. Yoshida that they accepted the proposal. On June 12, 2020, the Parties informed the Court 15 that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle. (ECF No. 89.) 16 43. In the ensuing weeks, the Parties negotiated the full terms of the Settlement and 17 drafted the Settlement Agreement and related papers, including the notices to be provided to 18 potential members of the Settlement Class. On July 9, 2020, the Parties executed the Stipulation 19 and Agreement of Settlement (ECF No. 91-2) (the “Stipulation”), which set forth the terms of the

20 Parties’ agreement to settle all claims asserted in the Action for $20,000,000.00, subject to the 21 approval of the Court. 22 44. On July 9, 2020, the Parties also executed a confidential Supplemental Agreement 23 setting forth the conditions under which Impinj can terminate the Settlement if the requests for 24 exclusion from the Settlement Class exceed an agreed-upon threshold. 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 11 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 35

1 H. The Court Grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement 2 45. On July 10, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the 3 Settlement. (ECF No. 91.) Lead Plaintiff filed a reply in further support of the motion for 4 preliminary approval on July 28, 2020. (ECF No. 92.) 5 46. On July 29, 2020, the Court entered the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement 6 and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 93) (the “Preliminary Approval 7 Order”) which, among other things: (a) preliminarily approved the Settlement; (b) approved the 8 form of Notice, Summary Notice, and Claim Form, and authorized notice to be given to Settlement 9 Class Members through mailing of the Notice and Claim Form, posting of the Notice and Claim 10 Form on a Settlement website, and publication of the Summary Notice in The Wall Street Journal 11 and over the PR Newswire; (c) established procedures and deadlines by which Settlement Class 12 Members could participate in the Settlement, request exclusion from the Settlement Class, or 13 object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the fee and expense application; 14 and (d) set a schedule for the filing of opening papers and reply papers in support of the proposed 15 Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and the Fee and Expense Application. The Preliminary Approval 16 Order also scheduled the Settlement Hearing for November 19, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. to determine, 17 among other things, whether the Settlement should be finally approved. 18 II. RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION 19 47. The Settlement provides an immediate and certain benefit to the Settlement Class

20 in the form of a $20,000,000.00 cash payment. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that the 21 proposed Settlement is a fair and favorable result for the Settlement Class. As explained below, 22 Lead Plaintiff faced substantial risks with respect to proving liability and establishing loss 23 causation and damages in this case. Absent a settlement, Lead Plaintiff would need to prevail at 24 several additional stages of the litigation, including defeating Defendants’ anticipated motion for 25 summary judgment, at trial, and on appeal. At each of these stages, Lead Plaintiff would have 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 12 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 35

1 faced significant risks in establishing liability and full damages. Even after any trial, Lead Plaintiff 2 would have faced post-trial motions and a likely appeal that might have prevented Lead Plaintiff 3 from successfully obtaining a recovery for the class or, at a minimum, delayed any recovery for 4 several years. 5 A. Risks Concerning Liability 6 48. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe the claims asserted against Defendants in 7 the Action are meritorious. They recognize, however, that this Action presented a number of 8 meaningful risks to establishing Defendants’ liability. As discussed further below, Defendants 9 vehemently contend that their challenged statements about the Impinj Platform’s ability to locate 10 tagged items and the demand for the Company’s products were neither false nor misleading when 11 made. They contend just as strongly that even if any of the statements at issue were found to be 12 false or misleading, they did not make them with the intent to defraud because they reasonably 13 believed them to be true when made. 14 1. Falsity 15 49. Lead Plaintiff would have faced substantial challenges in proving that Defendants’ 16 statements were materially false and misleading when made. Defendants’ statements generally 17 fall into two categories — statements about the Impinj Platform’s ability to provide the unique 18 location of items tagged with Impinj ICs and statements about the demand for the Company’s ICs 19 and other products. Defendants argued in their motion to dismiss, and undoubtedly would have

20 argued again at summary judgment and trial, that all their statements were true and not misleading. 21 50. As to their statements about locationing, Defendants contended that the facts would 22 show that throughout the Class Period the Impinj Platform and its component parts were 23 successfully deployed at companies around the world. Those companies allegedly included large 24 hospitals, several large clothing stores and manufacturers, and an international fast-food franchise. 25 Defendants would likely attempt to defeat Lead Plaintiff’s locationing claims at summary 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 13 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 35

1 judgment or trial through, among other things, witness testimony, documents, and other evidence 2 showing the Impinj Platform’s ability and successful deployments to provide the location of tagged 3 items. 4 51. With respect to alleged false statements about rising demand for Impinj endpoint 5 ICs fueling the Company’s record revenue growth, Defendants have argued, and likely would have 6 argued again on summary judgment and at trial, that those statements were neither false nor 7 misleading because demand for the Company’s endpoint ICs was in fact growing steadily when 8 Defendants made their statements. Thus, Defendants likely would have argued that their May 11, 9 2017 statement to investors that first quarter revenue had increased “primarily driven by increased 10 demand for our endpoint ICs” was a demonstrably true historical fact. 11 52. To counter Lead Plaintiff’s allegations that the increased sales of endpoint ICs 12 resulted from improperly “pulling in” to the current quarter orders from future periods, Defendants 13 likely would offer the results of Impinj’s Audit Committee’s investigation into a whistleblower’s 14 allegations that the company engaged in channel stuffing. Defendants likely would attempt to 15 show that the investigation, which was conducted by outside counsel with the help of forensic 16 accountants, found that there was no merit to the former employee’s allegations. Specifically, 17 Defendants likely intended to show that the investigation found that the Company’s sales of 18 endpoint ICs were pursuant to legitimate purchase orders that did not include any rights of return 19 or other agreements or terms calling into question the legitimacy of the sales. Defendants likely

20 would have further contended that those findings are bolstered by the whistleblower’s withdrawal 21 of his OSHA complaint with prejudice and without receiving any compensation. Defendants 22 would have further likely noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission terminated its 23 investigation into the former employee’s allegations without recommending any enforcement 24 action. And, finally, Defendants would have likely explained that the Company never restated its 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 14 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 35

1 financial statements and that the Company’s independent auditor signed off on the Company’s 2 financial statements throughout the Class Period. 3 53. While Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believed they had strong responses to these 4 defenses, and uncovered evidence supporting Lead Plaintiff’s claims, they recognized that these 5 facts created significant risk at summary judgment and trial. 6 2. Materiality 7 54. Defendants likely would have argued at summary judgment and trial that statements 8 about the Impinj Platform’s ability to locate tagged items were not material to investors because 9 the vast majority of the Company’s revenues came from the sale of endpoint ICs to retailers for 10 uses that did not involve locationing. While Lead Plaintiff believes that this argument ignores and 11 conflicts with well-established case law, there is a risk that a jury could find the statements 12 unimportant to investors. 13 3. Scienter 14 55. Even if it were able to prove that Defendants’ statements were false or misleading, 15 Lead Plaintiff would have faced several challenges proving that Defendants made their statements 16 with the intent to mislead investors or with deliberate recklessness. 17 56. As to the locationing statements, Defendants likely would have argued at summary 18 judgment and trial that the fact that Impinj had multiple platform products capable of locating 19 tagged items and a proven track record of customers around the world successfully deploying those

20 products refutes any claim that Defendants did not believe their locationing statements when they 21 made them. 22 57. Defendants likewise were expected to argue at summary judgment and trial that the 23 fact that the Company exceeded its own forecasts and recorded record sales in the quarter 24 immediately preceding their alleged false statements about demand for the Company’s endpoint 25 ICs belies any allegation that they knew or were deliberately reckless in not knowing that those 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 15 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 35

1 demand statements were false. Defendants undoubtedly also would have argued that the Audit 2 Committee’s findings that the allegations of channel stuffing were baseless likewise refute any 3 allegation that Defendants knew or should have known that the Company’s sales were driven by 4 channel stuffing or improperly pulling in sales from future periods. 5 58. On all these issues, Lead Plaintiff would have had to prevail at several stages; first 6 on a motion for summary judgment and then at trial. And even if Lead Plaintiff succeeded at 7 summary judgment and trial, it likely would face years of lengthy appeals. At each stage, there 8 would be very significant risks attendant to the continued prosecution of the Action, as well as 9 considerable delay. 10 B. Risks Related to Loss Causation and Damages 11 59. Even if successful in demonstrating falsity and scienter, Lead Plaintiff would still 12 need to demonstrate loss causation and damages. Defendants likely would have contended at 13 summary judgment and trial that Lead Plaintiff could not establish a causal connection between 14 the alleged misrepresentations and the losses investors suffered, as required by law. In support of 15 this contention, Defendants and their experts were expected to attempt to show that Impinj never 16 disclosed, and the market never heard, that the Impinj Platform could not identify the unique 17 location of tagged items because the products in fact could deliver that information. In other 18 words, Defendants and their experts would likely argue that there was never a “corrective 19 disclosure” revealing the “truth” about Defendants’ locationing statements. And without such a

20 corrective disclosure, Defendants would have likely argued, Lead Plaintiff could not prove a causal 21 connection between Defendants’ locationing statements and the stock price declines alleged in the 22 Complaint. 23 60. Lead Plaintiff would have countered that evidence with its own evidence and expert 24 analyses demonstrating that the Company’s announcements of declining demand for its products 25 stemmed from and were related to the Impinj Platform’s locationing problems. These disputed 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 16 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 35

1 loss causation issues would have been hotly contested, with their resolution boiling down to the 2 proverbial “battle of experts.” Were the Court or the jury to accept Defendants’ arguments, 3 recoverable damages would be eliminated or significantly reduced.

4 C. The Settlement Amount Compared to Likely Damages that Could Be Proved at Trial 5

6 61. If not for this Settlement, the Action would have continued to be highly contested 7 by the Parties at each significant stage. Continued litigation would be complex, costly, and lengthy 8 for the Settlement Class. Among other things, depositions would have to be taken; experts would 9 need to be designated; and expert discovery would need to be completed. Additionally, a motion 10 for summary judgment would likely have to be briefed and argued. And a trial could take weeks 11 to complete, even without taking into account pre- and post-trial motions. 12 62. The Settlement Amount—$20 million in cash—represents a significant recovery 13 for the Settlement Class. The $20 million Settlement is a favorable result when considered in 14 relation to the maximum amount of damages that could be realistically established at trial, in the 15 event Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class prevailed on liability issues, including falsity and 16 scienter. The absolute theoretical maximum potential damages that could be established at trial if 17 Lead Plaintiff succeeded on every contested issue—without accounting for the non-fraud related 18 news on the “corrective disclosure” dates—are estimated to be approximately $365 million. The 19 realistic maximum range of potential damages in this case, however, are estimated to be between

20 $59 million and $200 million, assuming again that Lead Plaintiff prevailed at trial on its core 21 liability theory. Thus, when considered in relation to the range of realistic provable damages, the 22 $20 million Settlement represents approximately 10% to 34% of the realistic maximum of 23 recoverable damages if Lead Plaintiff were to prevail. This level of recovery is substantially above

24 the median recovery in securities class actions. See CORNERSTONE RESEARCH, SECURITIES CLASS

25 ACTION SETTLEMENTS: 2019 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS (2020), attached hereto as Exhibit 3, at 6 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 17 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 35

1 (median settlement in securities fraud class actions from 2010 through 2018 with damages 2 estimated between $150 and $249 million was 4%), and at 20 (median recovery in all securities 3 class actions in the Ninth Circuit from 2010 through 2019 was 4.9% of estimated damages). 4 63. In addition, if litigation had continued, Lead Plaintiff would have faced significant 5 risk in collecting any judgment it may have obtained given the limited insurance available and the 6 Company’s limited funds. Impinj’s insurance was limited and was a wasting asset that would have 7 been drastically reduced or completely depleted had litigation continued. In fact, unlike many 8 securities class actions, the Company itself is funding a significant percentage (27%) of the 9 settlement. Moreover, Impinj has reported in its SEC filings that it is not and rarely has been 10 profitable, and had only limited cash available. According to its SEC filings, the Company had a 11 net loss of $4.3 million for the quarter immediately preceding the mediation and an accumulated 12 deficit of $267.1 million. In addition, Impinj’s SEC filings reported that the Company had a total 13 of $119.2 million in cash and short-term investments, $86.3 million in convertible debt, and $89.9 14 million in liabilities, giving it a net cash balance of only $29.3 million. 15 64. Given these financial constraints, Lead Plaintiff had reasonable concerns that the 16 Company might not be able to fund a judgment if one were obtained after protracted litigation, 17 which would have depleted most, if not all, of the available insurance. If the concerns about 18 Impinj’s ability to pay and the available insurance materialized, the class might have been unable 19 to recover any amount even comparable to the Settlement through litigation—even assuming, as

20 was by no means certain, that Lead Plaintiff prevailed on the merits of its claims. 21 65. Particularly given the meaningful litigation and ability-to-pay risks, and the 22 immediacy and amount of the $20 million recovery, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that 23 the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class. 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 18 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 35

III. LEAD PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY 1 APPROVAL ORDER REQUIRING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE 2 66. The Court’s July 29, 2020 Preliminary Approval Order directed that the Notice of 3 (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and 4 (III) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses (the “Notice”) and Proof of Claim and 5 Release Form (“Claim Form”) be disseminated to potential members of the Settlement Class. The 6 Preliminary Approval Order also set October 29, 2020 as the deadline for Settlement Class 7 Members to submit objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense 8 Application or to request exclusion from the Settlement Class. 9 67. In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, Lead Counsel instructed A.B. 10 Data, Ltd. (“A.B. Data”), the Court-approved Claims Administrator, to begin disseminating copies 11 of the Notice and the Claim Form by mail and to publish the Summary Notice. The Notice 12 contains, among other things, a description of the Action, the Settlement, the proposed Plan of 13 Allocation, and Settlement Class Members’ rights to participate in the Settlement, object to the 14 Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the Fee and Expense Application, or exclude themselves 15 from the Settlement Class. The Notice also informs Settlement Class Members of Lead Counsel’s 16 intent to apply for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund, and 17 for Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed $275,000. 18 68. To disseminate the Notice and Claim Form (together, the “Notice Packet”), A.B. 19 Data obtained information from Impinj and from banks, brokers, and other nominees regarding the 20 names and addresses of potential Settlement Class Members. The accompanying Declaration of 21 Eric J. Miller, attached hereto as Exhibit 4, provides additional information about A.B. Data’s 22 distribution of the Notice Packet. See Miller Decl. ¶¶ 2-8. 23 69. A.B. Data began mailing copies of the Notice Packet to potential Settlement Class 24 Members and nominee owners on August 19, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 3-5. As of September 24, 2020, A.B. 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 19 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 25 of 35

1 Data had disseminated a total of 59,669 Notice Packets to potential Settlement Class Members and 2 nominees. Id. ¶ 8. 3 70. In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, A.B. Data caused the 4 Summary Notice to be published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted over PR Newswire on 5 September 2, 2020. Id. ¶ 9. 6 71. Lead Counsel also caused A.B. Data to establish a dedicated settlement website, 7 ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com, to provide potential Settlement Class Members with information 8 concerning the Settlement and access to copies of the Notice and Claim Form, as well as copies of 9 other relevant documents, including the Complaint, the Stipulation, Lead Plaintiff’s motion for 10 preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the Preliminary Approval Order. See Miller Decl. 11 ¶ 11. That website became operational on August 19, 2020. Id. Lead Counsel also made copies 12 of the Notice and Claim Form and the other relevant documents available on its own website, 13 blbglaw.com, at that time. Lead Counsel and A.B. Data will continue to monitor and to update the 14 settlement website as the settlement process continues. For example, Lead Plaintiff’s papers in 15 support of its motion for final approval of the Settlement and Lead Counsel’s papers in support of 16 its motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses will be made available on the website after 17 they are filed, and any orders entered by the Court in connection with the motions will also be 18 posted. 19 72. The deadline for Settlement Class Members to file objections to the Settlement,

20 Plan of Allocation, or Fee and Expense Application, or to request exclusion from the Settlement 21 Class is October 29, 2020. To date, no requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class, see Miller 22 Decl. ¶ 12, and no objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s Fee and 23 Expense Application have been received. Lead Counsel will file reply papers on or before 24 November 12, 2020, which will address any requests for exclusion and objections that may be 25 received. 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 20 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 26 of 35

1 IV. ALLOCATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT 2 73. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, and as set forth in the Notice, all 3 Settlement Class Members who want to be eligible to participate in the distribution of the Net 4 Settlement Fund must submit a valid Claim Form with the required information postmarked no 5 later than November 27, 2020. As set forth in the Notice, the Net Settlement Fund will be 6 distributed among Settlement Class Members who submit eligible claims according to the plan of 7 allocation approved by the Court. 8 74. Lead Counsel consulted with Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert in developing the 9 proposed plan of allocation for the Net Settlement Fund (the “Plan of Allocation”). Lead Counsel 10 believes that the Plan of Allocation provides a fair and reasonable method to equitably allocate the 11 Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members who suffered losses as result of the 12 conduct alleged in the Action. 13 75. The Plan of Allocation is set forth at pages 13 to 16 of the Notice. See Miller Decl., 14 Ex. A at pp. 13-16. As described in the Notice, calculations under the Plan of Allocation are 15 intended as a method to weigh the claims of Settlement Class Members against one another for the 16 purposes of making an equitable allocation of the Net Settlement Fund. See Plan ¶ 1. 17 76. In developing the Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert calculated 18 the estimated amount of artificial inflation in Impinj common stock during the Class Period that 19 was allegedly caused by Defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements and material

20 omissions. See Plan ¶ 2. In calculating the estimated artificial inflation, Lead Plaintiff’s expert 21 considered price changes in the stock in reaction to the public disclosures allegedly revealing the 22 truth concerning Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and material omissions, adjusting for 23 price changes on that day that were attributable to market or industry forces and based on 24 assumptions related to the case provided by Lead Counsel. Id. 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 21 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 27 of 35

1 77. Recognized Loss Amounts are calculated under the Plan of Allocation for each 2 purchase of Impinj common stock that is listed on a Claimant’s Claim Form and for which 3 adequate documentation is provided. See Plan ¶ 5. In general, Recognized Loss Amounts are 4 calculated as the lesser of: (a) the difference between the amount of alleged artificial inflation in 5 Impinj common stock at the time of purchase and the time of sale, as limited by the dollar amount 6 of loss measure at each corrective disclosure, or (b) the difference between the actual purchase 7 price and the sale price for the shares. See Plan ¶ 4.2 Claimants who did not hold Impinj shares 8 through at least one of the dates where new corrective information was alleged to have been 9 released to the market and partially removed the artificial inflation from the price of Impinj 10 common stock will have no Recognized Loss Amount under the Plan of Allocation with respect 11 to those transactions because any loss suffered on those sales would not be the result of the alleged 12 misstatements in the Action. See id. 13 78. As stated in the Notice, and in accordance with the PSLRA, Recognized Loss 14 Amounts for shares of Impinj common stock sold during the 90-day period after the end of the 15 Class Period are further limited to the difference between the purchase price and the average 16 closing price of the stock from the end of the Class Period to the date of sale. Notice ¶ 6(c)(iii). 17 Recognized Loss Amounts for Impinj common stock purchased during the Class Period and still 18 held as of the close of trading on May 16, 2018, the end of the 90-day period, will be limited by 19 the difference between the purchase price and $13.59, the average closing price for the stock during

20 that 90-day period. Id. ¶ 6(d). 21

22 2 The difference between the amount of alleged artificial inflation in Impinj common stock at the 23 time of purchase and the time of sale is calculated by (a) multiplying the percentage amount of artificial inflation in the Impinj stock on the date of purchase by the purchase price and then 24 subtracting (b) the percentage amount of artificial inflation per share on the date of sale multiplied by the sale price. See Plan ¶¶ 6(b)(i), 6(c)(i). However, the Recognized Loss Amount is limited 25 to the actual amount of dollar declines (adjusted for market and industry factors) on the corrective disclosure dates between the date of purchase and date of sale. See Plan ¶¶ 6(b)(ii), 6(c)(ii). 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 22 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 28 of 35

1 79. In addition, the Recognized Loss Amount for shares of Impinj common stock 2 purchased in Impinj’s Initial Public Offering or Secondary Public Offering will be increased by 3 10% to reflect the fact that the investors who purchased Impinj common stock in those offerings 4 possessed claims under the Securities Act which were not possessed by other members of the 5 Settlement Class, and these Securities Act claims would have been easier to prove at trial because 6 they do not require that plaintiffs prove defendants’ fraudulent intent or that the misstatements 7 caused the loss. Plan ¶ 7. 8 80. The sum of a Claimant’s Recognized Loss Amounts for all of his purchases of 9 Impinj common stock during the Class Period is the Claimant’s “Recognized Claim.” Plan ¶ 9. 10 The Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis based on 11 the relative size of their Recognized Claims. Id. ¶ 16. If an Authorized Claimant’s pro rata 12 distribution amount calculates to less than ten dollars, no payment will be made to that Authorized 13 Claimant. Id. ¶ 17. Those funds will be included in the distribution to the Authorized Claimants 14 whose payments exceed the ten-dollar minimum. 15 81. The entire Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants. If any 16 funds remain after the initial pro rata distribution, as a result of uncashed or returned checks or 17 other reasons, subsequent cost-effective distributions to Authorized Claimants will be conducted. 18 Plan ¶ 18. Only when the residual amount left for re-distribution to Settlement Class Members is 19 so small that a further re-distribution would not be cost effective (for example, where the

20 administrative costs of conducting the additional distribution would largely subsume the funds 21 available), will those funds be donated to one or more non-sectarian, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) 22 organizations, to be recommended by Lead Counsel and approved by the Court. Id. 23 82. The Plan of Allocation was designed to fairly and rationally allocate the proceeds 24 of the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members based on damages they suffered on 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 23 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 29 of 35

1 purchases of Impinj common stock that were attributable to the misconduct alleged in the Action, 2 and, to date, no objections to the proposed Plan of Allocation have been received. 3 V. THE FEE AND EXPENSE APPLICATION 4 83. For the efforts of Plaintiffs’ Counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead 5 Counsel is applying for a fee award to be paid from the Settlement Fund on a percentage basis.3 6 As discussed in the Fee Memorandum, a 25% fee award is the “benchmark” in the Circuit and well 7 within the range of percentages awarded in securities class actions in this Circuit with comparable 8 settlements, and is fair and reasonable given the facts and circumstances of this case. The legal 9 authorities supporting the requested fee and expenses are set forth in Lead Counsel’s Fee 10 Memorandum. 11 A. The Fee Application 12 1. Lead Plaintiff Has Authorized and Supports the Fee Application 13 84. Lead Plaintiff Baton Rouge is a sophisticated institutional investor that closely 14 supervised, monitored, and actively participated in the prosecution and settlement of the Action. 15 See Yates Decl., attached hereto as Exhibit 2, at ¶¶ 3-6. Lead Plaintiff has evaluated the Fee 16 Application and fully supports the fee requested. Id. ¶ 8-9. Lead Plaintiff has reviewed and 17 approved the proposed fee and believes it is fair and reasonable in light of the result obtained for 18 the Settlement Class, the substantial risks in the litigation, and the work performed by Plaintiffs’ 19 Counsel. Id.

20 2. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Action by Plaintiff’s Counsel 21 85. Plaintiff’s Counsel devoted substantial time to the prosecution of the Action. As 22 described above in greater detail, the work that Plaintiff’s Counsel performed in this Action 23

24 3 Plaintiff’s Counsel are Lead Counsel BLB&G; liaison counsel Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP; and counsel for New York Action Plaintiff, Thornton Law Firm LLP, Hedin Hall L.L.P., and Scott 25 + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, who prosecuted the related New York Action that will be resolved 26 through this Settlement. DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 24 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 30 of 35

1 included: (i) conducting an extensive investigation into the alleged fraud, including interviews of 2 dozens of former employees of Impinj and a thorough review of information such as SEC filings, 3 analyst reports, conference call transcripts, news articles, and materials received in response to 4 Lead Counsel’s request to the SEC pursuant to FOIA; (ii) drafting a detailed consolidated 5 complaint based on Lead Counsel’s investigation; (iii) successfully opposing Defendants’ motion 6 to dismiss through briefing and argument; (iv) engaging in fact discovery, including preparing 7 requests for documents, subpoenas, and interrogatories; (v) reviewing the nearly half-million pages 8 of documents produced by Defendants and third parties; (v) consulting with experts on accounting, 9 damages, loss causation, and RFID technology; (vi) preparing the motion for class certification; 10 and (vii) engaging in arm’s-length settlement negotiations including a full-day mediation session 11 to achieve the Settlement. 12 86. Throughout the litigation, Lead Counsel maintained an appropriate level of staffing 13 that avoided unnecessary duplication of effort and ensured the efficient prosecution of this 14 litigation. Other experienced attorneys at Lead Counsel were also involved in the drafting of 15 pleadings, motion papers, and in the settlement negotiations. More junior attorneys and paralegals 16 worked on matters appropriate to their skill and experience level. 17 87. Attached hereto as Exhibits 5A, 5B, and 5C, respectively, are my declaration on 18 behalf of BLB&G, the declaration of Bradley S. Keller on behalf of liaison counsel Byrnes Keller 19 Cromwell LLP, and the joint declaration of counsel for the New York Action Plaintiff, in support

20 of Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses (the “Fee and 21 Expense Declarations”). The Fee and Expense Declarations indicate the amount of time spent on 22 the Action by the attorneys and professional support staff of each firm and the lodestar calculations 23 based on their current hourly rates. In addition, Exhibit 5A-2 sets forth summary descriptions of 24 the principal tasks performed by each attorney at Lead Counsel who was involved in the Action. 25 The first page of Exhibit 5 is a chart that summarizes the information set forth in the Fee and 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 25 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 31 of 35

1 Expense Declarations, listing the total hours expended, lodestar amounts, and litigation expenses 2 for each Plaintiff’s Counsel’s firm, and gives totals for the numbers provided. 3 88. As set forth in Exhibit 5, Plaintiffs’ Counsel collectively expended a total of 4 4,774.45 hours in the investigation and prosecution of the Action from its inception through 5 August 31, 2020. The resulting lodestar is $2,662,165.75. The vast majority of the total lodestar— 6 87%—was incurred by Lead Counsel. 7 89. The requested fee of 25% of the Settlement Fund represents a multiplier of 8 approximately 1.88 of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s total lodestar. As discussed in further detail in the Fee 9 Memorandum, the requested multiplier is well within the range of fee multipliers typically 10 awarded in comparable securities class actions and in other class actions involving significant 11 contingency fee risk, in this Circuit and elsewhere. 12 3. The Experience and Standing of Lead Counsel 13 90. As demonstrated by the firm resume included as Exhibit 5A-4 hereto, Lead Counsel 14 BLB&G is among the most experienced and skilled law firms in the securities litigation field, with 15 a long and successful track record representing investors in such cases, and is consistently ranked 16 among the top plaintiffs’ firms in the country. Further, BLB&G has taken complex cases such as 17 this to trial, and it is among the few firms with experience doing so on behalf of plaintiffs in 18 securities class actions. I believe this willingness and ability added valuable leverage during the 19 settlement negotiations.

20 4. The Risks of the Litigation and the Need to Ensure the Availability of Competent Counsel in High-Risk Contingent Securities Cases 21

22 91. This prosecution was undertaken by Lead Counsel entirely on a contingent basis 23 and without any compensation or reimbursement of expenses. The risks assumed by Lead Counsel 24 in prosecuting these claims to a successful conclusion are described above. 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 26 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 32 of 35

1 92. From the outset of its retention, Lead Counsel understood that it was embarking on 2 a complex, expensive, and lengthy litigation with no guarantee of ever being compensated for the 3 substantial investment of time and money the case would require. In undertaking that 4 responsibility, Lead Counsel was obligated to ensure that sufficient resources were dedicated to 5 the prosecution of the Action, and that funds were available to compensate staff and to cover the 6 considerable litigation costs that a case such as this requires. With an average lag time of several 7 years for these cases to conclude, the financial burden on contingent-fee counsel is far greater than 8 on a firm that is paid on an ongoing basis. Indeed, Lead Counsel and the other Plaintiffs’ Counsel 9 received no compensation during the course of the Action and have incurred over $176,000 in 10 litigation expenses in prosecuting the Actions for the benefit of the Settlement Class. 11 93. Lead Counsel also bore the risk that no recovery would be achieved. As discussed 12 herein, from the outset, this case presented multiple risks and uncertainties that could have 13 prevented any recovery whatsoever. Despite the most vigorous and competent of efforts, success 14 in contingent-fee litigation, such as this, is never assured. 15 94. Lead Counsel knows from experience that the commencement and ongoing 16 prosecution of a class action does not guarantee a settlement. To the contrary, it takes hard work 17 and diligence by skilled counsel to develop the facts and legal arguments that are needed to sustain 18 a complaint or win at class certification, summary judgment and trial, or on appeal, or to cause 19 sophisticated defendants to engage in serious settlement negotiations at meaningful levels.

20 5. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to the Fee Application 21 95. As stated above, as of September 24, 2020, 59,669 Notice Packets had been mailed 22 to potential Settlement Class Members advising them that Lead Counsel would apply for an award 23 of attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund. See Miller Decl. ¶ 8. 24 In addition, the Court-approved Summary Notice was published in The Wall Street Journal and 25 transmitted over the PR Newswire. Id. ¶ 9. To date, no objection to the request for attorneys’ fees 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 27 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 33 of 35

1 and expenses has been received by Lead Counsel. Any objection that may be received will be 2 addressed in Lead Counsel’s reply papers to be filed on November 12, 2020, after the deadline for 3 submitting objections has passed. 4 96. In sum, Lead Counsel accepted this case on a contingency basis, committed 5 significant resources to it, and prosecuted it without any compensation or guarantee of success. 6 B. The Litigation Expense Application 7 97. Lead Counsel also seeks payment from the Settlement Fund of $176,771.21 in 8 litigation expenses that were reasonably incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in connection with 9 commencing, litigating, and settling the Actions. 10 98. From the outset, counsel were aware that they might not recover any of their 11 expenses, and, even in the event of a recovery, would not recover any of their out-of-pocket 12 expenditures until such time as the Action might be successfully resolved. Lead Counsel also 13 understood that, even assuming that the case was ultimately successful, a subsequent award of 14 expenses would not compensate them for the lost use of the funds advanced by them to prosecute 15 the Action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Counsel were motivated to and did take appropriate steps to 16 avoid incurring unnecessary expenses and to minimize costs without compromising the vigorous 17 and efficient prosecution of the case. 18 99. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have incurred a total of $176,771.21 in litigation expenses in 19 connection with the prosecution of the Action and the New York Action, which will be resolved

20 by this Settlement. The expenses are summarized in Exhibit 6, which identifies each category of 21 expense, e.g., expert fees, mediation costs, and on-line research, and the amount incurred for each 22 category. These expense items are billed separately by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and such charges are 23 not duplicated in Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s hourly rates. 24 100. The largest expense was for the retention of experts, in the amount of $132,114.00, 25 or 75% of the total litigation expenses. As noted above, Lead Counsel consulted with experts in 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 28 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 34 of 35

1 the fields of accounting, loss causation, damages, and RFID technology during its investigation 2 and the preparation of the Complaint, and in connection with the development of the proposed 3 Plan of Allocation. 4 101. Another large component of the litigation expenses was for online legal and factual 5 research, which was necessary to conduct the factual investigation and identify potential witnesses, 6 prepare the Complaint, research the law pertaining to the claims asserted in the Action, and oppose 7 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The charges for on-line research amounted to $9,983.25 or 6% of 8 the total amount of expenses. Plaintiffs’ Counsel also incurred $13,500.00 for fees of independent 9 counsel retained by former employees of Impinj who were only willing to speak with Lead Counsel 10 if they had their own counsel and $5,720.00 for their share of the mediation fees of Ms. Yoshida. 11 102. The other expenses for which Plaintiffs’ Counsel seek payment are the types of 12 expenses that are necessarily incurred in litigation and routinely charged to clients billed by the 13 hour. These expenses include, among others, court costs, printing and copying costs, cost for 14 document hosting and management, and travel. 15 103. All of the litigation expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary to the 16 successful litigation of the Actions, and have been approved by Lead Plaintiff. See Yates Decl. 17 ¶ 9. 18 104. In addition, as part of Lead Counsel’s motion for fees and expenses, Lead Plaintiff 19 Baton Rouge seeks reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses that it incurred directly in

20 connection with its representation of the Settlement Class. Such payments are expressly 21 authorized and anticipated by the PSLRA, as more fully discussed in the Fee Memorandum at 11- 22 12. In accordance with the PSLRA, Lead Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of $4,870.00 for the time 23 that several of its employees dedicated to the Action, as well as for the fees incurred by its outside 24 general counsel who provided advice to Baton Rouge in connection with the Action. See Yates 25 Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 29 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99 Filed 09/25/20 Page 35 of 35

1 105. The Notice informed potential Settlement Class Members that Lead Counsel would 2 be seeking payment for Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed $275,000. The total 3 amount requested, $181,641.21 ($176,771.21 for Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s litigation expenses and 4 $4,870.00 for Lead Plaintiff’s expenses), is significantly below the $275,000 that Settlement Class 5 Members were advised could be sought. To date, no objections to the request for expenses has 6 been received. 7 106. In sum, Lead Counsel believes that the expenses incurred were reasonable and 8 necessary to represent the Settlement Class and achieve the Settlement. 9 VI. CONCLUSION 10 107. For all the reasons set forth above, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel respectfully 11 submit that the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair, reasonable and 12 adequate. Lead Counsel further submits that the requested fee in the amount of 25% of the 13 Settlement Fund should be approved as fair and reasonable, and the request for Litigation Expenses 14 in the total amount of $181,641.21 should also be approved. 15 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 16 September 25, 2020. 17 18 /s Jonathan D. Uslaner Jonathan D. Uslaner 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER 30 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit 1 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 7

Exhibit 2 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 7

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL LITIGATION 12 CLASS ACTION

13 DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. YATES, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EMPLOYEES’ 14 RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF 15 BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, IN SUPPORT OF: (I) 16 LEAD PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND PLAN 17 OF ALLOCATION; AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ 18 FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. YATES BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 7

1 I, Jeffrey R. Yates, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 2 1. I am the Administrator of the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton 3 Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (“Baton Rouge”), the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff in 4 the above-captioned securities class action (the “Action”).1 I submit this declaration in support 5 of: (a) Lead Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement and approval of the 6 proposed Plan of Allocation; and (b) Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation 7 Expenses, which includes Baton Rouge’s request to recover the reasonable costs and expenses 8 incurred in connection with its representation of the Settlement Class in this litigation. 9 2. I am aware of and understand the requirements and responsibilities of a 10 representative plaintiff in a securities class action, including those set forth in the Private 11 Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). I have personal knowledge of the matters 12 set forth in this Declaration, as I have been directly involved in monitoring and overseeing the 13 prosecution of the Action, as well as the negotiations leading to the Settlement, and I could and 14 would testify competently to these matters. 15 I. BATON ROUGE’S OVERSIGHT OF THE LITIGATION 16 3. Baton Rouge is a defined benefit pension plan established in 1953 that provides 17 retirement allowances and other benefits to regular employees of the City of Baton Rouge and 18 Parish of East Baton Rouge. As of December 31, 2019, Baton Rouge managed approximately 19 $1.2 billion in assets for the benefit of its approximately 6,700 participants. 20 4. On January 14, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Baton Rouge as the 21 Lead Plaintiff in the Action pursuant to the PSLRA, and approved Baton Rouge’s selection of 22 Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G”) as Lead Counsel for the class. 23 5. Baton Rouge, through my active and continuous involvement, as well as the 24 involvement of other Baton Rouge personnel and Baton Rouge’s general counsel, Denise N. 25 26 1 Unless otherwise defined in this Declaration, all capitalized terms have the meanings set out in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 91-2).

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. YATES -1- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 7

1 Akers, closely supervised, carefully monitored, and was actively involved in all material aspects 2 of the prosecution and resolution of the Action. Throughout the course of this Action, I, other 3 Baton Rouge personnel, and Ms. Akers: (a) regularly communicated with Lead Counsel by 4 email and telephone calls regarding the posture and progress of the case; (b) reviewed all 5 significant pleadings and briefs filed in the Action; (c) assisted in searching for and producing 6 documents and information requested by Defendants in the course of discovery; (d) consulted 7 with Lead Counsel concerning the settlement negotiations as they progressed; and (e) evaluated 8 and approved the proposed Settlement. 9 6. Baton Rouge was kept informed of the progress of the mediation process and 10 settlement negotiations. Prior to and during the mediation process, I conferred with BLB&G 11 regarding the Parties’ respective positions. 12 II. BATON ROUGE STRONGLY ENDORSES APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT 13 7. Based on its involvement throughout the prosecution and resolution of the claims 14 asserted in the Action, Baton Rouge believes that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and 15 adequate to the Settlement Class. Baton Rouge believes that the Settlement provides an 16 excellent recovery for the Settlement Class, in light of the substantial risks of continuing to 17 prosecute the claims in this case and in recovering a judgment larger than the proposed 18 Settlement. Therefore, Baton Rouge strongly endorses approval of the Settlement by the Court. 19 III. BATON ROUGE SUPPORTS LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 20 REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES 21 8. Baton Rouge believes that the request for an award of attorneys’ fees in the 22 amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable in light of the work that Plaintiffs’ 23 Counsel performed on behalf of the Settlement Class. Baton Rouge takes seriously its role as a 24 Lead Plaintiff to ensure that attorneys’ fees are fair in light of the result achieved for the 25 Settlement Class and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs’ Counsel for the work involved and the 26 substantial risks counsel undertook. Baton Rouge approves the amount of attorney’s fees

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. YATES -2- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 7

1 requested by Lead Counsel as fair and reasonable in light of the work performed by Plaintiffs’ 2 Counsel, the risks of the litigation, and the substantial recovery obtained for the Settlement 3 Class. 4 9. Baton Rouge further believes that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Litigation Expenses are 5 reasonable and represent costs and expenses necessary for the institution, prosecution, and 6 resolution of the claims in the Actions. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with its obligation 7 to the Settlement Class to obtain the best result at the most efficient cost, Baton Rouge fully 8 supports Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses. 9 10. Baton Rouge understands that reimbursement of a class representative’s 10 reasonable costs and expenses is authorized under the PSLRA. For this reason, in connection 11 with Lead Counsel’s request for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, Baton Rouge seeks 12 reimbursement for the costs and expenses that Baton Rouge incurred directly relating to its 13 representation of the Settlement Class. 14 11. My primary responsibility at Baton Rouge involves overseeing all aspects of 15 Baton Rouge’s operations, including overseeing litigation matters involving the funds, such as 16 Baton Rouge’s activities in securities class actions where (as here) it has been appointed a Lead 17 Plaintiff. Baton Rouge seeks reimbursement in the amount of $4,870.00 for: (a) time that I 18 devoted to this Action in the amount of $1,186.00 (22 hours at $53.90 per hour); (b) time that 19 other Baton Rouge staff devoted to this Action in the amount of $588.00 (12 hours at $49.00 per 20 hour); and (c) the time devoted by Baton Rouge’s general counsel, Denise N. Akers, in the 21 amount of $3,096.00 (12.9 hours at $240.00 per hour).2 The hours spent by myself and other 22 Baton Rouge staff include time spent communicating with BLB&G, reviewing significant court 23 filings, overseeing the collection of documents in response to discovery requests, reviewing 24 written discovery responses, and participating in the settlement negotiations and the mediation 25 26 2 The hourly rates used for purposes of this request for myself and the other Baton Rouge staff who worked on this Action are based on the annual salaries of the respective personnel.

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. YATES -3- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 7

1 process. The time that we devoted to the representation of the Settlement Class in this Action 2 was time that we otherwise would have spent on other work for Baton Rouge and, thus, 3 represented a cost to Baton Rouge. 4 12. As noted above, Baton Rouge has incurred $3,096 in expenses for work 5 performed by the general counsel for Baton Rouge, Denise N. Akers of the law firm of Akers & 6 Wisbar. Ms. Akers spent a total of 12.9 hours working on this litigation on behalf of Baton 7 Rouge. Ms. Akers, among other things, advised Baton Rouge on the retention agreement of 8 BLB&G, communicated with BLB&G concerning the status of the litigation and mediation 9 efforts, and communicated with the Baton Rouge’s Board concerning the litigation and 10 settlement. These hours were expended separate and apart from other legal work performed by 11 Akers & Wisbar and its lawyers on behalf of Baton Rouge in other matters. The expense of 12 compensating Akers & Wisbar for that work would not have been incurred but for Baton Rouge’s 13 service as Lead Plaintiff in this Action. Ms. Akers’s normal hourly rate is $240 per hour and thus 14 Baton Rouge seeks reimbursement for $3,096 for this work. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 13. In conclusion, Baton Rouge was closely involved throughout the prosecution and 17 settlement of the claims in this Action, strongly endorses the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and 18 adequate, and believes that the Settlement represents a significant recovery for the Settlement 19 Class. Baton Rouge further supports Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation 20 Expenses and believes that it represents fair and reasonable compensation for counsel in light of 21 the recovery obtained for the Settlement Class, the substantial work conducted, and the litigation 22 risks. And finally, Baton Rouge requests reimbursement for certain of its expenses under the 23 PSLRA as set forth above. Accordingly, Baton Rouge respectfully requests that the Court 24 approve: (a) Lead Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement and Plan of 25 Allocation; and (b) Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of 26 Litigation Expenses.

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. YATES -4- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 7 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 28

Exhibit 3 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 28 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 28 Table of Contents

Highlights 1

Author Commentary 2

Total Settlement Dollars 3

Settlement Size 4

Damages Estimates 5 Rule 10b-5 Claims: “Simplified Tiered Damages” 5

’33 Act Claims: “Simplified Statutory Damages” 7 Analysis of Settlement Characteristics 9 Accounting Allegations 9

Derivative Actions 10

Corresponding SEC Actions 11

Institutional Investors 12 Time to Settlement and Case Complexity 13

Case Stage at the Time of Settlement 14

Spotlight: Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry 15

Cornerstone Research’s Settlement Prediction Analysis 16

Research Sample 17

Data Sources 17

Endnotes 18

Appendices 19

About the Authors 23

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.

i Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 28 Table of Figures and Appendices

Figure 1: Settlement Statistics 1

Figure 2: Total Settlement Dollars 3

Figure 3: Distribution of Post–Reform Act Settlements 4

Figure 4: Median and Average “Simplified Tiered Damages” in Rule 10b-5 Cases 5

Figure 5: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Tiered Damages” by Damages Ranges in Rule 10b-5 Cases 6

Figure 6: Settlements by Nature of Claims 7

Figure 7: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Statutory Damages” by Damages Ranges in ’33 Act Cases 8

Figure 8: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Tiered Damages” and Accounting Allegations 9

Figure 9: Frequency of Derivative Actions 10

Figure 10: Frequency of SEC Actions 11

Figure 11: Median Settlement Amounts and Public Pension Plans 12

Figure 12: Median Settlement by Duration from Filing Date to Settlement Hearing Date 13

Figure 13: Median Settlement Dollars and Resolution Stage at Time of Settlement 14

Figure 14: Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry 15

Appendix 1: Settlement Percentiles 19

Appendix 2: Select Industry Sectors 19

Appendix 3: Settlements by Federal Circuit Court 20

Appendix 4: Mega Settlements 20

Appendix 5: Median and Average Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Tiered Damages” 21

Appendix 6: Median and Average Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) 21

Appendix 7: Median and Average Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) 22

Appendix 8: Median Docket Entries by “Simplified Tiered Damages” Range 22

Analyses in this report are based on 1,849 securities class actions filed after passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act) and settled from 1996 through year-end 2019. See page 17 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 a securities class action that is publicly announced to potential class members by means of a settlement notice.

ii Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 28 Highlights

Historically high median settlement amounts persisted in 2019, driven primarily by an increase in the overall percentage of mid-sized cases in the $5 million to $25 million range as well as a decrease in the number of smaller settlements.

• There were 74 settlements totaling $2 billion in 2019. • The number of small settlements (amounts less than (page 3) $5 million) declined by 36 percent to 16 cases in 2019, the fewest such settlements in the past decade. • The median settlement in 2019 of $11.5 million was (page 4) unchanged from 2018 (adjusted for inflation) and was 34 percent higher than the prior nine-year median. • The proportion of settlements in 2019 with a public (page 3) pension plan as lead plaintiff reached its lowest level in the prior 10 years. (page 12) • The average settlement amount in 2019 was $27.4 million, which was 43 percent lower than the • In 2019, 53 percent of settled cases involved an prior nine-year average. (page 4) accompanying derivative action, the second-highest rate over the past decade. (page 10) • There were four mega settlements (settlements equal to or greater than $100 million) in 2019. (page 20) • Companies that settled cases after a ruling on a motion to dismiss (MTD) were, on average, 50 percent larger (measured by total assets) than companies that settled while the MTD was pending. (page 14)

Figure 1: Settlement Statistics (Dollars in millions)

1996–2018 2018 2019 Number of Settlements 1,775 78 74 Total Amount $103,955.* $5,15+') $2,029.9 Minimum $0.2 $0.4 $0.5 Median $8.8 $11.5 $11.5 Average $58.+ $66.1 $27.4 Maximum $9,172.1 $3,054.4 $389.6

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used. Figure 1 includes all post–Reform Act settlements. Settlements in prior years have included 14 cases exceeding $1 billion. Adjusted for inflation, these settlements drive up the average settlement amount.

1 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 28 Author Commentary

2019 Findings One finding that is particularly striking The size of issuer defendant firms (measured by total assets) is the decrease in public pension plan continued to grow in 2019, increasing by 59 percent over 2018 and 117 percent above the median over the last 10 lead plaintiffs despite an increase in years. This may be due at least in part to prolonged changes larger issuer firms with potentially in the population of public companies. In particular, as has been widely observed, the number of publicly traded firms sizable damages exposure. continued to decline in recent years—with the result that remaining public firms are larger.1 Dr. Laura E. Simmons Senior Advisor As discussed by other commentators, large issuer Cornerstone Research defendants may cause plaintiff counsel to pursue potential claims more vigorously.2 As in our prior research, we examine the number of docket entries as a proxy for the Other contributors to the reduction in public pension plan time and effort by plaintiff counsel and/or case complexity. involvement may include changes in the mix of plaintiff law In 2019, average docket entries were the highest in the last firms serving as lead counsel, and possibly the recent 10 years, primarily driven by cases with relatively large increase in the propensity of plaintiffs to opt out of class damages, as measured by our simplified proxy for plaintiff- actions, including in larger cases (see Opt-Out Cases in style damages (i.e., “simplified tiered damages” exceeding Securities Class Action Settlements: 2014–2018 Update, $500 million). Cornerstone Research). Overall, our simplified proxy for plaintiff-style damages remained at elevated levels in 2019 compared to earlier Looking Ahead years in the decade, in part reflecting the relatively high Recent trends in securities case filings can inform market capitalization losses associated with cases filed over expectations for developments in settlements in upcoming 3 the last three years. years. Another driver of higher plaintiff-style damages is class The number of filings alleging Rule 10b-5 and/or Section 11 period length. Indeed, plaintiffs often amend their initial claims reached record levels in 2019. In addition, for the complaints to capture longer alleged class periods. In 2019, second year in a row, median Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) for the median class period length per the operative complaint case filings reached unusually high levels (see Securities Class as of the time of settlement was 1.7 years—the longest over Action Filings—2019 Year in Review, Cornerstone Research). the last 10 years. In comparison, the median class period alleged in first identified complaints during 2015–2018 (the Absent changes in dismissal rates, these results suggest that period during which most of the 2019 settlements were the volume of securities case settlements, as well as their filed) was just under one year. This indicates that between value, is likely to continue at relatively high levels in the time of filing and settlement plaintiffs substantially upcoming years. expanded the period over which they claim the alleged fraud —Laarni T. Bulan and Laura E. Simmons occurred. Despite the large size of cases settled in 2019, public pension plans served as lead plaintiffs less frequently, with their involvement reaching the lowest level over the last 10 years. Prior literature has discussed possible reasons for institutions choosing not to serve as lead plaintiffs, including an imbalance in the cost/benefit of doing so.4

2 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 28 Total Settlement Dollars

• The total value of settlements approved by courts in 2019 declined dramatically from 2018 due to the The median settlement amount in 2019 absence of very large settlements. Excluding 2018 was 34 percent higher than the prior settlements over $1 billion, however, total settlement dollars declined by a modest 3 percent in 2019 nine-year median. (adjusted for inflation). • Mediators continue to play a central role in the • The median settlement amount in 2019 of $11.5 million resolution of securities class action settlements. In was unchanged from the prior year (adjusted for 2019, nearly all cases in the sample involved a inflation). mediator. • Compared to the prior nine years, larger median settlement amounts in 2019 were accompanied by higher levels in the proxy for plaintiff-style damages. (See page 5 for a discussion of damages estimates.)

Figure 2: Total Settlement Dollars 2010–2019 (Dollars in billions)

$6.4

$5.2 $5.2

$3.6 $3.8 $3.3

$2.0 $1.5 $1.5 $1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 N=85 N=65 N=56 N=66 N=63 N=77 N=85 N=81 N=78 N=74

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used. N refers to the number of observations.

3 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 28 Settlement Size

As discussed above, the median settlement amount was • Despite a decline in the average settlement amount unchanged from 2018. Generally, the median is more stable from 2018, the number of small settlements (less than from year to year than the average, since the average can be $5 million) also declined by 36 percent to 16 cases in affected by the presence of even a small number of large 2019, the fewest such settlements in the past decade. settlements. Cases that result in settlement funds less than $5 million may be viewed as “nuisance” suits, a shift • The average settlement amount in 2019 was upwards from a threshold of $2 million prevalent in $27.4 million, 43 percent lower than the average over early post–Reform Act years.5 the prior nine years. (See Appendix 1 for an analysis of settlements by percentiles.) • If settlements exceeding $1 billion are excluded from 57 percent of cases settled for between the prior nine-year average, the decline in 2019 was $5 million and $25 million. 16 percent.

• There were four mega settlements (equal to or greater than $100 million) in 2019, with settlements ranging from $110 million to $389.6 million. (See Appendix 4 for additional information on mega settlements.)

Figure 3: Distribution of Post–Reform Act Settlements 1996–2019 (Dollars in millions)

34% 1996–2018 2018

27% 2019

23% 23% 22% 21% 19%

15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 11% 9% 8% 8%

5% 5%

3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% < $2 $2–$4 $5–$9 $10–$24 $25–$49 $50–$99 $100–$149 $150–$249 $250–$499 >= $500

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

4 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 28 Damages Estimates

Rule 10b-5 Claims: “Simplified Tiered Damages”

“Simplified tiered damages” uses simplifying assumptions to estimate per-share damages and trading behavior. It While median “simplified tiered provides a measure of potential shareholder losses that damages” remained largely unchanged allows for consistency across a large volume of cases, thus enabling the identification and analysis of potential trends.6 in 2019, average “simplified tiered damages” increased for the third year Cornerstone Research’s prediction model finds this measure to be the most important factor in predicting settlement in a row. amounts.7 However, this measure is not intended to represent actual economic losses borne by shareholders. • “Simplified tiered damages” is generally correlated with Determining any such losses for a given case requires more the length of the class period. Among cases with in-depth economic analysis. Rule 10b-5 claims, the median class period length in 2019 was at its highest level in the last 10 years. • Median “simplified tiered damages” was largely unchanged from the prior year. (See Appendix 5 for • “Simplified tiered damages” is also typically correlated additional information on the median and average with larger issuer defendants (measured by total assets settlements as a percentage of “simplified tiered or market capitalization of the issuer). However, despite damages.”) the lack of change in median “simplified tiered damages” compared to 2018, median total assets of issuer defendants increased by over 67 percent in 2019.

Figure 4: Median and Average “Simplified Tiered Damages” in Rule 10b-5 Cases 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Median "Simplified Tiered Damages" Average "Simplified Tiered Damages" $2,628 $2,463

$2,209 $2,103

$894 $896 $838 $835 $699 $481 $346 $390 $234 $227 $202 $199 $203 $255 $254 $135

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Note: “Simplified tiered damages” are adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates. Damages are estimated for cases alleging a claim under Rule 10b-5 (whether alone or in addition to other claims).

5 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 28 Damages Estimates (continued)

• Larger cases, as measured by “simplified tiered damages,” typically settle for a smaller percentage of At 9.4 percent in 2019, median damages. settlements as a percentage of • Smaller cases (less than $25 million in “simplified tiered “simplified tiered damages” for mid- damages”) are less likely to include factors %&#$ "% sized cases reached a five-year high. institutional lead plaintiffs and/or related actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or criminal charges. • The steadily increasing median settlement as a percentage of “simplified tiered damages” observed • Among cases in the sample, smaller cases typically settle from 2016 to 2018 reversed in 2019. Appendix 5 shows more quickly. In 2019, cases with less than a substantial increase in 2019 in average settlements as $25 million in “simplified tiered damages” settled within a percentage of “simplified tiered damages.” However, 2.0 years on average, compared to 3.5 years for cases this result is driven by a few outlier cases. Excluding with “simplified tiered damages” greater than these cases, the average percentage for 2019 is not $500 million. unusual compared to recent years.

Figure 5: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Tiered Damages” by Damages Ranges in Rule 10b-5 Cases 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

17.9% 2010–2018 2019

12.8%

9.2% 9.4%

7.6%

4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 5.1% 4.8% 4.0% 3.9% 3.7% 3.3% 2.4% 1.3%

< $25 $25–$74 $75–$149 $150–$249 $250–$499 $500–$999 > $1,000 Total Sample

Note: Damages are estimated for cases alleging a claim under Rule 10b-5 (whether alone or in addition to other claims).

6 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 28 Damages Estimates (continued)

’33 Act Claims: “Simplified Statutory Damages”

For cases involving only Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims (’33 Act claims), shareholder losses are estimated Median “simplified statutory using a model in which the statutory loss is the difference damages” for ’33 Act claim cases in between the statutory purchase price and the statutory sales price, referred to here as “simplified statutory damages.”8 2019 was more than 65 percent higher Only the offered shares are assumed to be eligible for than the prior five-year median. damages. “Simplified statutory damages” are typically smaller than • Cases with only ’33 Act claims tend to settle for “simplified tiered damages,” reflecting differences in the smaller median amounts than cases that include methodologies used to estimate alleged inflation per share, Rule 10b-5 claims. as well as differences in the shares eligible to be damaged • In 2019, among settlements involving ’33 Act claims (i.e., only offered shares are included). only, the median time to settlement was only slightly longer than cases involving Rule 10b-5 claims only, 3.2 years and 2.9 years, respectively. When compared to the prior year, however, ’33 Act claim cases took more than 36 percent longer to resolve in 2019 (3.2 years compared to 2.3 years).

Figure 6: Settlements by Nature of Claims 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Median Settlement as a Percentage of Number of Median Median “Simplified “Simplified Statutory Settlements Settlement Statutory Damages” Damages”

Section 11 and/or 77 $7.2 $118.8 7.4% Section 12(a)(2) Only

Median Settlement as a Percentage of Number of Median Median “Simplified “Simplified Tiered Settlements Settlement Tiered Damages” Damages” Both Rule 10b-5 and 115 $15.1 $390.0 5.8% Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2)

Rule 10b-5 Only 524 $8.5 $212.5 4.6%

Note: Settlement dollars and damages are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used. Damages are adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates.

7 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 28 Damages Estimates (continued)

• Settlements as a percentage of “simplified statutory • Over the period 2010–2019, the median size of issuer damages” are smaller for cases that have larger defendants (measured by total assets) was 68 percent estimated damages. This finding holds for cases with smaller for cases with only ’33 Act claims relative to ’33 Act claims only, as well as those with Rule 10b-5 those that included Rule 10b-5 claims. claims. • The smaller size of issuer defendants in ’33 Act cases is consistent with the vast majority of these cases involving initial public offerings (IPOs). From 2010 90 percent of cases with only ’33 Act through 2019, 83 percent of all cases with only ’33 Act claims involved an underwriter as a claims have involved IPOs. codefendant.

Figure 7: Median Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Statutory Damages” by Damages Ranges in ’33 Act Cases 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

12.3%

10.9%

7.4%

4.5%

< $50 $50–$149 >= $150 Total Sample N=19 N=25 N=33 N=77

Note: N refers to the number of observations.

8 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 28 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 28 Analysis of Settlement Characteristics (continued)

Derivative Actions

While settled cases involving an accompanying derivative action are typically associated with both larger cases 53 percent of settled cases involved an (measured by “simplified tiered damages”) and larger accompanying derivative action, the settlement amounts, this was not true in 2019. second-highest rate over the last • The median settlement among cases with an 10 years. accompanying derivative action was $10 million compared to $14.8 million for cases without a derivative action. • Many larger settlements in 2019 involved non-U.S. issuers (44 percent of settlements above $25 million), • This may be due at least in part to a substantial increase which have been associated with derivative actions far in derivative actions involving smaller issuers. In 2019, less frequently than cases involving U.S. issuers. During 70 percent of cases involving issuers with less than 2010–2019, only 22 percent of cases involving non-U.S. $250 million in total assets also had an accompanying issuers had accompanying derivative actions. derivative action, compared to only 46 percent over the prior nine years. • In 2019, 36 percent of derivative actions were filed in Delaware, the highest proportion in the past decade. The second most common filing state for derivative suits was California.

Figure 9: Frequency of Derivative Actions 2010–2019 Settlements without an Accompanying Derivative Action Settlements with an Accompanying Derivative Action

50 50 43 35 38 35

39 41 35 27

43 39 39 35 35 38 29 28 24 27

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

10 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 28 Analysis of Settlement Characteristics (continued)

Corresponding SEC Actions

Cases with an SEC action related to the allegations are • Cases with corresponding SEC actions have involved typically associated with significantly higher settlement accounting-related allegations less frequently in recent amounts and higher settlements as a percentage of years. From 2010 to 2016, 88 percent of settled cases “simplified tiered damages.”11 involved accounting-related allegations, compared to 75 percent from 2017 to 2019. • In 2019, the median total assets of issuer defendant firms at the time of settlement was $1.3 billion for • Cases involving corresponding SEC actions may also cases with corresponding SEC actions compared to include allegations of criminal activity in connection $1.5 billion for cases without a corresponding SEC with the time period covered by the underlying class action. This was consistent with the overall increase in action. In 2019, more than 40 percent of cases with an the asset size of issuers. SEC action had related criminal charges.

• For cases settled during 2015–2019, 42 percent of cases with a corresponding SEC action involved issuer defendants that had either declared bankruptcy or 30 percent of settled cases involved a were delisted from a major U.S. exchange prior to corresponding SEC action, the highest settlement. rate over the last 10 years.

Figure 10: Frequency of SEC Actions 2010–2019 Settlements without a Corresponding SEC Action Settlements with a Corresponding SEC Action

62 69 64 58 62 52

53 58 53 45

23 22 19 16 17 16 11 13 7 10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

11 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 28 Analysis of Settlement Characteristics (continued)

Institutional Investors

• Institutional investors, including public pension plans (a subset of institutional investors), tend to be involved in The proportion of settlements with a larger cases, that is, cases with higher “simplified tiered public pension plan as lead plaintiff damages.” reached its lowest level in the decade. • Median “simplified tiered damages” for cases involving a public pension as a lead plaintiff in 2019 were more • Over the last 10 years, institutional investor lead than three times higher than for cases without a public plaintiffs have also been associated with lower attorney pension plan as a lead plaintiff. fees in relation to “simplified tiered damages.” This may • In 2019, median market capitalization (measured prior reflect their tendency to be involved in larger cases, in to the settlement hearing date) for issuer defendants in which attorney fees often represent a smaller cases involving an institutional investor as a lead percentage of the total settlement fund, as well as their plaintiff was $1.6 billion compared to $459.4 million for potential ability to negotiate lower fees.12 cases without institutional investor involvement. • Among 2019 settled cases that do have an institutional investor as a lead plaintiff, 50 percent involved a parallel derivative action and 22 percent involved a corresponding SEC action.

Figure 11: Median Settlement Amounts and Public Pension Plans 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Public Pension Plan as Lead Plaintiff No Public Pension Plan as Lead Plaintiff Percentage of Settlements with Public Pension Plan as Lead Plaintiff $27 $25 $24 $22 $21 $21 $20 $19

46% 44% $15 40% 41% $14 38% 37% 38% $12 32% 27% 28% $9

$6 $5 $6 $4 $4 $3 $3 $3

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used.

12 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 28 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 28 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 28 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 28 Cornerstone Research’s Settlement Prediction Analysis

This research applies regression analysis to examine the • Whether an outside auditor or underwriter was named relationships between settlement outcomes and certain as a codefendant security case characteristics. Regression analysis is employed • Whether Section 11 and/or Section 12(a) claims were to better understand and predict the total settlement alleged in addition to Rule 10b-5 claims amount, given the characteristics of a particular securities case. Regression analysis can also be applied to estimate the • Whether the issuer defendant was distressed probabilities associated with reaching alternative settlement • Whether a public pension was a lead plaintiff levels. It is also helpful in exploring hypothetical scenarios, including how the presence or absence of particular factors • Whether the plaintiffs alleged that securities other than affects predicted settlement amounts. common stock were damaged Determinants of Regression analyses show that settlements were higher when “simplified tiered damages,” MDL, issuer defendant Settlement Outcomes asset size, the length of time the company has been public, Based on the research sample of post–Reform Act cases that or the number of docket entries was larger, or when settled through December 2019, the factors that were Section 11 and/or Section 12(a) claims were alleged in important determinants of settlement amounts included the addition to Rule 10b-5 claims. following: Settlements were also higher in cases involving financial • “Simplified tiered damages” restatements, a corresponding SEC action, a public pension involved as lead plaintiff, a third party such as an outside • Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL)—market capitalization auditor or underwriter that was named as a codefendant, or change from its peak to post-disclosure value securities other than common stock that were alleged to be • Most recently reported total assets of the issuer damaged. defendant firm Settlements were lower if the settlement occurred in 2012 • A measure of how long the issuer defendant has been a or later, or if the issuer was distressed. public company More than 70 percent of the variation in settlement amounts • Number of entries on the lead case docket can be explained by the factors discussed above.

• The year in which the settlement occurred

• Whether there were accounting allegations related to the alleged class period

• Whether there was a corresponding SEC action against the issuer, other defendants, or related parties

• Whether there was a criminal indictment/charge against the issuer, other defendants, or related parties related to similar allegations in the complaint

16 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 28 Research Sample Data Sources

• The database used in this report contains cases alleging In addition to SCAS, data sources include Dow Jones Factiva, fraudulent inflation in the price of a corporation’s Bloomberg, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) common stock (i.e., excluding cases with alleged classes at University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Standard of only bondholders, preferred stockholders, etc., and & Poor’s Compustat, Refinitiv Eikon, court filings and excluding cases alleging fraudulent depression in price dockets, SEC registrant filings, SEC litigation releases and and M&A cases). administrative proceedings, LexisNexis, SSLA, Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC), 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 1,849 securities class actions filed after passage of the Reform Act (1995) and settled from 1996 through 2019. These settlements are identified based on a review of case activity collected by Securities Class Action Services LLC (SCAS).16

• The designated settlement year, for purposes of this report, corresponds to the year in which the hearing to approve the settlement was held.17 Cases involving multiple settlements are reflected in the year of the most recent partial settlement, provided certain conditions are met.18

17 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 28 Endnotes

1 See, e.g., “Where Have All the Public Companies Gone?,” Bloomberg Opinion, April 9, 2018. 2 See Stephen J. Choi, Jessica Erickson, and Adam C. Pritchard, “Risk and Reward: The Securities Fraud Class Action Lottery,” U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, February 2019. 3 See Securities Class Action Filings—2019 Year in Review, Cornerstone Research (2020). 4 See Charles Silver and Sam Dinkin, “Incentivizing Institutional Investors to Serve as Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Fraud Class Actions,” DePaul Law Review 57, no. 2 (2008): 471–508. 5 See Stephen J. Choi, Jessica Erickson, and Adam C. Pritchard, “Risk and Reward: The Securities Fraud Class Action Lottery,” U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, February 2019. 6 The “simplified tiered damages” approach used for purposes of this settlement research does not examine the mix of information associated with the specific dates listed in the plan of allocation, but simply applies the stock price movements on those dates to an estimate of the “true value” of the stock during the alleged class period (or “value line”). This proxy for damages utilizes an estimate of the number of shares damaged based on reported trading volume and the number of shares outstanding. Specifically, reported trading volume is adjusted using volume reduction assumptions based on the exchange on which the issuer defendant’s common stock is listed. No adjustments are made to the underlying float for institutional holdings, insider trades, or short-selling activity during the alleged class period. Because of these and other simplifying assumptions, the damages measures used in settlement outcome modeling may be overstated relative to damages estimates developed in conjunction with case-specific economic analysis. 7 See Laarni T. Bulan, Ellen M. Ryan, and Laura E. Simmons, Estimating Damages in Settlement Outcome Modeling, Cornerstone Research (2017). 8 The statutory purchase price is the lesser of the security offering price or the security purchase price. Prior to the first complaint filing date, the statutory sales price is the price at which the security was sold. After the first complaint filing date, the statutory sales price is the greater of the security sales price or the security price on the first complaint filing date. Similar to “simplified tiered damages,” the estimation of “simplified statutory damages” makes no adjustments to the underlying float for institutional holdings, insider trades, or short-selling activity. Shares subject to a lock-up period are not added to the float for purposes of this calculation. 9 The three categories of accounting issues analyzed in Figure 8 of this report are: (1) GAAP violations; (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. 10 See Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2018 Review and Analysis, Cornerstone Research (2019). Update forthcoming in March 2020. 11 It could be that the merits in such cases are stronger, or simply that the presence of a corresponding SEC action provides plaintiffs with increased leverage when negotiating a settlement. For purposes of this research, an SEC action is evidenced by the presence of a litigation release or an administrative proceeding posted on www.sec.gov involving the issuer defendant or other named defendants with allegations similar to those in the underlying class action complaint. 12 See, e.g., Lynn A. Baker, Michael A. Perino, and Charles Silver, “Setting Attorneys’ Fees in Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Assessment,” Vanderbilt Law Review 66, no. 6 (2013): 1677–1718. 13 Docket entries reflect the number of entries on the court docket for events in the litigation and have been used in prior research as a proxy for the amount of plaintiff attorney effort involved in resolving securities cases. See Laura Simmons, “The Importance of Merit- Based Factors in the Resolution of 10b-5 Litigation,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Doctoral Dissertation, 1996; Michael A. Perino, “Institutional Activism through Litigation: An Empirical Analysis of Public Pension Fund Participation in Securities Class Actions,” St. John’s Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-0055, 2006. 14 Stanford Securities Litigation Analytics (SSLA) tracks and collects data on private, shareholder securities litigation and public enforcements brought by the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice. The SSLA dataset includes all traditional class actions, SEC actions, and DOJ criminal actions filed since 2000. Available on a subscription basis at https://sla.law.stanford.edu/. 15 These results do not hold when looking at pharma cases with only ’33 Act claims from 2010 to 2019, which had a median settlement as a percentage of “simplified statutory damages” of 7.5 percent compared to 7.4 percent for the rest of the sample. 16 Available on a subscription basis. For further details see https://www.issgovernance.com/securities-class-action-services/. 17 Movements of partial settlements between years can cause differences in amounts reported for prior years from those presented in earlier reports. 18 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 recategorized 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.

18 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 28 Appendices

Appendix 1: Settlement Percentiles (Dollars in millions)

Average 10th 25th Median 75th 90th 2010 $42.4 $2.3 $5.0 $13.2 $29.3 $93.3 2011 $23.8 $2.1 $3.0 $6.5 $20.5 $47.5 2012 $68.2 $1.3 $3.0 $10.5 $39.5 $128.0 2013 $79.4 $2.1 $3.3 $7.1 $24.3 $90.5 2014 $19.7 $1.8 $3.1 $6.5 $14.2 $54.0 2015 $42.5 $1.4 $2.3 $7.0 $17.5 $101.4 2016 $75.2 $2.0 $4.5 $9.1 $35.2 $155.5 2017 $19.0 $1.6 $2.7 $5.2 $15.6 $36.0 2018 $66.1 $1.5 $3.7 $11.5 $25.2 $53.0 2019 $27.4 $1.5 $5.6 $11.5 $20.0 $50.0

1996–2019 $45.5 $1.8 $3.7 $8.9 $22.3 $74.4

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used.

Appendix 2: Select Industry Sectors 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Median Settlement Median as a Percentage of Number of Median “Simplified Tiered “Simplified Tiered Industry Settlements Settlement Damages” Damages” Financial 103 $19.8 $472.5 4.7%

Technology 102 $8.7 $212.2 5.3%

Pharmaceuticals 91 $8.6 $237.0 3.7%

Retail 37 $9.1 $211.7 3.9%

Telecommunications 34 $9.6 $270.8 4.4%

Healthcare 15 $8.5 $132.8 6.4%

Note: Settlement dollars and “simplified tiered damages” are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used. “Simplified tiered damages” are calculated only for cases involving Rule 10b-5 claims.

19 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 28 Appendices (continued)

Appendix 3: Settlements by Federal Circuit Court 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Median Settlement Number of Median as a Percentage of Circuit Settlements Settlement “Simplified Tiered Damages” First 22 $8.5 3.3%

Second 180 $10.2 4.8%

Third 49 $8.6 5.0%

Fourth 27 $14.5 3.6%

Fifth 34 $9.9 4.5%

Sixth 29 $13.2 7.3%

Seventh 39 $11.3 4.4%

Eighth 13 $13.8 6.1%

Ninth 189 $8.0 4.9%

Tenth 16 $6.7 6.0%

Eleventh 35 $6.3 5.2%

DC 3 $29.5 1.9%

Note: Settlement dollars are adjusted for inflation; 2019 dollar equivalent figures are used. Settlements as a percentage of “simplified tiered damages” are calculated only for cases alleging Rule 10b-5 claims.

Appendix 4: Mega Settlements 2010–2019

Total Mega Settlement Dollars as a Percentage of All Settlement Dollars Number of Mega Settlements as a Percentage of All Settlements 84% 81% 78% 74% 73%

60%

45% 41% 43% 34%

11% 12% 8% 9% 10% 6% 5% 5% 3% 5%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

20 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 25 of 28 Appendices (continued)

Appendix 5: Median and Average Settlements as a Percentage of “Simplified Tiered Damages” 2010–2019

16.4% Median Settlement as a Percentage of "Simplified Tiered Damages" Average Settlement as a Percentage of "Simplified Tiered Damages"

11.4% 11.5% 11.6% 10.8% 9.4% 8.6% 8.5% 8.6%

6.8% 6.3% 6.0% 5.2% 4.9% 5.1% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.5% 4.2%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Note: “Simplified tiered damages” are calculated only for cases alleging Rule 10b-5 claims.

Appendix 6: Median and Average Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Median MDL $12,447 Average MDL

$10,137 $9,611 $8,924

$5,940 $4,928 $4,199 $3,610 $3,021

$1,815 $1,318 $1,274 $1,099 $1,048 $1,263 $1,001 $991 $833 $697 $547

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Note: MDL is adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates. MDL is the dollar value change in the defendant firm’s market capitalization from the trading day with the highest market capitalization during the class period to the trading day immediately following the end of the class period.

21 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 26 of 28 Appendices (continued)

Appendix 7: Median and Average Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions)

Median DDL $1,614 Average DDL $1,478 $1,406

$1,251

$791

$631 $536 $434 $337 $305 $237 $197 $173 $115 $109 $86 $96 $73 $94 $109

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Note: DDL is adjusted for inflation based on class period end dates. DDL is the dollar value change in the defendant firm’s market capitalization between the trading day immediately preceding the end of the class period and the trading day immediately following the end of the class period. This analysis excludes cases alleging ’33 Act claims only.

Appendix 8: Median Docket Entries by “Simplified Tiered Damages” Range 2010–2019 (Dollars in millions) 205 2019 2010–2018

147 145 147 134 130 128 118 105

80

< $50 $50–$99 $250–$499 $100–$249 > $500

Note: “Simplified tiered damages” are calculated only for cases alleging Rule 10b-5 claims.

22 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 27 of 28 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 also 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.

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 and has more than 25 years of experience in accounting practice and economic and financial consulting. Dr. Simmons has focused on damage and liability issues in securities and ERISA litigation, as well as on accounting issues arising in a variety of complex commercial litigation matters. She has served as a testifying expert in litigation involving accounting analyses, securities case damages, ERISA matters, and research on securities lawsuits. 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, including 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 in the writing and preparation of this annual update.

23 Cornerstone Research | Securities Class Action Settlements—2019 Review and Analysis Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-3 Filed 09/25/20 Page 28 of 28

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.

Please direct any questions %/( 2)15)343 *02 %((,4,0/%- ,/*02.%4,0/ 40 4+) 3)44-).)/4 (%4%&%3) %(.,/,342%402 %4 3)44-).)/4(%4%&%3)$'02/)2340/)"'0."

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 www.cornerstone.com

© 20#" 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 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 38

Exhibit 4 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 38

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL LITIGATION 12 CLASS ACTION

13 DECLARATION OF ERIC J. MILLER REGARDING: (A) MAILING OF THE 14 NOTICE AND CLAIM FORM; 15 (B) PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE; AND (C) REPORT ON REQUESTS 16 FOR EXCLUSION RECEIVED TO DATE

17

18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF ERIC J. MILLER BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP REGARDING MAILING OF NOTICE 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 38

1 I, ERIC J. MILLER, declare: 2 1. I am a Senior Vice President of A.B. Data, Ltd.’s Class Action Administration 3 Company (“A.B. Data”), whose Corporate Office is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Pursuant 4 to the Court’s July 29, 2020 Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Authorizing 5 Dissemination of Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 93) (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), A.B. 6 Data was authorized to act as the Claims Administrator in connection with the Settlement of the 7 above-captioned action (the “Action”).1 I am over 21 years of age and am not a party to the 8 Action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could 9 and would testify competently thereto. 10 DISSEMINATION OF THE NOTICE PACKET 11 2. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, A.B. Data mailed the Notice of 12 (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and 13 (III) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses (the “Notice”) and the Proof of Claim 14 and Release Form (the “Claim Form” and, collectively with the Notice, the “Notice Packet”) to 15 potential Settlement Class Members and nominees. A copy of the Notice Packet is attached 16 hereto as Exhibit A. 17 3. On July 30 and 31, 2020, A.B. Data received from Lead Counsel several files 18 containing a total of 296 unique names and addresses of potential Settlement Class Members that 19 had been provided by Defendants’ Counsel. On August 19, 2020, A.B. Data caused Notice 20 Packets to be sent by first-class mail to those 296 potential Settlement Class Members. 21 4. As in most class actions of this nature, the large majority of potential Settlement 22 Class Members are expected to be beneficial purchasers whose securities are held in “street 23 name” – i.e., the securities are purchased by brokerage firms, banks, institutions, and other third- 24 party nominees in the name of the respective nominees, on behalf of the beneficial purchasers. 25

26 1 Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms have the meanings set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 91-2) (the “Stipulation”).

DECLARATION OF ERIC J. MILLER -1- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP REGARDING MAILING OF NOTICE 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 38

1 A.B. Data maintains a proprietary database with names and addresses of the largest and most 2 common banks, brokers, and other nominees (the “Record Holder Mailing Database”). At the 3 time of the initial mailing, the Record Holder Mailing Database contained 4,162 mailing records. 4 On August 19, 2020, A.B. Data caused Notice Packets to be sent by first-class mail to the 4,162 5 mailing records contained in the Record Holder Mailing Database. 6 5. In total, 4,458 Notice Packets were mailed to potential Settlement Class Members 7 and nominees by first-class mail on August 19, 2020. 8 6. The Notice directed those who purchased Impinj common stock during the Class 9 Period for the beneficial interest of a person or entity other than themselves, within seven (7) 10 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, to either: (a) request from the Claims Administrator 11 sufficient copies of the Notice Packet to forward to all such beneficial owners and, within seven 12 (7) calendar days of receipt of those Notice Packets, forward them to all such beneficial owners; 13 or (b) provide a list of the names, mailing addresses, and, if available, email addresses, of all 14 such beneficial owners to A.B. Data (who would then mail and email copies of the Notice Packet 15 to those persons). See Notice ¶ 65. 16 7. As of September 24, 2020, A.B. Data has received an additional 11,957 names 17 and addresses of potential Settlement Class Members from individuals or brokerage firms, banks, 18 institutions, and other nominees. A.B. Data has also received requests from brokers and other 19 nominee holders for 43,254 Notice Packets to be forwarded directly by the nominees to their 20 customers. All such requests have been, and will continue to be, complied with and addressed in 21 a timely manner. 22 8. As of September 24, 2020, a total of 59,669 Notice Packets have been mailed to 23 potential Settlement Class Members and nominees. In addition, A.B. Data has re-mailed 202 24 Notice Packets to persons whose original mailings were returned by the U.S. Postal Service 25 (“USPS”) and for whom updated addresses were provided to A.B. Data by the USPS. 26

DECLARATION OF ERIC J. MILLER -2- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP REGARDING MAILING OF NOTICE 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 38

1 PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE 2 9. In addition, A.B. Data caused the Summary Notice of (I) Pendency of Class 3 Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for 4 Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses (the “Summary Notice”) to be published in The Wall 5 Street Journal and transmitted over the PR Newswire on September 2, 2020. Copies of proof of 6 publication of the Summary Notice in The Wall Street Journal and over PR Newswire are 7 attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. 8 TELEPHONE HELPLINE 9 10. On August 19, 2020, A.B. Data established a case-specific, toll-free telephone 10 helpline, 1-877-869-0158, with an interactive voice response system and live operators, to 11 accommodate potential Settlement Class Members with questions about the Action and the 12 Settlement. The automated attendant answers the calls and presents callers with a series of 13 choices to respond to basic questions. Callers requiring further help have the option to be 14 transferred to a live operator during business hours. A.B. Data continues to maintain the 15 telephone helpline and will update the interactive voice response system as necessary through the 16 administration of the Settlement. 17 WEBSITE 18 11. On August 19, 2020, A.B. Data established a website dedicated to the Settlement, 19 www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com, to assist potential Settlement Class Members. The website 20 includes information regarding the Action and the proposed Settlement, including the exclusion, 21 objection, and claim filing deadlines, and the date and time of the Court’s Settlement Hearing. 22 Copies of the Notice, Claim Form, Stipulation, Preliminary Approval Order, Complaint, Lead 23 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and other documents related to the 24 Action are posted on the website and are available for downloading. The website became 25 operational on August 19, 2020, and is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A.B. Data will 26 update the website as necessary through the administration of the Settlement.

DECLARATION OF ERIC J. MILLER -3- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP REGARDING MAILING OF NOTICE 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 38 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 38

EXHIBIT A Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES

LITIGATION CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your rights may be affected by the above-captioned securities class action (the “Action” or the “Federal Action”) pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “Court”), if you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Impinj, Inc. (“Impinj”) during the period from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby.1 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: The Parties have reached a proposed settlement for $20,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement”) for the benefit of the Settlement Class (as defined in ¶ 22 below), which is subject to approval by the Court.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. This Notice explains important rights you may have, including the possible receipt of a payment from the Settlement. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your legal rights will be affected whether or not you act. If you have any questions about this Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, please DO NOT contact the Court, Impinj, the other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel. All questions should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator (see ¶ 68 below). 1. Description of the Actions and the Settlement Class: This Notice relates to a proposed settlement of claims in a pending securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that Impinj and certain of its officers, Chris Diorio, Evan Fein, and Eric Brodersen (collectively, the “Individual Defendants,” and, together with Impinj, “Defendants”) violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the Impinj Platform. The proposed Settlement will also resolve claims asserted in a related action brought in New York State Supreme Court relating to shares of Impinj common stock that were sold in the Company’s July 21, 2016 initial public offering or its December 2, 2016 secondary public offering (the “New York Action” and, together with the Action, the “Actions”). A more detailed description of the Actions is set forth in ¶¶ 11-21 below. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of the Settlement Class, as defined in ¶ 22 below. 2. Statement of the Settlement Class’s Recovery: Subject to Court approval, Lead Plaintiff, Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has agreed to settle the Action in exchange for $20,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement Amount”) to be deposited into an escrow account. The Net Settlement Fund (i.e., the Settlement Amount plus any and all interest earned thereon (the “Settlement Fund”) less (i) any Taxes; (ii) any Notice and Administration Costs; (iii) any Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court; (iv) any attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court; and (v) any other costs or fees approved by the Court) will be distributed in accordance with a plan of allocation that is approved by the Court. The Settlement will also resolve the claims asserted by the plaintiff in the New York Action, Plymouth County Retirement System (collectively, with Lead Plaintiff, “Plaintiffs”). The proposed plan of allocation (the “Plan of Allocation”) is set forth in Appendix A at the end of

1 All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation is available at www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 1 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 38

this Notice. The Plan of Allocation will determine how the Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated among members of the Settlement Class. 3. Estimate of Average Amount of Recovery Per Share: Based on Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert’s estimate of the number of shares of Impinj common stock purchased during the Class Period that may have been affected by the conduct at issue in the Action, and assuming that all Settlement Class Members elect to participate in the Settlement, the estimated average recovery (before the deduction of any Court-approved fees, expenses, and costs as described herein) is $0.73 per affected share. Settlement Class Members should note, however, that the foregoing average recovery is only an estimate. Some Settlement Class Members may recover more or less than the estimated amount depending on, among other factors, when and at what prices they purchased or sold their shares, and the total number and value of valid Claim Forms submitted. Distributions to Settlement Class Members will be made based on the Plan of Allocation set forth in Appendix A or such other plan of allocation as may be ordered by the Court. 4. Average Amount of Damages Per Share: The Parties do not agree on the average amount of damages per share of Impinj common stock that would be recoverable if Plaintiffs were to prevail in the Actions. Among other things, Defendants vigorously deny the assertion that they violated the federal securities laws or that any damages were suffered by any members of the Settlement Class as a result of their alleged conduct. 5. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Sought: Plaintiffs’ Counsel, which have been prosecuting the Actions on a wholly contingent basis, have not received any payment of attorneys’ fees for their representation of the Settlement Class and have advanced the funds to pay expenses necessarily incurred to prosecute the Actions.2 Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees for all Plaintiffs’ Counsel in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for payment of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in connection with the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Actions in an amount not to exceed $275,000, which may include an application for payment of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78(a)(4). Any fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses. The estimated average cost for such fees and expenses, if the Court approves Lead Counsel’s fee and expense application, is $0.19 per affected share. 6. Identification of Attorneys’ Representatives: Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are represented by Jonathan D. Uslaner of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575, Los Angeles, CA 90067, 1-800-380-8496, [email protected]. 7. Reasons for the Settlement: Plaintiffs’ principal reason for entering into the Settlement is the substantial and certain recovery for the Settlement Class without the risk or the delays inherent in further litigation. The substantial recovery provided under the Settlement must be considered against the significant risk that a smaller recovery—or indeed no recovery at all—might be achieved after contested motions, a trial of the Action, and the likely appeals that would follow a trial. This process could be expected to last several years. Defendants, who deny all allegations of wrongdoing, are entering into the Settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THE SETTLEMENT: SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM This is the only way to be eligible to receive a payment from the POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN Settlement Fund. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do NOVEMBER 27, 2020. not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by the Settlement as approved by the Court and you will give up any Released Plaintiffs’ Claims (defined in ¶ 32 below) that you have against Defendants and the other Defendants’ Releasees (defined in ¶ 33 below), so it is in your interest to submit a Claim Form.

2 Plaintiffs’ Counsel include (i) Court-appointed Lead Counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“Lead Counsel”), (ii) liaison counsel in the Federal Action, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, and (iii) counsel for the New York Action Plaintiff, Thornton Law Firm LLP, Hedin Hall LLP, and Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 2 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 38

EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be SETTLEMENT CLASS BY SUBMITTING eligible to receive any payment from the Settlement Fund. This is A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR the only option that allows you ever to be part of any other lawsuit EXCLUSION SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED against any of the Defendants or the other Defendants’ Releasees NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 29, 2020. concerning the Released Plaintiffs’ Claims. OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY If you do not like the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION Allocation, or the request for attorneys’ fees and Litigation SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER Expenses, you may write to the Court and explain why you do not THAN OCTOBER 29, 2020. like them. You cannot object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense request unless you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. GO TO A HEARING ON NOVEMBER 19, Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear by 2020 AT 1:30 P.M., AND FILE A NOTICE October 29, 2020 allows you to speak in Court, at the discretion of OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT the Court, about the fairness of the proposed Settlement, the Plan of IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys’ fees and Litigation OCTOBER 29, 2020. Expenses. In the Court’s discretion, the November 19, 2020 hearing may be conducted by telephone or video conference (see ¶ 56 below). If you submit a written objection, you may (but you do not have to) participate in the hearing and, at the discretion of the Court, speak to the Court about your objection. DO NOTHING. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and you do not submit a valid Claim Form or request for exclusion, you will not be eligible to receive any payment from the Settlement Fund. You will, however, remain a member of the Settlement Class, which means that you give up your right to sue about the claims that are resolved by the Settlement and you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

Why Did I Get This Notice? Page 4 What Is This Case About? Page 4 How Do I Know If I Am Affected By The Settlement? Who Is Included In The Settlement Class? Page 5 What Are Plaintiffs’ Reasons For The Settlement? Page 6 What Might Happen If There Were No Settlement? Page 6 How Are Settlement Class Members Affected By The Action And The Settlement? Page 6 How Do I Participate In The Settlement? What Do I Need To Do? Page 8 How Much Will My Payment Be? Page 8 What Payment Are The Attorneys For The Settlement Class Seeking? How Will The Lawyers Be Paid? Page 9 What If I Do Not Want To Be A Member Of The Settlement Class? How Do I Exclude Myself? Page 9 When And Where Will The Court Decide Whether To Approve The Settlement? Do I Have To Come To The Hearing? May I Speak At The Hearing If I Don’t Like The Settlement? Page 10 What If I Bought Shares On Someone Else’s Behalf? Page 11 Can I See The Court File? Whom Should I Contact If I Have Questions? Page 12 Appendix A – Proposed Plan of Allocation Page 13

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 3 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 38

WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?

8. The Court directed that this Notice be mailed to you because you or someone in your family or an investment account for which you serve as a custodian may have purchased or otherwise acquired Impinj common stock during the Class Period. The Court has directed us to send you this Notice because, as a potential Settlement Class Member, you have a right to know about your options before the Court rules on the proposed Settlement. Additionally, you have the right to understand how this class action lawsuit may generally affect your legal rights. If the Court approves the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation (or some other plan of allocation), the Claims Administrator selected by Lead Plaintiff and approved by the Court will make payments pursuant to the Settlement after any objections and appeals are resolved. 9. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the existence of this case, that it is a class action, how you might be affected, and how to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class if you wish to do so. It is also being sent to inform you of the terms of the proposed Settlement and of a hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and the motion by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of Litigation Expenses (the “Settlement Hearing”). See ¶¶ 56-57 below for details about the Settlement Hearing, including the date and location of the hearing. 10. The issuance of this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court concerning the merits of any claim in the Action, and the Court still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation, then payments to Authorized Claimants will be made after any appeals are resolved and after the completion of all claims processing. Please be patient, as this process can take some time to complete.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

11. Impinj is a technology company whose common stock trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “PI.” During the Class Period, Impinj’s primary business consisted of selling products within the “Impinj Platform,” a hardware and software system that uses radio frequency identification (“RFID”) technology to assist companies with inventory management. 12. In August 2018 and October 2018, two class action complaints were filed in the Court alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against Defendants. On January 14, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating these two actions into the Action, ordered that the Action be captioned In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL, appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as Lead Plaintiff for the Action, and approved Lead Plaintiff’s selection of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel and Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP as liaison counsel. 13. On January 31, 2019, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc. et al., Index No. 650629/2019 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. N.Y. County) (the “New York Action”). The New York Action alleged claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) based on purchases of Impinj common stock in or traceable to the Company’s July 21, 2016 Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) or its December 2, 2016 Secondary Public Offering (“SPO”) against Defendants, as well as other directors of Impinj and the underwriters of the IPO and SPO. 14. On February 13, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed and served the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Federal Action asserting claims against all Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleged that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements or material omissions about the capabilities of the Impinj Platform. The Complaint further alleged that the price of Impinj common stock was inflated during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’ misstatements and omissions and declined when the truth was revealed through a series of disclosures from August 3, 2017 through February 15, 2018. 15. On March 15, 2019, the parties to the New York Action entered into a Stipulation to stay the New York Action. On April 15, 2019, the court overseeing the New York Action so-ordered the Stipulation in relevant part. 16. On March 19, 2019, Defendants served and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in the Federal Action. On April 9, 2019, Lead Plaintiff served its memorandum of law in opposition to this motion and, on April 30, 2019, Defendants served their reply papers. The Court held oral argument on the motion on September 24, 2019. Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 4 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 38

17. On October 4, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. On November 15, 2019, Defendants filed and served their Answer to the Complaint. 18. Discovery in the Action commenced in October 2019. Lead Plaintiff and Defendants prepared and exchanged initial disclosures, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. Lead Plaintiff exchanged numerous letters with Defendants concerning discovery issues, and served document subpoenas on nine third parties. Defendants and third parties produced a total of over 450,000 pages of documents to Lead Plaintiff, and Lead Plaintiff produced over 5,800 pages of documents to Defendants in response to their requests. 19. After the resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint and while discovery in the Federal Action was underway, the Parties agreed to engage in private mediation in an attempt to resolve the Actions and further agreed to the appointment of Michelle Yoshida of Phillips ADR to act as mediator. A mediation session before Ms. Yoshida was held by videoconference on May 28, 2020. No agreement was reached at the mediation session, but following the mediation, Ms. Yoshida issued a double-blind mediator’s recommendation that the Actions be settled for $20,000,000. On June 10, 2020, Ms. Yoshida informed the Parties that both Plaintiffs and Defendants had accepted the recommendation. 20. On July 9, 2020, the Parties entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the Settlement. The Stipulation is available at www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. 21. On July 29, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized this Notice to be disseminated to potential Settlement Class Members, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement.

HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT? WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

22. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you are subject to the Settlement, unless you timely request to be excluded. The Settlement Class consists of: all persons and entities (including, without limitation, their beneficiaries) who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Impinj during the period of July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby.

The Settlement Class includes, but is not limited to, those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired their Impinj common stock in, pursuant to, or traceable to the Company’s July 21, 2016 initial public offering or December 2, 2016 secondary public offering during the Class Period and were damaged thereby.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the Immediate Families of the Individual Defendants; (iii) any person who is or was an Officer or director of Impinj who served in such capacities during the Class Period; (iv) the defendants in the New York Action; (v) Defendants’ liability insurance carriers; (vi) any affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries of Impinj; (vii) all Impinj employee plans that are covered by ERISA; (viii) any entity which Defendants or other excluded persons controlled or in which they have a controlling interest, provided however, that any Investment Vehicle3 shall not be excluded by definition; and (ix) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity, in their capacity as such. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons or entities who or which exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Notice. See “What If I Do Not Want To Be A Member Of The Settlement Class? How Do I Exclude Myself?” on page 9 below.

PLEASE NOTE: Receipt of this Notice does not mean that you are a Settlement Class Member or that you will be entitled to a payment from the Settlement.

3 “Investment Vehicle” means any investment company or pooled investment fund, including but not limited to mutual fund families, exchange-traded funds, fund of funds, and hedge funds, in which any person excluded from the Settlement Class by definition (including underwriters who were defendants in the New York Action) has or may have a direct or indirect interest or as to which it or its affiliates may act as an investment advisor but in which the excluded person or entity is not a majority owner or does not hold a majority beneficial interest.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 5 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 38

If you are a Settlement Class Member and you wish to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you are required to submit the Claim Form that is being distributed with this Notice, and the required supporting documentation as set forth therein, postmarked no later than November 27, 2020.

WHAT ARE PLAINTIFFS’ REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT?

23. Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the claims asserted against Defendants have merit. They recognize, however, the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to pursue their claims against Defendants through summary judgment, trial, and appeals, as well as the very substantial risks they would face in establishing liability and damages. For example, those risks include challenges in establishing that Defendants’ statements about the Impinj Platform were false or misleading. Defendants have contended—and would have contended at summary judgment or trial—that their statements about the Impinj Platform were not false or misleading when made or were inactionable statements of “puffery.” With respect to the Exchange Act claims asserted by Lead Plaintiff, there were additional challenges in proving that Defendants knew that the statements were false or were reckless in making them. Defendants would argue that the statements at issue were not made with intent to mislead and that they had no motive to engage in the alleged fraud. 24. Plaintiffs also faced risks relating to loss causation and damages. Defendants would have contended at summary judgment and trial that Plaintiffs could not establish a causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and the losses investors allegedly suffered, as required by law. 25. In light of these risks, the amount of the Settlement, and the immediacy of recovery to the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel believe that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel believe that the Settlement provides a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class, namely $20,000,000 in cash (less the various deductions described in this Notice), as compared to the risk that the claims in the Action would produce a smaller recovery, or no recovery, after summary judgment, trial, and appeals, possibly years in the future. 26. Defendants have vigorously denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims asserted against them in the Action and deny that the Settlement Class was harmed or suffered any damages as a result of the conduct alleged in the Action. Defendants expressly have denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Action. Defendants have agreed to the Settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of continued litigation. Accordingly, the Settlement may not be construed as an admission of any wrongdoing by Defendants.

WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THERE WERE NO SETTLEMENT?

27. If there were no Settlement and Plaintiffs failed to establish any essential legal or factual element of their claims against Defendants, neither Plaintiffs nor the other members of the Settlement Class would recover anything from Defendants. Also, if Defendants were successful in proving any of their defenses, either at summary judgment, at trial, or on appeal, the Settlement Class could recover substantially less than the amount provided in the Settlement, or nothing at all.

HOW ARE SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS AFFECTED BY THE ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT?

28. As a Settlement Class Member, you are represented by Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, unless you enter an appearance through counsel of your own choice at your own expense. You are not required to retain your own counsel, but if you choose to do so, such counsel must file a notice of appearance on your behalf as provided in the section entitled, “When And Where Will The Court Decide Whether To Approve The Settlement?,” below. 29. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not wish to remain a Settlement Class Member, you may exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by following the instructions in the section entitled, “What If I Do Not Want To Be A Member Of The Settlement Class? How Do I Exclude Myself?,” below. 30. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you wish to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses, and if you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 6 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 38

Class, you may present your objections by following the instructions in the section entitled, “When And Where Will The Court Decide Whether To Approve The Settlement?,” below. 31. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any orders issued by the Court. If the Settlement is approved, the Court will enter a judgment (the “Judgment”). The Judgment will dismiss with prejudice the claims in the Action against Defendants and will provide that, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and each of the other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, will have fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished, waived, and discharged each and every Released Plaintiffs’ Claim (as defined in ¶ 32 below) against Defendants and the other Defendants’ Releasees (as defined in ¶ 33 below), and will forever be barred and enjoined from prosecuting any or all of the Released Plaintiffs’ Claims against any of the Defendants’ Releasees. In addition, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the New York Action will also be dismissed with prejudice. 32. “Released Plaintiffs’ Claims” means any and all Claims and causes of action of every nature and description, whether known claims or Unknown Claims, whether arising under federal, state, common, or foreign law, that have been, could have been, or in the future can or might be asserted in this Action, the New York Action, or in any other action, court, or forum by any member of the Settlement Class, or their successors, assigns, executors, administrators, representatives, attorneys, and agents, in their capacities as such, against the Defendants’ Releasees arising out of, relating to, or in connection with both (a) the purchase or acquisition of publicly traded Impinj common stock during the Class Period and (b) the acts, facts, events, transactions, occurrences, statements, representations, or omissions that were alleged or asserted by Plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement Class in the Actions, or that otherwise would have been barred by res judicata had the Actions been fully litigated to a final judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, this release does not release or impair (i) any Claims asserted on behalf of the Company in the three consolidated shareholder derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the consolidated caption In re Impinj, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 18-cv-01686-RGA (D. Del.); or (ii) any Claims relating to the enforcement of the Settlement. 33. “Defendants’ Releasees” means Defendants and the defendants in the New York Action—namely Impinj, Inc., Chris Diorio, Evan Fein, Eric Brodersen, Peter van Oppen, Tom A. Alberg, Clinton Bybee, Gregory Sessler, Theresa Wise, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. (formerly Pacific Crest Securities, Inc.), Piper Jaffray & Co., Needham & Company, LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC—and their present and former parents, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, affiliates, stockholders, partners, officers, directors, employees, members, principals, agents, underwriters, insurers, co-insurers, reinsurers, controlling shareholders, attorneys, accountants or auditors, financial or investment advisors, banks or investment bankers, personal or legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, spouses, heirs, related or affiliated entities, marital communities, any entity in which a Defendant or a defendant in the New York Action has a controlling interest, any member of an Individual Defendant’s or defendant in the New York Action’s Immediate Family, or any trust of which any Individual Defendant or defendant in the New York Action is the settler or which is for the benefit of any Defendant or defendant in the New York Action and/or member(s) of his or her Immediate Family. 34. “Unknown Claims” means any Released Plaintiffs’ Claims which any Plaintiff or any other Settlement Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of such claims, and any Released Defendants’ Claims which any Defendant does not know or suspect to exist in his or its favor at the time of the release of such claims, which, if known by him, her, or it, might have affected his, her, or its decision(s) with respect to this Settlement. With respect to any and all Released Claims, the Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and Defendants shall expressly waive, and each of the other Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have waived, and by operation of the Judgment shall have expressly waived, 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 or foreign law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code §1542, which provides: A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party. Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge, and each of the other Settlement Class Members shall be deemed by operation of law to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and a key element of the Settlement. 35. The Judgment will also provide that, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Defendants, on behalf of themselves and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 7 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 38

as such, will have fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished, waived, and discharged each and every Released Defendants’ Claim (as defined in ¶ 36 below) against Plaintiffs and the other Plaintiffs’ Releasees (as defined in ¶ 37 below), and will forever be barred and enjoined from prosecuting any or all of the Released Defendants’ Claims against any of the Plaintiffs’ Releasees. 36. “Released Defendants’ Claims” means all Claims and causes of action of every nature and description, whether known claims or Unknown Claims, whether arising under federal, state, common, or foreign law, that arise out of or relate in any way to the institution, prosecution, or settlement of the Claims asserted in the Actions against Defendants. Released Defendants’ Claims do not include: (i) any Claims relating to the enforcement of the Settlement; or (ii) any Claims against any person or entity who or which submits a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. 37. “Plaintiffs’ Releasees” means Plaintiffs, all other plaintiffs in the Actions, and all other Settlement Class Members, and their present and former parents, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, affiliates, stockholders, partners, officers, directors, employees, members, principals, agents, insurers, co-insurers, reinsurers, controlling shareholders, attorneys, accountants or auditors, financial or investment advisors, banks or investment bankers, personal or legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, spouses, heirs, related or affiliated entities, marital communities, any entity in which a Settlement Class Member has a controlling interest, any member of a Settlement Class Member’s Immediate Family, or any trust of which any Settlement Class Member is the settler or which is for the benefit of any Settlement Class Member and/or member(s) of his or his Immediate Family.

HOW DO I PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT? WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

38. To be eligible for a payment from the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and you must timely complete and return the Claim Form with adequate supporting documentation postmarked no later than November 27, 2020. A Claim Form is included with this Notice, or you may obtain one from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator for the Settlement, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll free at 1-877-869-0158 or by emailing the Claims Administrator at [email protected]. Please retain all records of your ownership of and transactions in Impinj common stock, as they will be needed to document your Claim. The Parties and Claims Administrator do not have information about your transactions in Impinj common stock. 39. If you request exclusion from the Settlement Class or do not submit a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund.

HOW MUCH WILL MY PAYMENT BE?

40. At this time, it is not possible to make any determination as to how much any individual Settlement Class Member may receive from the Settlement. 41. Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay or caused to be paid a total of $20,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement Amount”). The Settlement Amount will be deposited into an escrow account. The Settlement Amount plus any interest earned thereon is referred to as the “Settlement Fund.” If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms, in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation or such other plan of allocation as the Court may approve. 42. The Net Settlement Fund will not be distributed unless and until the Court has approved the Settlement and a plan of allocation, and the time for any petition for rehearing, appeal, or review, whether by certiorari or otherwise, has expired. 43. Neither Defendants nor any other person or entity that paid any portion of the Settlement Amount on their behalf are entitled to get back any portion of the Settlement Fund once the Court’s order or judgment approving the Settlement becomes Final. Defendants shall not have any liability, obligation, or responsibility for the administration of the Settlement, the disbursement of the Net Settlement Fund, any actions of the Escrow Agent, or the Plan of Allocation. 44. Approval of the Settlement is independent from approval of a plan of allocation. Any determination with respect to a plan of allocation will not affect the Settlement, if approved.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 8 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 38

45. Unless the Court otherwise orders, any Settlement Class Member who or which fails to submit a Claim Form postmarked on or before November 27, 2020 shall be fully and forever barred from receiving payments pursuant to the Settlement but will in all other respects remain a member of the Settlement Class and be subject to the provisions of the Stipulation, including the terms of any Judgment entered and the releases given. This means that each Settlement Class Member releases the Released Plaintiffs’ Claims (as defined in ¶ 32 above) against the Defendants’ Releasees (as defined in ¶ 33 above) and will be barred and enjoined from prosecuting any of the Released Plaintiffs’ Claims against any of the Defendants’ Releasees whether or not such Settlement Class Member submits a Claim Form. 46. Participants in, and beneficiaries of, any Impinj employee benefit plan covered by ERISA (“ERISA Plan”) should NOT include any information relating to their transactions in Impinj common stock held through the ERISA Plan in any Claim Form that they submit in this Action. 47. The Court has reserved jurisdiction to allow, disallow, or adjust on equitable grounds the Claim of any Settlement Class Member. Each Claimant shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to his, her, or its Claim Form. 48. Only members of the Settlement Class will be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Persons and entities that are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition or that exclude themselves from the Settlement Class pursuant to request will not be eligible for a payment and should not submit Claim Forms. The only security that is included in the Settlement is Impinj common stock. 49. Appendix A to this Notice sets forth the Plan of Allocation for allocating the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized Claimants, as proposed by Plaintiffs. At the Settlement Hearing, Plaintiffs will request that the Court approve the Plan of Allocation. The Court may modify the Plan of Allocation, or approve a different plan of allocation, without further notice to the Settlement Class.

WHAT PAYMENT ARE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE SETTLEMENT CLASS SEEKING? HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?

50. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have not received any payment for their services in pursuing claims against Defendants on behalf of the Settlement Class, nor have Plaintiffs’ Counsel been paid for their litigation expenses. Before final approval of the Settlement, Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees for all Plaintiffs’ Counsel in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund. At the same time, Lead Counsel also intends to apply for payment of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in an amount not to exceed $275,000, which may include an application for the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78(a)(4) of the PSLRA. The Court will determine the amount of any award of attorneys’ fees or Litigation Expenses. Such sums as may be approved by the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses.

WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? HOW DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF?

51. Each Settlement Class Member will be bound by all determinations and judgments in this lawsuit, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such person or entity mails or delivers a written Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, addressed to Impinj Securities Litigation, EXCLUSIONS, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173001, Milwaukee, WI 53217. The Request for Exclusion must be received no later than October 29, 2020. You will not be able to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class after that date. Each Request for Exclusion must (i) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity requesting exclusion, and in the case of entities, the name and telephone number of the appropriate contact person; (ii) state that such person or entity “requests exclusion from the Settlement Class in In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wash.)”; and (iii) be signed by the person or entity requesting exclusion or an authorized representative. A Request for Exclusion shall not be valid and effective unless it provides all the information called for in this paragraph and is received within the time stated above, or is otherwise accepted by the Court. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you should understand that Defendants and the other Defendants’ Releasees will have the right to assert any and all defenses they may have to any claims that you may seek to assert, including, without limitation, the defense that any such claims are untimely under applicable statutes of limitations and statutes of repose.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 9 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 38

52. If you do not want to be part of the Settlement Class, you must follow these instructions for exclusion even if you have pending, or later file, another lawsuit, arbitration, or other proceeding relating to any Released Plaintiffs’ Claim against any of the Defendants’ Releasees. 53. If you ask to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you will not be eligible to receive any payment out of the Net Settlement Fund. 54. Impinj has the right to terminate the Settlement if valid requests for exclusion are received from persons and entities entitled to be members of the Settlement Class in an amount that exceeds an amount agreed to by Lead Plaintiff and Defendants.

WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT? DO I HAVE TO COME TO THE HEARING? MAY I SPEAK AT THE HEARING IF I DON’T LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?

55. Settlement Class Members do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing. The Court will consider any submission made in accordance with the provisions below even if a Settlement Class Member does not attend the hearing. You can participate in the Settlement without attending the Settlement Hearing. 56. Please Note: The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may change without further written notice to the Settlement Class. In addition, the ongoing COVID-19 health emergency is a fluid situation that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or video, without further written notice to the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court’s docket and the Settlement website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. Also, if the Court requires or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or video conference, the information needed to access the conference will be posted to the Settlement website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. 57. The Settlement Hearing will be held on November 19, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. Pacific time, before the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik either in person at the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Courtroom 15106, United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court). At the hearing, the Court will determine, among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in this Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (v) whether Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (vi) any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Court reserves the right to certify the Settlement Class; approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses; and/or consider any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class. 58. Any Settlement Class Member who or which does not request exclusion may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses. Objections must be in writing. To object, you must file any written objection, together with copies of all other papers and briefs supporting the objection, with the Clerk’s Office at the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at the address set forth below on or before October 29, 2020.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 10 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 38

Clerk’s Office

United States District Court Western District of Washington United States Courthouse 700 Stewart Street Seattle, WA 98101

59. Any objection must (i) identify the case name and docket number, In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL; (ii) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity objecting and must be signed by the objector; (iii) state with specificity the grounds for the Settlement Class Member’s objection, including any legal and evidentiary support the Settlement Class Member wishes to bring to the Court’s attention and whether the objection applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the Settlement Class, or to the entire Settlement Class; and (iv) include documents sufficient to prove membership in the Settlement Class, including documents showing the number of shares of Impinj common stock that the objecting Settlement Class Member (A) owned as of the opening of trading on July 21, 2016 and (B) purchased/acquired and/or sold during the Class Period (i.e., from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive). You may not object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses if you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class or if you are not a member of the Settlement Class. 60. You may file a written objection without having to appear at the Settlement Hearing. You may not, however, appear at the Settlement Hearing to present your objection unless you first file a written objection in accordance with the procedures described above, unless the Court orders otherwise. 61. If you wish to be heard orally at the hearing in opposition to the approval of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses, assuming you timely file a written objection as described above, you must also file a notice of appearance with the Clerk’s Office at the address set forth in ¶ 58 above so that it is received on or before October 29, 2020. Persons who intend to object and desire to present evidence at the Settlement Hearing must include in their written objection or notice of appearance the identity of any witnesses they may call to testify and exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the hearing. It is within the Court’s discretion to allow appearances at the Settlement Hearing either in person or by telephone or videoconference, with or without the filing of written objections. 62. You are not required to hire an attorney to represent you in making written objections or in appearing at the Settlement Hearing. However, if you decide to hire an attorney, it will be at your own expense, and that attorney must file a notice of appearance with the Court so that the notice is received on or before October 29, 2020. 63. The Settlement Hearing may be adjourned by the Court without further written notice to the Settlement Class. If you plan to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date and time with Lead Counsel. 64. Unless the Court orders otherwise, any Settlement Class Member who does not object in the manner described above will be deemed to have waived any objection and shall be forever foreclosed from making any objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses. Settlement Class Members do not need to appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.

WHAT IF I BOUGHT SHARES ON SOMEONE ELSE’S BEHALF?

65. If you purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Impinj common stock during the period from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive, for the beneficial interest of persons or organizations other than yourself, you must either (i) within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Notice, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Notice and Claim Form (the “Notice Packet”) to forward to all such beneficial owners and within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of those Notice Packets forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (ii) within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Notice, provide a list of the names, addresses, and email addresses (if available) of all such beneficial owners to Impinj Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., Attn: Fulfillment Dept., P.O. Box 173051, Milwaukee, WI 53217. 66. If you choose the first option, you must send a statement to the Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing was made as directed and retain the list of names and addresses for use in connection with any possible future notice to

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 11 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 38

the Settlement Class. If you choose the second option, the Claims Administrator will send a copy of the Notice Packet to the beneficial owners. 67. Upon full compliance with these directions, such nominees may seek reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred, by providing the Claims Administrator with proper documentation supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought. Copies of this Notice and the Claim Form may also be obtained from the Settlement website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com, by calling the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-877-869-0158, or by emailing the Claims Administrator at [email protected].

CAN I SEE THE COURT FILE? WHOM SHOULD I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS?

68. This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters involved in this Action, you are referred to the papers on file in the Action, including the Stipulation, which may be inspected during regular office hours at the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101. Additionally, copies of the Stipulation and any related orders entered by the Court will be posted on the Settlement website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. All inquiries concerning this Notice and the Claim Form should be directed to: Impinj Securities Litigation and/or Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. Bernstein Litowitz Berger P.O. Box 173051 & Grossmann LLP Milwaukee, WI 53217 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 1-877-869-0158 [email protected] 1-800-380-8496 www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com [email protected]

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: August 19, 2020 By Order of the Court United States District Court Western District of Washington

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 12 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 38

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION

1. The objective of the Plan of Allocation is to equitably distribute the Net Settlement Fund to those Settlement Class Members who suffered economic losses as a proximate result of the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The calculations made pursuant to the Plan of Allocation are not intended to be estimates of, nor indicative of, the amounts that Settlement Class Members might have been able to recover after a trial. Nor are the calculations pursuant to the Plan of Allocation intended to be estimates of the amounts that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement. The computations under the Plan of Allocation are only a method to weigh the claims of Claimants against one another for the purposes of making pro rata allocations of the Net Settlement Fund. 2. In developing the Plan of Allocation in conjunction with Lead Counsel, Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert calculated the estimated amount of artificial inflation in the price of Impinj common stock allegedly caused by Defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements and material omissions. In calculating the estimated artificial inflation allegedly caused by Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions, Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert considered price changes in the stock in reaction to the public disclosures allegedly revealing the truth concerning Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and material omissions, adjusting for price changes on that day that were attributable to market or industry forces and based on assumptions related to the case provided by Lead Counsel. 3. 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 the Impinj common stock. In the Action, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false statements and omitted material facts during the period from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive, which had the effect of artificially inflating the price of Impinj common stock. Lead Plaintiff further alleges that corrective information was released to the market on: August 3, 2017, November 1, 2017, February 1, 2018, and February 15, 2018, which partially removed the artificial inflation from the price of Impinj common stock on: August 4, 2017, November 2, 2017, February 2, 2018, and February 16, 2018. 4. Recognized Loss Amounts for transactions in Impinj common stock are calculated under the Plan of Allocation based primarily on the difference in the amount of alleged artificial inflation in the price of Impinj common stock at the time of purchase and the time of sale, as limited by the dollar amount of loss measure at each corrective disclosure, or the difference between the actual purchase price and sale price. In order to have a Recognized Loss Amount under the Plan of Allocation, a Settlement Class Member who purchased or otherwise acquired Impinj common stock prior to the first corrective disclosure, which occurred after the close of the financial markets on August 3, 2017, must have held his, her, or its shares of Impinj common stock through at least the close of trading on August 3, 2017. A Settlement Class Member who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Impinj common stock from August 4, 2017 through and including February 15, 2018, must have held those shares through at least one of the later dates where new corrective information was released to the market and partially removed the artificial inflation from the price of Impinj common stock. CALCULATION OF RECOGNIZED LOSS AMOUNTS 5. Based on the formula stated below, a “Recognized Loss Amount” will be calculated for each purchase of Impinj common stock during the Class Period that is listed on the Claim Form and for which adequate documentation is provided. If a Recognized Loss Amount calculates to a negative number or zero under the formula below, the Recognized Loss Amount for that transaction will be zero. 6. For each share of publicly traded Impinj common stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the period from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive, and

a) sold before the close of trading on August 3, 2017, the Recognized Loss Amount is zero; b) sold from August 4, 2017 through the close of trading on February 15, 2018, the Recognized Loss Amount is the least of: (i) (x) the percentage amount of artificial inflation per share on the date of purchase/acquisition as stated in Table A multiplied by the purchase price minus (y) the percentage amount of artificial inflation per share on the date of sale as stated in Table A multiplied by the sale price; (ii) the loss limit amount on the date of purchase/acquisition as stated in Table A minus the loss limit amount on the date of sale as stated in Table A; or (iii) the purchase price minus the sale price; c) sold from February 16, 2018 through the close of trading on May 16, 2018, the Recognized Loss Amount is the least of: (i) the percentage amount of artificial inflation per share on the date of purchase/acquisition as stated in Table A multiplied by the purchase price; (ii) the loss limit amount on the date of purchase/acquisition as stated Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 13 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 38

in Table A; (iii) the purchase price minus the sale price; or (iv) the purchase price less the average closing price per share applicable to the date of sale as stated in Table B; d) held at the end of trading on May 16, 2018, the Recognized Loss Amount is equal to the least of: (i) the percentage amount of artificial inflation per share on the date of purchase/acquisition as stated in Table A multiplied by the purchase price; (ii) the loss limit amount on the date of purchase/acquisition as stated in Table A; or (iii) the purchase price per share less $13.59.4 7. For shares of Impinj common stock that were purchased in Impinj’s Initial Public Offering (which occurred on July 21, 2016) or its Secondary Public Offering (which occurred on or about December 2, 2016), the Recognized Loss Amount for those purchases will be increased by 10%. Specifically, the Recognized Loss Amount calculated above in paragraph 6 for these purchases will be multiplied by 1.1. Shares purchased in these offerings will receive this enhancement to their Recognized Loss Amount because the investors who purchased Impinj common stock in those offerings possessed claims under the Securities Act which were not possessed by other members of the Settlement Class, and these Securities Act claims would have been easier to prove at trial because they do not require that plaintiffs prove defendants’ fraudulent intent or that the misstatements caused the loss.

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

8. The Net Settlement Fund will be allocated among all Authorized Claimants whose Distribution Amount (defined in paragraph 16 below) is $10.00 or greater. 9. Calculation of Claimant’s “Recognized Claim”: A Claimant’s “Recognized Claim” will be the sum of his, her, or its Recognized Loss Amounts as calculated above with respect to all purchases or acquisitions of publicly traded Impinj common stock during the Class Period. 10. FIFO Matching: If a Settlement Class Member made more than one purchase/acquisition or sale of Impinj common stock during the Class Period, all purchases/acquisitions and sales will be matched on a First In, First Out (“FIFO”) basis. Class Period sales will be matched first against any holdings of Impinj common stock 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. 11. “Purchase/Sale” Prices: For the purposes of calculations under this Plan of Allocation, “purchase price” means the actual price paid, excluding all fees, taxes, and commissions, and “sale price” means the actual amount received, not deducting any fees, taxes, and commissions. 12. “Purchase/Sale” Dates: Purchases, acquisitions, and sales of Impinj common stock will be deemed to have occurred on the “contract” or “trade” date as opposed to the “settlement” or “payment” date. However, the receipt or grant by gift, inheritance, or operation of law of Impinj common stock during the Class Period shall not be deemed an eligible purchase, acquisition, or sale for the calculation of a Claimant’s Recognized Loss Amount, nor shall the receipt or grant be deemed an assignment of any claim relating to the stock unless (i) the donor or decedent purchased or acquired the Impinj common stock during the Class Period; (ii) the instrument of gift or assignment specifically provides that it is intended to transfer such rights; and (iii) no Claim was submitted by or on behalf of the donor, on behalf of the decedent, or by anyone else with respect to those shares. 13. Short Sales: The date of covering a “short sale” is deemed to be the date of purchase of the Impinj common stock. The date of a “short sale” is deemed to be the date of sale of the Impinj common stock. In accordance with the Plan of Allocation, however, the Recognized Loss Amount on “short sales” and the purchases covering “short sales” is zero.

4 Pursuant to Section 21(D)(e)(1) of the Exchange Act, “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 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.” This 90-day period is known as the “90-day look-back period.” The average (mean) closing price of Impinj common stock during the 90-day look-back period from February 16, 2018 through May 16, 2018, inclusive, was $13.59.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 14 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 38

14. In the event that a Claimant has an opening short position in Impinj common stock, the earliest purchases or acquisitions of Impinj common stock during the Class Period will be matched against such opening short position, and not be entitled to a recovery, until that short position is fully covered. 15. Shares Purchased/Sold Through the Exercise of Options: Option contracts are not securities eligible to participate in the Settlement. With respect to shares of Impinj common stock purchased or sold through the exercise of an option, the purchase/sale date of the Impinj common stock is the exercise date of the option and the purchase/sale price is the exercise price of the option. 16. Determination of Distribution Amount: The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis based on the relative size of their Recognized Claims. Specifically, a “Distribution Amount” will be calculated for each Authorized Claimant, which shall be the Authorized Claimant’s Recognized Claim divided by the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants, multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement Fund. 17. If an Authorized Claimant’s Distribution Amount calculates to less than $10.00, it will not be included in the calculation and no distribution will be made to that Authorized Claimant. 18. After the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Claims Administrator will make reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants cash their distribution checks. To the extent any monies remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the initial distribution, if Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determines that it is cost-effective to do so, the Claims Administrator, no less than seven (7) months after the initial distribution, will conduct a re-distribution of the funds remaining after payment of any unpaid fees and expenses incurred in administering the Settlement, including for such re-distribution, to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their initial distributions and who would receive at least $10.00 from such re-distribution. Additional re-distributions to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their prior checks and who would receive at least $10.00 on such additional re-distributions may occur thereafter if Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determines that additional re-distributions, after the deduction of any additional fees and expenses incurred in administering the Settlement, including for such re- distributions, would be cost-effective. At such time as it is determined that the re-distribution of funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, the remaining balance will be contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization(s), to be recommended by Lead Counsel and approved by the Court. 19. Payment pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, or such other plan of allocation as may be approved by the Court, will be conclusive against all Claimants. No person or entity shall have any claim against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the Claims Administrator, or any other agent designated by Lead Counsel, or Defendants’ Releasees and/or their respective counsel, arising from distributions made substantially in accordance with the Stipulation, the plan of allocation approved by the Court, or any order of the Court. Plaintiffs and Defendants, and their respective counsel, and all other Releasees shall have no liability whatsoever for the investment or distribution of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, the plan of allocation, or the determination, administration, calculation, or payment of any claim or nonperformance of the Claims Administrator, the payment or withholding of Taxes (including interest and penalties) owed by the Settlement Fund, or any losses incurred in connection therewith 20. The Plan of Allocation set forth herein is the plan that is being proposed to the Court for its approval by Plaintiffs after consultation with Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert. The Court may approve this Plan as proposed or it may modify the Plan of Allocation without further notice to the Class. Any Orders regarding any modification of the Plan of Allocation will be posted on the case website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 15 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 38

TABLE A

Estimated Percent Artificial Inflation and Loss Limit Per Share with Respect to Publicly Traded Impinj Common Stock from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018

Percent Artificial Inflation Loss Limit Date Range Per Share Per Share July 21, 2016 – August 3, 2017 76.34% $34.29 August 4, 2017 – November 1, 2017 69.64% $23.70 November 2, 2017 – February 1, 2018 53.56% $12.34 February 2, 2018 – February 15, 2018 17.36% $2.33 After February 15, 2018 0.00% $0.00

TABLE B

90-Day Look-Back Table for Impinj Common Stock (Average Closing Price: February 16, 2018 – May 16, 2018)

Average Average Average Closing Price Closing Price Closing Price from from from February 16, February 16, February 16, 2018 2018 2018 Date through Date Date through Date Date through Date 2/16/2018 $11.07 3/20/2018 $13.22 4/19/2018 $13.20 2/20/2018 $11.56 3/21/2018 $13.25 4/20/2018 $13.20 2/21/2018 $11.76 3/22/2018 $13.24 4/23/2018 $13.19 2/22/2018 $11.95 3/23/2018 $13.23 4/24/2018 $13.18 2/23/2018 $12.13 3/26/2018 $13.22 4/25/2018 $13.17 2/26/2018 $12.28 3/27/2018 $13.21 4/26/2018 $13.15 2/27/2018 $12.47 3/28/2018 $13.19 4/27/2018 $13.12 2/28/2018 $12.50 3/29/2018 $13.19 4/30/2018 $13.10 3/1/2018 $12.58 4/2/2018 $13.17 5/1/2018 $13.09 3/2/2018 $12.65 4/3/2018 $13.16 5/2/2018 $13.08 3/5/2018 $12.76 4/4/2018 $13.15 5/3/2018 $13.07 3/6/2018 $12.83 4/5/2018 $13.14 5/4/2018 $13.07 3/7/2018 $12.90 4/6/2018 $13.13 5/7/2018 $13.08 3/8/2018 $13.00 4/9/2018 $13.11 5/8/2018 $13.16 3/9/2018 $13.04 4/10/2018 $13.10 5/9/2018 $13.24 3/12/2018 $13.10 4/11/2018 $13.11 5/10/2018 $13.33 3/13/2018 $13.13 4/12/2018 $13.14 5/11/2018 $13.40 3/14/2018 $13.16 4/13/2018 $13.15 5/14/2018 $13.47 3/15/2018 $13.17 4/16/2018 $13.15 5/15/2018 $13.53 3/16/2018 $13.19 4/17/2018 $13.17 5/16/2018 $13.59 3/19/2018 $13.21 4/18/2018 $13.19

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 16 of 16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 38 Impinj Securities Litigation Toll-Free Number: 1-877-869-0158 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM

To be eligible to receive a share of the Net Settlement Fund in connection with the Settlement of this Action, you must complete and sign this Proof of Claim and Release Form (“Claim Form”) and mail it by first-class mail to the address below, with supporting documentation, postmarked no later than November 27, 2020.

Mail to: Impinj Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173051 Milwaukee, WI 53217

Failure to submit your Claim Form by the date specified will subject your claim to rejection and may preclude you from being eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Do not mail or deliver your Claim Form to the Court, Lead Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, or any of the Parties to the Action. Submit your Claim Form only to the Claims Administrator at the address set forth above.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE #

PART I – CLAIMANT INFORMATION 2

PART II – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 3

PART III – SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN IMPINJ COMMON STOCK (NASDAQ TICKER: PI, CUSIP: 453204109) 5

PART IV – RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND SIGNATURE 6

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 1 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 25 of 38 PART I – CLAIMANT INFORMATION

The Claims Administrator will use this information for all communications regarding this Claim Form. If this information changes, you MUST notify the Claims Administrator in writing at the address above. Complete names of all persons and entities must be provided.

Beneficial Owner’s Name First Name Last Name

Joint Beneficial Owner’s Name (if applicable) First Name Last Name

If this claim is submitted for an IRA, and if you would like any check that you MAY be eligible to receive made payable to the IRA, please include “IRA” in the “Last Name” box above (e.g., Jones IRA).

Entity Name (if the Beneficial Owner is not an individual)

Name of Representative, if applicable (executor, administrator, trustee, c/o, etc.), if different from Beneficial Owner

Last 4 digits of Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number

Street Address

City State/Province Zip Code

Foreign Postal Code (if applicable) Foreign Country (if applicable)

Telephone Number (Day) Telephone Number (Evening)

Email Address (email address is not required, but if you provide it you authorize the Claims Administrator to use it in providing you with information relevant to this claim)

Type of Beneficial Owner: Specify one of the following:

Individual(s) Corporation UGMA Custodian IRA

Partnership Estate Trust Other (describe: ______)

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 2 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 26 of 38 PART II – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. It is important that you completely read and understand the Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses (the “Notice”) that accompanies this Claim Form, including the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice. The Notice describes the proposed Settlement, how Settlement Class Members are affected by the Settlement, and the manner in which the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed if the Settlement and Plan of Allocation are approved by the Court. The Notice also contains the definitions of many of the defined terms (which are indicated by initial capital letters) used in this Claim Form. By signing and submitting this Claim Form, you will be certifying that you have read and that you understand the Notice, including the terms of the releases described therein and provided for herein. 2. By submitting this Claim Form, you will be making a request to receive a payment from the Settlement described in the Notice. IF YOU ARE NOT A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER (see the definition of the Settlement Class on page 5 of the Notice, which sets forth who is included in and who is excluded from the Settlement Class), OR IF YOU, OR SOMEONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF, SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, DO NOT SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM. YOU MAY NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER. THUS, IF YOU ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, ANY CLAIM FORM THAT YOU SUBMIT, OR THAT MAY BE SUBMITTED ON YOUR BEHALF, WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 3. Submission of this Claim Form does not guarantee that you will be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. The distribution of the Net Settlement Fund will be governed by the Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice, if it is approved by the Court, or by such other plan of allocation as the Court approves. 4. Use the Schedule of Transactions in Part III of this Claim Form to supply all required details of your transaction(s) in, and holdings of, common stock of Impinj, Inc. (“Impinj”). On this schedule, provide all of the requested information with respect to your holdings, purchases, acquisitions, and sales of Impinj common stock (including free transfers and deliveries), whether such transactions resulted in a profit or a loss. Failure to report all transaction and holding information during the requested time period may result in the rejection of your claim. 5. Please note: Only publicly traded Impinj common stock purchased during the Class Period (i.e., from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive) is eligible under the Settlement. However, sales of Impinj common stock during the period from February 16, 2018 through and including the close of trading on May 16, 2018, will be used for purposes of calculating your claim under the Plan of Allocation. Therefore, in order for the Claims Administrator to be able to balance your claim, the requested purchase/acquisition and sale/disposition information during this period must also be provided. 6. You are required to submit genuine and sufficient documentation for all of your transactions in and holdings of Impinj common stock as set forth in the Schedule of Transactions in Part III of this Claim Form. Documentation may consist of copies of brokerage confirmation slips or monthly brokerage account statements, or an authorized statement from your broker containing the transactional and holding information found in a broker confirmation slip or account statement. The Parties and the Claims Administrator do not independently have information about your investments in Impinj common stock. IF SUCH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT IN YOUR POSSESSION, PLEASE OBTAIN COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS OR EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTS FROM YOUR BROKER. FAILURE TO SUPPLY THIS DOCUMENTATION MAY RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM. DO NOT SEND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. Please keep a copy of all documents that you send to the Claims Administrator. Also, do not highlight any portion of the Claim Form or any supporting documents. 7. Use Part I of this Claim Form entitled “CLAIMANT INFORMATION” to identify the beneficial owner(s) of the Impinj common stock. The complete name(s) of the beneficial owner(s) must be entered. If you held the Impinj common stock in your own name, you were the beneficial owner as well as the record owner. If, however, your shares of Impinj common stock were registered in the name of a third party, such as a nominee or brokerage firm, you were the beneficial owner of the stock, but the third party was the record owner. The beneficial owner, not the record owner, must sign this Claim Form to be eligible to participate in the Settlement. If there were joint beneficial owners, each must sign this Claim Form and their names must appear as “Claimants” in Part I of this Claim Form. 8. One Claim should be submitted for each separate legal entity. Separate Claim Forms should be submitted for each separate legal entity (e.g., a claim from joint owners should not include separate transactions of just one of the joint owners, and an individual should not combine his or her IRA transactions with transactions made solely in the individual’s name). Conversely, a single Claim Form should be submitted on behalf of one legal entity including all Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 3 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 27 of 38 transactions made by that entity on one Claim Form, no matter how many separate accounts that entity has (e.g., a corporation with multiple brokerage accounts should include all transactions made in all accounts on one Claim Form). 9. Agents, executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees must complete and sign the Claim Form on behalf of persons represented by them, and they must: (a) expressly state the capacity in which they are acting; (b) identify the name, account number, last four digits of the Social Security Number (or taxpayer identification number), address, and telephone number of the beneficial owner of (or other person or entity on whose behalf they are acting with respect to) the Impinj common stock; and (c) furnish herewith evidence of their authority to bind to the Claim Form the person or entity on whose behalf they are acting. (Authority to complete and sign a Claim Form cannot be established by stockbrokers demonstrating only that they have discretionary authority to trade securities in another person’s accounts.) 10. By submitting a signed Claim Form, you will be swearing that you: (a) own(ed) the Impinj common stock you have listed in the Claim Form; or (b) are expressly authorized to act on behalf of the owner thereof. 11. By submitting a signed Claim Form, you will be swearing to the truth of the statements contained therein and the genuineness of the documents attached thereto, subject to penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. The making of false statements, or the submission of forged or fraudulent documentation, will result in the rejection of your claim and may subject you to civil liability or criminal prosecution. 12. If the Court approves the Settlement, payments to eligible Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Plan of Allocation (or such other plan of allocation as the Court approves) will be made after any appeals are resolved, and after the completion of all claims processing. The claims process will take substantial time to complete fully and fairly. Please be patient. 13. PLEASE NOTE: As set forth in the Plan of Allocation, each Authorized Claimant shall receive his, her, or its pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund. If the prorated payment to any Authorized Claimant calculates to less than $10.00, it will not be included in the calculation and no distribution will be made to that Authorized Claimant. 14. If you have questions concerning the Claim Form, or need additional copies of the Claim Form or the Notice, you may contact the Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at the above address, by email at [email protected], or by toll-free phone at 1-877-869-0158, or you can visit the Settlement website, www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com, where copies of the Claim Form and Notice are available for downloading. 15. NOTICE REGARDING ELECTRONIC FILES: Certain claimants with large numbers of transactions may request, or may be requested, to submit information regarding their transactions in electronic files. To obtain the mandatory electronic filing requirements and file layout, you may visit the Settlement website at www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or you may email the Claims Administrator’s electronic filing department at [email protected]. Any file not in accordance with the required electronic filing format will be subject to rejection. Only one claim should be submitted for each separate legal entity (see ¶ 8 above) and the complete name of the beneficial owner of the securities must be entered where called for (see ¶ 7 above). No electronic files will be considered to have been submitted unless the Claims Administrator issues an email to that effect. Do not assume that your file has been received until you receive this email. If you do not receive such an email within 10 days of your submission, you should contact the electronic filing department at [email protected] to inquire about your file and confirm it was received.

IMPORTANT: PLEASE NOTE YOUR CLAIM IS NOT DEEMED FILED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT POSTCARD. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR WILL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF YOUR CLAIM FORM WITHIN 60 DAYS OF YOUR SUBMISSION. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT POSTCARD WITHIN 60 DAYS, CONTACT THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR TOLL FREE AT 1-877-869-0158.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 4 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 28 of 38 PART III – SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN IMPINJ COMMON STOCK Use this section to provide information on your holdings and trading of Impinj common stock (NASDAQ Ticker Symbol: PI, CUSIP: 453204109) during the requested time periods. Please include proper documentation with your Claim Form as described in detail in Part II – General Instructions, ¶ 6 above. 1. PURCHASES/ACQUISITIONS FROM JULY 21, 2016 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2018 – Separately list each and every purchase or acquisition (including free receipts) of Impinj common stock from after the opening of trading on July 21, 2016 (including in the Initial Public Offering on July 21, 2016) through and including the close of trading on February 15, 2018. (Must be documented.) Date of Purchase/ Number of Shares Purchase Total Purchase Price Confirm Proof of Acquisition Purchased/Acquired Price Per Share (excluding any fees, Purchase Enclosed (List Chronologically) commissions, and taxes) (Month/Day/Year) / / $ $ ○ / / $ $ ○ / / $ $ ○ / / $ $ ○ 2. PURCHASES/ACQUISITIONS FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2018 THROUGH MAY 16, 2018 – State the total number of shares of Impinj common stock purchased or acquired (including free receipts) from February 16, 2018 through the close of trading on May 16, 2018. If none, write “zero” or “0.”1 ______

3. SALES FROM JULY 21, 2016 THROUGH MAY 16, 2018 – Separately list each and every sale IF NONE, CHECK or disposition (including free deliveries) of Impinj common stock from after the opening of trading on HERE July 21, 2016 through and including the close of trading on May 16, 2018. (Must be documented.) ○

Date of Sale Number of Sale Price Total Sale Price Confirm Proof (List Chronologically) Shares Sold Per Share (not deducting any fees, of Sale Enclosed (Month/Day/Year) commissions, and taxes)

/ / $ $ ○ / / $ $ ○ / / $ $ ○ / / $ $ ○ 4. HOLDINGS AS OF MAY 16, 2018 – State the total number of shares of Impinj common stock Confirm Proof of held as of the close of trading on May 16, 2018. (Must be documented.) If none, write “zero” or “0.” Position Enclosed ______○

IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE SCHEDULE ABOVE, ATTACH EXTRA SCHEDULES IN THE SAME FORMAT. PRINT THE BENEFICIAL OWNER’S FULL NAME AND LAST FOUR DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY/TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ON EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE. IF YOU DO ATTACH EXTRA SCHEDULES, CHECK THIS BOX.

1 Please note: Information requested with respect to your purchases and acquisitions of Impinj common stock from February 16, 2018 through and including the close of trading on May 16, 2018 is needed in order to balance your claim; purchases during this period, however, are not eligible under the Settlement and will not be used for purposes of calculating your Recognized Claim under the Plan of Allocation.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 5 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 29 of 38 PART IV - RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND SIGNATURE

YOU MUST ALSO READ THE RELEASE AND CERTIFICATION BELOW AND SIGN ON PAGE 7 OF THIS CLAIM FORM.

I (we) hereby acknowledge that, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation, without further action by anyone, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, I (we), on behalf of myself (ourselves) and my (our) (the claimant(s)’) heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of law and of the judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished, waived, and discharged each and every Released Plaintiffs’ Claim against Defendants and the other Defendants’ Releasees, and shall forever be barred and enjoined from prosecuting any or all of the Released Plaintiffs’ Claims against any of the Defendants’ Releasees.

CERTIFICATION

By signing and submitting this Claim Form, the claimant(s) or the person(s) who represent(s) the claimant(s) agree(s) to the release above and certifies (certify) as follows: 1. that I (we) have read and understand the contents of the Notice and this Claim Form, including the releases provided for in the Settlement and the terms of the Plan of Allocation; 2. that the claimant(s) is a (are) Settlement Class Member(s), as defined in the Notice, and is (are) not excluded by definition from the Settlement Class as set forth in the Notice; 3. that the claimant(s) did not submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; 4. that I (we) own(ed) the Impinj common stock identified in the Claim Form and have not assigned the claim against any of the Defendants or any of the other Defendants’ Releasees to another, or that, in signing and submitting this Claim Form, I (we) have the authority to act on behalf of the owner(s) thereof; 5. that the claimant(s) has (have) not submitted any other claim covering the same purchases of Impinj common stock and knows (know) of no other person having done so on the claimant’s (claimants’) behalf; 6. that the claimant(s) submit(s) to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to claimant’s (claimants’) claim and for purposes of enforcing the releases set forth herein; 7. that I (we) agree to furnish such additional information with respect to this Claim Form as Lead Counsel, the Claims Administrator, or the Court may require; 8. that the claimant(s) waive(s) the right to trial by jury, to the extent it exists, and agree(s) to the determination by the Court of the validity or amount of this claim, and waives any right of appeal or review with respect to such determination; 9. that I (we) acknowledge that the claimant(s) will be bound by and subject to the terms of any judgment(s) that may be entered in the Action; and 10. that the claimant(s) is (are) NOT subject to backup withholding under the provisions of Section 3406(a)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code because (i) the claimant(s) is (are) exempt from backup withholding or (ii) the claimant(s) has (have) not been notified by the IRS that he, she, or it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends or (iii) the IRS has notified the claimant(s) that he, she, or it is no longer subject to backup withholding. If the IRS has notified the claimant(s) that he, she, it, or they is (are) subject to backup withholding, please strike out the language in the preceding sentence indicating that the claim is not subject to backup withholding in the certification above.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 6 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 30 of 38

UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I (WE) CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ME (US) ON THIS CLAIM FORM IS TRUE, CORRECT, AND COMPLETE, AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF WHAT THEY PURPORT TO BE.

Signature of claimant Date

Print claimant name here

Signature of joint claimant, if any Date

Print joint claimant name here

If the claimant is other than an individual, or is not the person completing this form, the following also must be provided:

Signature of person signing on behalf of claimant Date

Print name of person signing on behalf of claimant here

Capacity of person signing on behalf of claimant, if other than an individual, e.g., executor, president, trustee, custodian, etc. (Must provide evidence of authority to act on behalf of claimant – see ¶ 9 on page 4 of this Claim Form.)

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 7 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 31 of 38 REMINDER CHECKLIST

1. Sign the above release and certification. If this Claim Form is being made on behalf of joint claimants, then both must sign.

2. Attach only copies of acceptable supporting documentation as these documents will not be returned to you.

3. Do not highlight any portion of the Claim Form or any supporting documents.

4. Keep copies of the completed Claim Form and documentation for your own records.

5. The Claims Administrator will acknowledge receipt of your Claim Form by mail, within 60 days of your submission. Your claim is not deemed filed until you receive an acknowledgement postcard. If you do not receive an acknowledgement postcard within 60 days, please call the Claims Administrator toll free at 1-877-869-0158.

6. If your address changes in the future, or if this Claim Form was sent to an old or incorrect address, you must send the Claims Administrator written notification of your new address. If you change your name, inform the Claims Administrator. 7. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your claim, contact the Claims Administrator at the address below, by email at [email protected], or by toll-free phone at 1-877-869-0158, or you may visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. DO NOT call Impinj or its counsel with questions regarding your claim.

THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL, POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 27, 2020, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS:

Impinj Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173051 Milwaukee, WI 53217

A Claim Form received by the Claims Administrator shall be deemed to have been submitted when posted, if a postmark date on or before November 27, 2020 is indicated on the envelope and it is mailed First Class, and addressed in accordance with the above instructions. In all other cases, a Claim Form shall be deemed to have been submitted when actually received by the Claims Administrator.

You should be aware that it will take a significant amount of time to fully process all of the Claim Forms. Please be patient and notify the Claims Administrator of any change of address.

Questions? Visit www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-877-869-0158 8 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 32 of 38

EXHIBIT B P2JW246000-2-B00400-1------BG Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 33 of 38

B4 | Wednesday, September 2, 2020 ** THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

TECHNOLOGY WSJ.com/Tech Samsung Tech Veterans Plan Leader Blank-Check IPO Indicted BY COLIN KELLAHER SPACs have already raised around $30 billion this year. Continued from page B1 LinkedIn co-founder Reid In its filing with the SEC, merger by inflating Cheil’s fi- Hoffman has teamed up with Reinvent said that while it may nancials and referred the mat- Mark Pincus, the founder and pursue an initial business com- ter to prosecutors. Prosecutors chairman of videogame com- bination target in any industry have alleged Mr. Lee was in- pany Zynga Inc., to form a or geographic location, it plans volved in orchestrating ac- blank-check company aimed at to focus its search in the con- counting malpractice. Samsung taking a technology startup sumer internet, mobile gaming has rejected any allegations of public while shepherding it or broader technology sectors. wrongdoing. through the challenging cycles Reinvent said its founders Over the past several of invention and reinvention. aim to serve as long-term

months, prosecutors conducted PRESS JUNG/NURPHOTO/ZUMA CHRIS Reinvent Technology Part- partners with the management more than 50 search-and-sei- Mr. Lee, seen in June, had already served a year in prison for a separate conviction before being freed. ners on Monday filed with the team of a technology startup zure requests and summoned U.S. Securities and Exchange to build the business as a pub- more than 400 Samsung em- that prosecutors ignored the he has run the conglomerate company had paid a friend of Commission to raise $600 lic company while pursuing in- ployees and executives for panel’s guidance, though it has since his father, Samsung Chair- South Korea’s then-President million in an initial public novation through cycles of questioning. They also at- no binding power. man Lee Kun-hee, became inca- Park Geun-hye to secure gov- offering. creating new products and tempted to arrest Mr. Lee in Samsung sought several pacitated after a heart attack in ernment support for a merger Messrs. Hoffman and Pincus adapting its core products and June, though a district court times to neutralize its legal 2014. All key decisions and in- between the two Samsung affil- said they formed Reinvent services to continue growing. blocked that move. challenges, heeding a judge’s vestments require a signoff iates. South Korea’s national with hedge-fund manager Mi- “We went through our own The decision to press for- recommendation in the sepa- from the younger Mr. Lee, who pension fund cast a decisive chael Thompson to be a new invention and reinvention ward with an indictment was rate bribery case to create a goes by “Jay Y.” in the West. vote in support of the merger. kind of venture-capital partner cycles while public at Zynga an unusual move by South Ko- compliance committee and Mr. Lee has spent nearly the Mr. Lee has denied the for one of the many technol- and LinkedIn, and it wasn’t rean prosecutors after a panel, apologize to the public. past four years mired in politi- charges. He was sentenced to ogy companies set to go public easy,” Messrs. Hoffman and made up of outside experts on In an apology earlier this cal and legal scandals, largely five years in prison and spent a over the next few years. Pincus said. legal and other matters, recom- year, Mr. Lee vowed he tied to the 2015 merger that year behind bars in 2017 and Reinvent joins this year’s Reinvent said it plans to mended the case focused on wouldn’t pass control of the consolidated his ownership 2018. His sentence was later surge in blank-check compa- sell 60 million equity units at the merger be dropped in June. company to his children and stake and tightened his grip on suspended and he was freed nies, also known as special- $10 apiece, with each unit con- The panel, formed in 2018 to that the company would rem- the conglomerate. from prison. Then last year, purpose acquisition companies, sisting of one share and one- review high-profile cases, was edy other shortcomings, such Mr. Lee was first indicted in South Korea’s Supreme Court or SPACs, which turn the tradi- fourth a warrant to buy an- convened at Mr. Lee’s request as discouraging unions. 2017 on charges of bribery, em- overturned the lower court’s tional IPO model on its head other share for $11.50. to weigh in on the legitimacy of Mr. Lee is formally the vice bezzlement and perjury, when decision and remanded the case by going public before acquir- —Maureen Farrell the probe. It was the first time chairman of Samsung, though prosecutors asserted that the for retrial. ing a business. New listings of contributed to this article.

ADVERTISEMENT The Marketplace To advertise: 800-366-3975 or WSJ.com/classifieds

CLASS ACTION PUBLIC NOTICES

     
  

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857       C(C 3F<=F/C C1 45 "C*1/ 0)@2L 1$ C(" /*$1<. 1.."<*- 1 " 49:5 =  13C" */ C(" CC" 1$ "H 1<, 45 C(C " 45 C(C " 4 5 C(C " / 45 " 4*G5 H*-- 3<1G* " / "/G*<1/."/C- */ "./*CJ '<""."/C $1< C(" &RXQVHO¶VDSSOLFDWLRQ IRU DQ DZDUG RI DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG H[SHQVHV VKRXOG EH DSSURYHG "KK/*/" 1/
'<""."/C> / 4G5 1C("

EXHIBIT C Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 35 of 38

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Announces a Proposed Settlement in the Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation

NEWS PROVIDED BY Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP  Sep 02, 2020, 16:00 ET

NEW YORK, Sept. 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL LITIGATION CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Impinj, Inc. ("Impinj" or the "Company") during the period of July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class").1

/ PLEASE READCase THIS 3:18-cv-05704-RSL NOTICE CAREFU L LDocumentY. YOUR R99-4IGH T FiledS MA 09/25/20Y BE AF F EPageCTE D36 B ofY 38A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Parties have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $20,000,000 in cash for the benet of the Settlement Class (the "Settlement"), subject to approval by the Court.

A hearing will be held on November 19, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. Pacic time, before the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik either in person at the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Courtroom 15106, United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court). At the hearing, the Court will determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certied as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs should be certied as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specied and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Impinj Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173051, Milwaukee, WI 53217; 1-877-869-0158; or [email protected]. Copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice, and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, http://www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com.

/ If you are a meCasembe 3:18-cv-05704-RSLr of the Settlemen t DocumentClass, in o 99-4rder t oFiled be e09/25/20ligible t o Page rece i37ve ofa p38ayment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than November 27, 2020.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action (including the releases provided therein). If the Settlement is approved, the Action and a related action pending in New York State Supreme Court entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc. et al., Index No. 650629/2019, will be dismissed.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 29, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, must be led with the Court such that they are received no later than October 29, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's ofce, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Impinj Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173051

/ Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL M Documentilwaukee ,99-4 WI 5 3Filed217 09/25/20 Page 38 of 38 1-877-869-0158 www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 1-800-380-8496 [email protected]

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by denition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com.

SOURCE Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

/ Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-5 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 5 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-5 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2

1 2 EXHIBIT 5 3 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 4

5 SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S 6 LODESTAR AND EXPENSES 7 Exh. FIRM HOURS LODESTAR EXPENSES 8 5A Bernstein Litowitz Berger & 4,273.75 $2,327,863.75 $161,700.21 9 Grossmann LLP 10 5B Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP 87.50 $52,442.50 $2,472.82 11 Thornton Law Firm LLP 98.10 $63,665.00 $10,337.94 Hedin Hall L.L.P. 227.50 $147,875.00 $0.00 12 5C Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law 87.60 $70,319.50 $2,260.24 13 LLP 14 TOTAL: 4,774.45 $2,662,165.75 $176,771.21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP LODESTAR AND EXPENSES 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 50

Exhibit 5A Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 50

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL LITIGATION 12 CLASS ACTION

13 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER IN SUPPORT OF LEAD 14 COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ 15 FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES, FILED ON BEHALF OF BERNSTEIN 16 LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. USLANER BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP REGARDING FEES AND EXPENSES 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 50

1 I, JONATHAN D. USLANER, declare: 2 1. I am a Member of the law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 3 (“BLB&G” or “Lead Counsel”). I submit this Declaration in support of Lead Counsel’s 4 application for an award of attorneys’ fees in connection with services rendered in the above- 5 captioned class action (the “Action”), as well as for payment of expenses incurred by my firm in 6 connection with the Action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.1 7 2. My firm, as Court-appointed Lead Counsel in the Action and counsel for Lead 8 Plaintiff Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton 9 Rouge was involved in all aspects of prosecution and resolution of the Action, as set forth in my 10 Declaration in Support of (I) Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan 11 of Allocation, and (II) Lead Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses, filed 12 herewith. 13 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a detailed summary indicating the amount of time 14 spent by each BLB&G attorney and professional support staff employee involved in this Action 15 from its inception through and including August 31, 2020 and the lodestar calculation for those 16 individuals based on my firm’s current hourly rates. The schedule was prepared from 17 contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by BLB&G. 18 4. As the partner responsible for supervising my firm’s work on this case, I reviewed 19 these time and expense records to prepare this Declaration. The purpose of this review was to 20 confirm both the accuracy of the time entries and expenses and the necessity for, and 21 reasonableness of, the time and expenses committed to the litigation. As a result of this review, 22 reductions were made in the exercise of counsel’s judgment. In addition, attorneys and 23 professional staff employees who devoted fewer than 10 hours to the Action have been removed 24 and all time expended in preparing this application for fees and expenses has been excluded. 25

26 1 Unless otherwise defined in this Declaration, all capitalized terms have the meanings set out in the Stipulation of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 91-2). DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -1- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 50

1 5. Following this review and the adjustments made, I believe that the time reflected 2 in the firm’s lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought as stated in this 3 Declaration are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient 4 prosecution and resolution of the litigation. In addition, based on my experience in similar 5 litigation, the expenses are all of a type that would normally be billed to a fee-paying client in the 6 private legal marketplace. 7 6. The hourly rates for the BLB&G attorneys and professional support staff 8 employees included in Exhibit 1 are the same as, or comparable to, the rates submitted by my 9 firm and accepted by courts for lodestar cross-checks in other securities class action litigation fee 10 applications. 11 7. My firm’s rates are set based on periodic analysis of rates used by firms 12 performing comparable work and have been approved by courts. Different timekeepers within 13 the same employment category (e.g., partners, associates, paralegals, etc.) may have different 14 rates based on a variety of factors, including years of practice, years at the firm, year in the 15 current position (e.g., years as a partner), relevant experience, relative expertise, and the rates of 16 similarly experienced peers at our firm or other firms. 17 8. The total number of hours expended on this Action by my firm from its inception 18 through August 31, 2020, is 4,273.75 hours. The total lodestar for my firm for that period is 19 $2,327,863.75. My firm’s lodestar figures are based upon the firm’s hourly rates, which do not 20 include costs for expense items. 21 9. Attached as Exhibit 2 are summary descriptions of the principal tasks that each 22 attorney and the key professional support staff from my firm performed in this Action. 23 10. None of the attorneys listed in the exhibits to this Declaration and included in my 24 firm’s lodestar for the Action were “contract attorneys.” Except for the partners listed in the 25 attached schedule, all of the other attorneys and professional support staff listed in the schedule 26 were W-2 employees of the firm and were not independent contractors issued Form 1099s.

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -2- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 50

1 Thus, the firm pays FICA and Medicare taxes on their behalf, along with state and federal 2 unemployment taxes. These employees were fully supervised by the firm’s partners and had 3 access to secretarial, paralegal, and information technology support. BLB&G also assigns a firm 4 email address to each attorney or other employee it employs, including those listed. 5 11. As detailed in Exhibit 3, my firm is seeking payment for a total of $161,700.21 in 6 expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this Action from its inception through 7 and including August 31, 2020. 8 12. The following is additional information regarding certain of these expenses: 9 a. Experts ($124,707.75). Lead Counsel retained Dr. Hartzmark, of Hartzmark 10 Economics Litigation Practice, LLC, who provided Lead Plaintiff with expert advice on damages 11 and loss causation issues. Lead Counsel consulted with Dr. Hartzmark throughout the litigation 12 of the Action, including the investigation and preparation of the Complaint and the settlement 13 negotiations and worked with Dr. Hartzmark and his team in developing the proposed Plan of 14 Allocation. Lead Plaintiff also retained Dr. Zachary Nye of Stanford Consulting Group, who 15 drafted an expert report on the efficiency of the market for Impinj common stock in preparation 16 for Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. 17 b. Online Legal Research ($4,751.39) and Online Factual Research ($4,457.69). 18 The charges reflected are for out-of-pocket payments to vendors such as Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis, 19 Bureau of National Affairs, and PACER for research done in connection with this litigation. 20 These resources were used to obtain access to court filings, to conduct legal research and cite- 21 checking of briefs, and to obtain factual information regarding the claims asserted through access 22 to various financial databases and other factual databases. These expenses represent the actual 23 expenses incurred by BLB&G for use of these services in connection with this litigation. There 24 are no administrative charges included in these figures. Online research is billed to each case 25 based on actual usage at a charge set by the vendor. When BLB&G utilizes online services 26 provided by a vendor with a flat-rate contract, access to the service is by a billing code entered

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -3- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 50

1 for the specific case being litigated. At the end of each billing period, BLB&G’s costs for such 2 services are allocated to specific cases based on the percentage of use in connection with that 3 specific case in the billing period. 4 c. Document Hosting & Management ($5,285.28). BLB&G seeks $5,285.28 for

5 the costs associated with establishing and maintaining the internal document database that was

6 used to process and review the nearly half million pages of documents produced by Defendants 7 and third parties in this Action. BLB&G charges a rate of $3 per gigabyte of data per month and 8 $15 per user to recover the costs associated with maintaining its document database management 9 10 system, which includes the costs to BLB&G of necessary software licenses and hardware. 11 BLB&G has conducted a review of market rates charged for the similar services performed by 12 third-party document management vendors and found that its rate was at least 80% below the

13 market rates charged by these vendors, resulting in a savings to the class. 14 d. Internal Copying & Printing ($364.90). Our firm charges $0.10 per page for in- 15 house copying and for printing of documents. 16 e. Out-of-Town Travel ($3,719.90). In connection with the prosecution of this 17 case, the firm has paid for travel expenses for its attorneys to attend oral argument before the 18 Court in Seattle and to meet with its client in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The expenses reflected in 19 Exhibit 3 are the expenses actually incurred by my firm and reflect “caps” on travel costs based 20 on the following criteria: (i) airfare is capped at coach rates; (ii) hotel charges per night are 21 capped at $350 for “high cost” locations and $250 for “lower cost” locations, as categorized by 22 IRS guidelines (the relevant cities and how they are categorized are reflected on Exhibit 3); and 23 (iii) meals while traveling are capped at $20 per person for breakfast, $25 per person for lunch, 24 and $50 per person for dinner. 25 f. Special Counsel ($13,500.00). Lead Counsel incurred $13,500.00 in attorneys’ 26 fees for the retention of independent counsel to represent former Impinj employees that Lead

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -4- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 50

1 Counsel contacted during the course of its investigation and who would not speak with Lead 2 Counsel unless represented by counsel. The independent counsel retained were Frank Schirripa 3 of Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP ($7,680.00) and Jeremy Deutsch of Anderson Kill P.C. 4 ($5,820.00). 5 g. Mediation ($3,220.00). This represents Lead Plaintiff’s share of fees paid to 6 Phillips ADR for the services of the mediator, Michelle Yoshida. Ms. Yoshida conducted the 7 full-day mediation session that lead to the settlement of the Action. 8 13. The expenses incurred in this Action are reflected in the records of my firm, 9 which are regularly prepared and maintained in the ordinary course of business. These records 10 are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an 11 accurate record of the expenses incurred. 12 14. With respect to the standing of my firm, attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a brief 13 biography of BLB&G and the attorneys involved in this matter. 14 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true and correct. 15 Executed on: September 25, 2020 16 17 /s Jonathan D. Uslaner Jonathan D. Uslaner 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -5- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 50

1 EXHIBIT 1 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 4 5 TIME REPORT 6 Inception through August 31, 2020 7

8 NAME HOURS HOURLY LODESTAR 9 RATE 10 Partners Max W. Berger 45.75 $1,300 $59,475.00 11 Michael Blatchley 101.75 $850 86,487.50 12 Avi Josefson 20.75 $950 19,712.50 David Kaplan 15.50 $800 12,400.00 13 Gerald Silk 14.00 $1,100 15,400.00 Jonathan D. Uslaner 610.25 $850 518,712.50 14 15 Senior Counsel David L. Duncan 76.25 $750 57,187.50 16 Lucas Gilmore 316.50 $775 245,287.50 17 Richard D. Gluck 203.25 $800 162,600.00 Brett M. Middleton 70.00 $725 50,750.00 18 19 Associates Lauren Cruz 220.25 $500 110,125.00 20 Ross Shikowitz 67.00 $600 40,200.00

21 Staff Attorneys 22 Michelle Arellano 230.00 $395 90,850.00 Hani Farah 166.50 $350 58,275.00 23 Christine Koo 84.25 $375 31,593.75 24 Juan Lossada 485.25 $395 191,673.75 Ryan McCurdy 519.50 $395 205,202.50 25 Caitlin Oyler 51.50 $375 19,312.50 Alex Wu 52.25 $395 20,638.75 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -6- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 50

1 NAME HOURS HOURLY LODESTAR RATE 2 3 Financial Analysts Vincent Alfano 13.00 $350 4,550.00 4 Sam Jones 46.25 $350 16,187.50 Matthew McGlade 10.50 $375 3,937.50 5 Tanjila Sultana 13.50 $375 5,062.50 6 Adam Weinschel 30.25 $525 15,881.25

7 Investigators 8 Amy Bitkower 31.50 $550 17,325.00 Jacob Foster 20.50 $300 6,150.00 9 Joelle Landino 199.25 $375 74,718.75 10 Paralegals and Case 11 Managers Amanda Adeli 21.50 $335 7,202.50 12 Jesse Axman 38.00 $255 9,690.00 13 Dena Bielasz 12.50 $335 4,187.50 Jessica Cuccurullo 50.75 $300 15,225.00 14 Ashley Lee 39.75 $300 11,925.00 15 Matthew Mahady 27.75 $350 9,712.50 Kaye A. Martin 57.50 $335 19,262.50 16 Matthew Molloy 16.25 $300 4,875.00 Virgilio Soler 80.75 $350 28,262.50 17 Melody Yaghoubzadeh 76.75 $350 26,862.50 18 Litigation Support 19 Johanna Pitcairn 120.50 $375 45,187.50 20 Managing Clerk 21 Mahiri Buffong 16.50 $350 5,775.00

22 TOTALS 4,273.75 $2,327,863.75 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -7- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 50

1 EXHIBIT 2 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3 No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.)

4 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 5 SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK PERFORMED 6 PARTNERS 7 8 Max W. Berger (45.75 hours): Mr. Berger, Managing Partner and a founder of BLB&G, was involved in developing litigation and settlement strategy, and he participated in the mediation 9 and other settlement negotiations. 10 Michael Blatchley (101.75 hours): Mr. Blatchley is a BLB&G partner and a member of the Firm’s New Matters department. Mr. Blatchley played a principal role in the initial investigation 11 and analysis of the claims in the matter and the drafting of submissions in support of the motion 12 for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff. Mr. Blatchley was also the principal point of contact between the Firm and Lead Plaintiff Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge 13 and Parish of East Baton Rouge, communicated with the client in connection with discovery and mediation, and participated in strategic and tactical decisions throughout the litigation. 14 Avi Josefson (20.75 hours): Mr. Josefson was primarily responsible for analyzing Lead 15 Plaintiff’s potential claims during the early stages of the litigation. He was also involved in 16 drafting the submissions made in support of the motion for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff. 17 David Kaplan (15.50 hours): Mr. Kaplan assisted in the initial analysis of potential claims that could be brought in the Action. 18 Gerald H. Silk (14.00 hours): Mr. Silk is a BLB&G partner, member of its management 19 committee, and the head of the Firm’s New Matters department. Mr. Silk participated in 20 strategic and tactical decisions throughout the litigation. 21 Jonathan D. Uslaner (610.25 hours): Mr. Uslaner supervised the day-to-day handling and strategy of the litigation and oversaw all aspects of case management and prosecution of the 22 Action. Mr. Uslaner oversaw the investigation of the claims, the researching and drafting of the Complaint, and the briefing related to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint, and he 23 prepared for and argued the motion to dismiss. Mr. Uslaner was also heavily involved in 24 discovery efforts on Defendants and third parties and oversaw the preparation of Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Mr. Uslaner was responsible for strategy relating to case 25 management issues and was the principal point of contact for the experts retained by Lead Plaintiff. Mr. Uslaner prepared Lead Plaintiff’s mediation submissions and attended and actively 26 participated in the mediation and negotiations, negotiated the terms of the Stipulation of

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -8- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 50

1 Settlement, and prepared Lead Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary and final approval of the Settlement. 2

3 SENIOR COUNSEL 4 David L. Duncan (76.25 hours): Mr. Duncan is a member of the Firm’s Settlement Department. 5 Mr. Duncan’s primary role at the Firm is to manage and implement class action settlements. In that capacity, Mr. Duncan had responsibility for drafting, editing, and coordinating the settlement 6 documentation, including the Stipulation of Settlement and related exhibits. Mr. Duncan was 7 also responsible for coordinating with the administrator regarding dissemination of notice to the Settlement Class and assisted Mr. Uslaner with Lead Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary and final 8 approval of the Settlement. 9 Lucas Gilmore (316.50 hours): Mr. Gilmore, a former senior counsel at BLB&G, was extensively involved in factual investigation of the claims in the matter, including speaking with 10 potential witnesses and overseeing the work of Lead Plaintiff’s investigators. Mr. Gilmore also 11 played a substantial role in the researching and drafting of the Complaint. 12 Richard D. Gluck (203.25 hours): Mr. Gluck was responsible for researching and drafting briefing in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. Mr. Gluck was also 13 heavily involved in fact discovery, including drafting requests for production, initial disclosures, subpoenas, and responses and objections; engaging in meet and confers concerning discovery 14 matters; and preparing for potential depositions. Mr. Gluck drafted papers in support of Lead 15 Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and participated in preparing Lead Plaintiff’s mediation submissions and took part in the mediation. He was also involved in the preparation of papers in 16 support of preliminary and final approval of the Settlement.

17 Brett M. Middleton (70.00 hours): Mr. Middleton, a former senior counsel at BLB&G, was involved in investigation and research in preparation for the drafting of the Complaint. 18 19 ASSOCIATES 20 Lauren Cruz (220.25 hours): Ms. Cruz was primarily involved in fact discovery, including 21 drafting requests for production, initial disclosures, subpoenas to third parties, responses and objections to Defendants’ document requests; engaging in meet and confers with Defendants and 22 third parties; and drafting correspondence concerning discovery matters. Ms. Cruz oversaw the 23 team of Staff Attorneys engaged in the review of the documents produced. 24 Ross Shikowitz (67.0 hours): Mr. Shikowitz, a former associate in the Firm’s New Matters department, assisted in the research and drafting of the submissions made in support of the 25 motion for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff. 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -9- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 50

1 STAFF ATTORNEYS

2 Michelle Arellano (230.00 hours): Ms. Arellano was primarily involved in fact discovery, including reviewing analyst reports, reviewing and analyzing Lead Plaintiff’s documents for 3 possible production to Defendants, reviewing and analyzing the documents of Lead Plaintiff’s 4 investment manager, and reviewing and analyzing documents produced by Impinj. Ms. Arellano also assisted in preparations for the deposition of a representative of Lead Plaintiff. 5 Hani Farah (166.50 hours): Mr. Farah was involved in researching and drafting sections of the 6 Complaint and assisted in the preparation of the opposition brief to Defendants’ motion to 7 dismiss. 8 Christine Koo (84.25 hours): Ms. Koo was primarily involved in fact discovery, including assisting in the drafting of initial disclosures and subpoenas to third parties and reviewing Impinj 9 analyst reports.

10 Juan Lossada (485.25 hours): Mr. Lossada was primarily involved in fact discovery, including 11 reviewing and analyzing Lead Plaintiff’s documents for possible production to Defendants. 12 Ryan McCurdy (519.50 hours): McCurdy was primarily involved in fact discovery, including reviewing and analyzing Lead Plaintiff’s documents for possible production to Defendants and 13 reviewing and analyzing documents produced by Defendants.

14 Caitlyn Oyler (51.50 hours): Mr. Lossada was primarily involved in fact discovery, including 15 reviewing and analyzing Lead Plaintiff’s documents for possible production to Defendants. 16 Alex Wu (52.25 hours): Mr. Wu was primarily involved in fact discovery, including reviewing and analyzing the documents of Lead Plaintiff’s investment manager, reviewing and analyzing 17 Lead Plaintiff’s documents, and reviewing and analyzing documents produced by Defendants. 18 19 FINANCIAL ANALYSTS 20 Adam Weinschel (30.25 hours), Vincent Alfano (13.00 hours), Sam Jones (46.25 hours), Matthew McGlade (10.50 hours), and Tanjila Sultana (13.50 hours): Mr. Weinschel, Director 21 of Institutional Investor Services at BLB&G, Mr. Alfano, a former Financial Analyst at BLB&G, Mr. Jones, a former Case Analyst at BLB&G, and Mr. McGlade and Ms. Sultana, Financial 22 Analysts at BLB&G, researched and assisted in the evaluation of claims against Defendants, and 23 conducted research into and analysis of losses suffered by investors as a result of Defendants’ alleged fraud. 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -10- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 50

1 INVESTIGATORS 2 3 Amy Bitkower (31.50 hours), Jacob Foster (20.50 hours), and Joelle Landino (199.25 hours): Ms. Bitkower, Director of Investigations at BLB&G, Mr. Foster, an Investigator at BLB&G, and 4 Ms. Landino, a Senior Investigator at BLB&G, conducted an investigation into the claims asserted in the Complaint by interviewing former employees of Impinj and other knowledgeable 5 individuals for relevant information and leads. The investigators compiled an extensive list of 6 former employees and other individuals likely to have knowledge of the claims. The investigators, as supervised by Ms. Bitkower, spoke to numerous former employees concerning 7 the issues in this lawsuit and drafted reports for the review of the attorneys working on the case. 8 SUPPORT STAFF – Case Managers, Paralegals, Litigation Support Professionals, and 9 Filing Support 10 Amanda Adeli (21.50 hours); Jesse Axman (38.00 hours); Dena Bielasz (12.50 hours); Jessica 11 Cuccurullo (50.75 hours); Ashley Lee (39.75 hours), Matthew Mahady (27.75 hours), Kaye A. Martin (57.50 hours), Matthew Molloy (16.25 hours), Virgilio Soler (80.75 hours), and 12 Melody Yaghoubzadeh (76.75 hours): Ms. Adeli, Mr. Axman, Ms. Bielasz, Ms. Cuccurullo, Ms. Lee, Mr. Mahady, Ms. Martin, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Soler, and Ms. Yaghoubzadeh are all 13 current or former members of the Firm’s Paralegal Department. Mr. Mahady, Mr. Soler, and 14 Ms. Yaghoubzadeh are Case Managers; Ms. Adeli, Ms. Bielasz, and Ms. Martin are former Case Managers; Mr. Molloy is a Paralegal; and Mr. Axman, Ms. Cuccurullo, and Ms. Lee are former 15 Paralegals. All of these individuals performed paralegal work in this case, including collecting and organizing research materials related to the case (e.g., SEC filings, press reports), preparing 16 documents for submission to the Court, cite-checking and proofreading court filings, monitoring the news and related case dockets to keep the case team apprised of relevant developments, and 17 maintaining physical and electronic case materials. 18 Johanna Pitcairn (120.50 hours): Ms. Pitcairn is a member of BLB&G’s Litigation Support 19 department. She assisted the attorneys throughout the document discovery process by coordinating the loading and hosting of data on BLB&G’s document management database and 20 assisting database users.

21 Mahiri Buffong (16.5 hours): Mr. Buffong is BLB&G’s Managing Clerk. Mr. Buffong was 22 principally responsible for maintaining the Firm’s calendar and “tickler” system related to all case deadlines, electronically filing documents with the Court, and supervising those filings for 23 conformity with local rules, procedures, and electronic-filing requirements. 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -11- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 50

1 EXHIBIT 3

2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 4 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 5 EXPENSE REPORT 6 Inception through August 31, 2020 7

8 CATEGORY AMOUNT PSLRA Notice Costs $ 1,325.00 9 On-Line Legal Research 4,751.39 10 On-Line Factual Research 4,457.67 Document Hosting & Management 5,285.28 11 Telephone 46.58 Local Transportation 321.74 12 Internal Copying & Printing 364.90 13 Out-of-Town Travel* 3,719.90 Experts 124,707.75 14 Special Counsel 13,500.00 Mediation Fees 3,220.00 15 16 TOTAL EXPENSES: $161,700.21 17 * Out of town travel includes hotels in the following higher-cost city capped at $350 per night: 18 Seattle, WA; and the following lower-cost city capped at $250 per night: Baton Rouge, LA. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -12- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 50

1 EXHIBIT 4 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3 No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.)

4 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 5 FIRM RESUME 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. -13- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP USLANER REGARDING FEES AND 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor EXPENSES (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 50

Trusted Advocacy. Proven Results.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Attorneys at Law Firm Resume

New York California Louisiana 1251 Avenue of the Americas 2121 Avenue of the Stars 2727 Prytania Street 44th Floor Suite 2575 Suite 14 New York, NY 10020 Los Angeles, CA 90067 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: 212-554-1400 Tel: 310-819-3470 Tel: 504-899-2339 Fax: 212-554-1444 Fax: 504-899-2342

Illinois Delaware 875 North Michigan Avenue 500 Delaware Avenue Suite 3100 Suite 901 Chicago, IL 60611 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: 312-373-3880 Tel: 302-364-3600 Fax: 312-794-7801

www.blbglaw.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIRM OVERVIEW ...... 1 More Top Securities Recoveries ...... 1 Giving Shareholders a Voice and Changing Business Practices for the Better ...... 2 Advocacy for Victims of Corporate Wrongdoing...... 2 PRACTICE AREAS ...... 4 Securities Fraud Litigation ...... 4 Corporate Governance and Shareholders’ Rights ...... 4 Employment Discrimination and Civil Rights ...... 4 General Commercial Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution ...... 5 Distressed Debt and Bankruptcy Creditor Negotiation ...... 5 Consumer Advocacy ...... 5 THE COURTS SPEAK ...... 6 RECENT ACTIONS & SIGNIFICANT RECOVERIES ...... 7 Securities Class Actions ...... 7 Corporate Governance and Shareholders’ Rights ...... 13 Employment Discrimination and Civil Rights ...... 18 CLIENTS AND FEES ...... 19 IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 20 Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann Public Interest Law Fellows ...... 20 Firm sponsorship of Her Justice ...... 20 The Paul M. Bernstein Memorial Scholarship ...... 20 Firm sponsorship of City Year New York ...... 20 Max W. Berger Pre-Law Program ...... 20 New York Says Thank You Foundation ...... 20 OUR ATTORNEYS ...... 21 Members ...... 21 Max W. Berger ...... 21 Gerald H. Silk ...... 23 Avi Josefson ...... 24 Jonathan D. Uslaner ...... 25 Michael D. Blatchley ...... 26 David Kaplan ...... 26 Senior Counsel ...... 27 David L. Duncan ...... 27 Lucas Gilmore ...... 27 Richard D. Gluck ...... 28 Brett M. Middleton ...... 28 Associates ...... 30 Lauren M. Cruz ...... 30 Ross Shikowitz ...... 30 Staff Attorneys ...... 31 Michelle Arellano ...... 31 Hani Farah ...... 31 Christine Koo ...... 32 Juan Lossada ...... 32 Ryan McCurdy ...... 32 Caitlin Oyler ...... 32 Alex Wu ...... 33 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 50

Since our founding in 1983, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has obtained many of the largest monetary recoveries in history – over $33 billion on behalf of investors. Unique among our peers, the firm has obtained the largest settlements ever agreed to by public companies related to securities fraud, including three of the ten largest in history. Working with our clients, we have also used the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting reforms which have increased market transparency, held wrongdoers accountable and improved corporate business practices in groundbreaking ways.

FIRM OVERVIEW Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G”), a national law firm with offices located in New York, California, Louisiana, Illinois, and Delaware, prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of individual and institutional clients. The firm’s litigation practice areas include securities class and direct actions in federal and state courts; corporate governance and shareholder rights litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations; mergers and acquisitions and transactional litigation; alternative dispute resolution; distressed debt and bankruptcy; civil rights and employment discrimination; consumer class actions and antitrust. We also handle, on behalf of major institutional clients and lenders, more general complex commercial litigation involving allegations of breach of contract, accountants’ liability, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence.

We are the nation’s leading firm in representing institutional investors in securities fraud class action litigation. The firm’s institutional client base includes the New York State Common Retirement Fund; the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS); the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (the largest public pension funds in North America); the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA); the Chicago Municipal, Police and Labor Retirement Systems; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas; the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System; Forsta AP-fonden (“AP1”); Fjarde AP-fonden (“AP4”); the Florida State Board of Administration; the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi; the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System; the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System; the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio; the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System; the Virginia Retirement System; the Louisiana School, State, Teachers and Municipal Police Retirement Systems; the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago; the New Jersey Division of Investment of the Department of the Treasury; TIAA-CREF and other private institutions; as well as numerous other public and Taft-Hartley pension entities.

MORE TOP SECURITIES RECOVERIES

Since its founding in 1983, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has litigated some of the most complex cases in history and has obtained over $33 billion on behalf of investors. Unique among its peers, the firm has negotiated the largest settlements ever agreed to by public companies related to securities fraud, and obtained many of the largest securities recoveries in history (including 6 of the top 13): Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 50

• In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation – $6.19 billion recovery • In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation – $3.3 billion recovery • In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation – $2.43 billion recovery • In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation (“Nortel II”) – $1.07 billion recovery • In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities Litigation – $1.06 billion recovery • In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation – $1.05 billion recovery*

*Source: ISS Securities Class Action Services

For over a decade, ISS Securities Class Action Services has compiled and published data on securities litigation recoveries and the law firms prosecuting the cases. BLB&G has been at or near the top of their rankings every year – often with the highest total recoveries, the highest settlement average, or both.

BLB&G also eclipses all competitors on ISS SCAS’s “Top 100 Settlements of All Time” report, having recovered nearly 40% of all the settlement dollars represented in the report (over $25 billion), and having prosecuted over a third of all the cases on the list (35 of 100).

GIVING SHAREHOLDERS A VOICE AND CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES FOR THE BETTER

BLB&G was among the first law firms ever to obtain meaningful corporate governance reforms through litigation. In courts throughout the country, we prosecute shareholder class and derivative actions, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations wherever the conduct of corporate officers and/or directors, as well as M&A transactions, seek to deprive shareholders of fair value, undermine shareholder voting rights, or allow management to profit at the expense of shareholders.

We have prosecuted seminal cases establishing precedents which have increased market transparency, held wrongdoers accountable, addressed issues in the boardroom and executive suite, challenged unfair deals, and improved corporate business practices in groundbreaking ways.

From setting new standards of director independence, to restructuring board practices in the wake of persistent illegal conduct; from challenging the improper use of defensive measures and deal protections for management’s benefit, to confronting stock options backdating abuses and other self-dealing by executives; we have confronted a variety of questionable, unethical and proliferating corporate practices. Seeking to reform faulty management structures and address breaches of fiduciary duty by corporate officers and directors, we have obtained unprecedented victories on behalf of shareholders seeking to improve governance and protect the shareholder franchise.

ADVOCACY FOR VICTIMS OF CORPORATE WRONGDOING

While BLB&G is widely recognized as one of the leading law firms worldwide advising institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation, we have also prosecuted some of the most significant employment discrimination, civil rights and consumer protection cases on record. Equally important, the firm has advanced novel and socially beneficial principles by developing important new law in the areas in which we litigate.

2 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 50

The firm served as co-lead counsel on behalf of Texaco’s African-American employees in Roberts v. Texaco Inc., which resulted in a recovery of $176 million, the largest settlement ever in a race discrimination case. The creation of a Task Force to oversee Texaco’s human resources activities for five years was unprecedented and served as a model for public companies going forward.

In the consumer field, the firm has gained a nationwide reputation for vigorously protecting the rights of individuals and for achieving exceptional settlements. In several instances, the firm has obtained recoveries for consumer classes that represented the entirety of the class’s losses – an extraordinary result in consumer class cases.

3 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 50

PRACTICE AREAS

SECURITIES FRAUD LITIGATION Securities fraud litigation is the cornerstone of the firm’s litigation practice. Since its founding, the firm has had the distinction of having tried and prosecuted many of the most high-profile securities fraud class actions in history, recovering billions of dollars and obtaining unprecedented corporate governance reforms on behalf of our clients. BLB&G continues to play a leading role in major securities litigation pending in federal and state courts, and the firm remains one of the nation’s leaders in representing institutional investors in securities fraud class and derivative litigation.

The firm also pursues direct actions in securities fraud cases when appropriate. By selectively opting out of certain securities class actions, we seek to resolve our clients’ claims efficiently and for substantial multiples of what they might otherwise recover from related class action settlements.

The attorneys in the securities fraud litigation practice group have extensive experience in the laws that regulate the securities markets and in the disclosure requirements of corporations that issue publicly traded securities. Many of the attorneys in this practice group also have accounting backgrounds. The group has access to state-of-the-art, online financial wire services and databases, which enable it to instantaneously investigate any potential securities fraud action involving a public company’s debt and equity securities.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND SHAREHOLDERS’ RIGHTS The Corporate Governance and Shareholders’ Rights Practice Group prosecutes derivative actions, claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and proxy violations on behalf of individual and institutional investors in state and federal courts throughout the country. The group has obtained unprecedented victories on behalf of shareholders seeking to improve corporate governance and protect the shareholder franchise, prosecuting actions challenging numerous highly publicized corporate transactions which violated fair process and fair price, and the applicability of the business judgment rule. We have also addressed issues of corporate waste, shareholder voting rights claims, workplace harassment, and executive compensation. As a result of the firm’s high- profile and widely recognized capabilities, the corporate governance practice group is increasingly in demand by institutional investors who are exercising a more assertive voice with corporate boards regarding corporate governance issues and the board’s accountability to shareholders.

The firm is actively involved in litigating numerous cases in this area of law, an area that has become increasingly important in light of efforts by various market participants to buy companies from their public shareholders “on the cheap.”

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS The Employment Discrimination and Civil Rights Practice Group prosecutes class and multi- plaintiff actions, and other high-impact litigation against employers and other societal institutions that violate federal or state employment, anti-discrimination, and civil rights laws. The practice group represents diverse clients on a wide range of issues including Title VII actions: race, gender, sexual orientation and age discrimination suits; sexual harassment, and “glass ceiling” cases in which otherwise qualified employees are passed over for promotions to managerial or executive positions.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is committed to effecting positive social change in the workplace and in society. The practice group has the necessary financial and human resources to ensure that the class action approach to discrimination and civil rights issues is successful. This

4 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 50

litigation method serves to empower employees and other civil rights victims, who are usually discouraged from pursuing litigation because of personal financial limitations, and offers the potential for effecting the greatest positive change for the greatest number of people affected by discriminatory practice in the workplace.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The General Commercial Litigation practice group provides contingency fee representation in complex business litigation and has obtained substantial recoveries on behalf of investors, corporations, bankruptcy trustees, creditor committees and other business entities. We have faced down powerful and well-funded law firms and defendants – and consistently prevailed. However, not every dispute is best resolved through the courts. In such cases, BLB&G Alternative Dispute practitioners offer clients an accomplished team and a creative venue in which to resolve conflicts outside of the litigation process. BLB&G has extensive experience – and a marked record of successes – in ADR practice. For example, in the wake of the credit crisis, we successfully represented numerous former executives of a major financial institution in arbitrations relating to claims for compensation. Our attorneys have led complex business-to-business arbitrations and mediations domestically and abroad representing clients before all the major arbitration tribunals, including the American Arbitration Association (AAA), FINRA, JAMS, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration.

DISTRESSED DEBT AND BANKRUPTCY CREDITOR NEGOTIATION The BLB&G Distressed Debt and Bankruptcy Creditor Negotiation Group has obtained billions of dollars through litigation on behalf of bondholders and creditors of distressed and bankrupt companies, as well as through third-party litigation brought by bankruptcy trustees and creditors’ committees against auditors, appraisers, lawyers, officers and directors, and other defendants who may have contributed to client losses. As counsel, we advise institutions and individuals nationwide in developing strategies and tactics to recover assets presumed lost as a result of bankruptcy. Our record in this practice area is characterized by extensive trial experience in addition to completion of successful settlements.

CONSUMER ADVOCACY The Consumer Advocacy Practice Group at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP prosecutes cases across the entire spectrum of consumer rights, consumer fraud, and consumer protection issues. The firm represents victimized consumers in state and federal courts nationwide in individual and class action lawsuits that seek to provide consumers and purchasers of defective products with a means to recover their damages. The attorneys in this group are well versed in the vast array of laws and regulations that govern consumer interests and are aggressive, effective, court-tested litigators. The Consumer Practice Advocacy Group has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for millions of consumers throughout the country. Most notably, in a number of cases, the firm has obtained recoveries for the class that were the entirety of the potential damages suffered by the consumer. For example, in actions against MCI and Empire Blue Cross, the firm recovered all of the damages suffered by the class. The group achieved its successes by advancing innovative claims and theories of liabilities, such as obtaining decisions in Pennsylvania and Illinois appellate courts that adopted a new theory of consumer damages in mass marketing cases. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is, thus, able to lead the way in protecting the rights of consumers.

5 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 50

THE COURTS SPEAK Throughout the firm’s history, many courts have recognized the professional excellence and diligence of the firm and its members. A few examples are set forth below.

IN RE WORLDCOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

THE HO NORABLE DENI S E COTE OF THE UNITE D STATES DISTRICT COU RT FOR THE SOUTHERN D ISTRICT OF NEW YORK

“I have the utmost confidence in plaintiffs’ counsel…they have been doing a superb job…. The Class is extraordinarily well represented in this litigation.”

“The magnitude of this settlement is attributable in significant part to Lead Counsel’s advocacy and energy…. The quality of the representation given by Lead Counsel...has been superb...and is unsurpassed in this Court’s experience with plaintiffs’ counsel in securities litigation.”

“Lead Counsel has been energetic and creative. . . . Its negotiations with the Citigroup Defendants have resulted in a settlement of historic proportions.”

IN RE CLARENT CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

THE HO NORABLE CH ARLES R. BREYER OF THE UNITED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTH ERN D ISTRICT OF CALIF ORNI A

”It was the best tried case I’ve witnessed in my years on the bench . . .”

“[A]n extraordinarily civilized way of presenting the issues to you [the jury]. . . . We’ve all been treated to great civility and the highest professional ethics in the presentation of the case….”

“These trial lawyers are some of the best I’ve ever seen.”

LANDRY’S RESTAURANTS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

VICE CHANCELLOR J. TRAVIS L ASTER OF THE D ELAWARE C OURT OF CHANCERY

”I do want to make a comment again about the excellent efforts . . . put into this case. . . . This case, I think, shows precisely the type of benefits that you can achieve for stockholders and how representative litigation can be a very important part of our corporate governance system . . . you hold up this case as an example of what to do.”

MCCALL V. SCOTT (COLUMBIA/HCA DERIVATIVE LITIGATION)

THE HO NORABLE TH OM AS A. HIGGINS OF THE UNITED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DISTRICT OF TENNESS EE

“Counsel’s excellent qualifications and reputations are well documented in the record, and they have litigated this complex case adeptly and tenaciously throughout the six years it has been pending. They assumed an enormous risk and have shown great patience by taking this case on a contingent basis, and despite an early setback they have persevered and brought about not only a large cash settlement but sweeping corporate reforms that may be invaluable to the beneficiaries.”

6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 50

RECENT ACTIONS & SIGNIFICANT RECOVERIES

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is counsel in many diverse nationwide class and individual actions and has obtained many of the largest and most significant recoveries in history. Some examples from our practice groups include:

SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS

CASE: IN RE W ORLDCOM, INC . SECURITIES LI TIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : $6.19 billion securities fraud class action recovery – the second largest in history; unprecedented recoveries from Director Defendants.

C A S E S UMMARY: Investors suffered massive losses in the wake of the financial fraud and subsequent bankruptcy of former telecom giant WorldCom, Inc. This litigation alleged that WorldCom and others disseminated false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding its earnings and financial condition in violation of the federal securities and other laws. It further alleged a nefarious relationship between Citigroup subsidiary Salomon Smith Barney and WorldCom, carried out primarily by Salomon employees involved in providing investment banking services to WorldCom, and by WorldCom’s former CEO and CFO. As Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel representing Lead Plaintiff the New York State Common Retirement Fund, we obtained unprecedented settlements totaling more than $6 billion from the Investment Bank Defendants who underwrote WorldCom bonds, including a $2.575 billion cash settlement to settle all claims against the Citigroup Defendants. On the eve of trial, the 13 remaining “Underwriter Defendants,” including J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and Bank of America, agreed to pay settlements totaling nearly $3.5 billion to resolve all claims against them. Additionally, the day before trial was scheduled to begin, all of the former WorldCom Director Defendants had agreed to pay over $60 million to settle the claims against them. An unprecedented first for outside directors, $24.75 million of that amount came out of the pockets of the individuals – 20% of their collective net worth. The Wall Street Journal, in its coverage, profiled the settlement as literally having “shaken Wall Street, the audit profession and corporate boardrooms.” After four weeks of trial, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom’s former auditor, settled for $65 million. Subsequent settlements were reached with the former executives of WorldCom, and then with Andersen, bringing the total obtained for the Class to over $6.19 billion.

CASE: IN RE CENDAN T C ORPORATION SECURI TIES LI TIGATI O N

C OURT : United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

H IGHLIGHTS : $3.3 billion securities fraud class action recovery – the third largest in history; significant corporate governance reforms obtained.

C A S E S UMMARY: The firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action against Cendant Corporation, its officers and directors and Ernst & Young (E&Y), its auditors, for their role in disseminating materially false and misleading financial statements concerning the company’s revenues, earnings and expenses for its 1997 fiscal year. As a result of company-wide accounting irregularities, Cendant restated its financial results for its 1995, 1996 and 1997 fiscal years and all fiscal quarters therein. Cendant agreed to settle the action for $2.8 billion to adopt some of the most extensive corporate governance changes in history. E&Y settled for $335 million. These settlements remain the largest sums ever recovered from a public company and a public accounting firm through securities class action litigation. BLB&G represented Lead Plaintiffs CalPERS – the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the New York State Common Retirement Fund and the New York City Pension Funds, the three largest public pension funds in America, in this action.

7 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 25 of 50

CASE: IN RE BA NK OF AMERICA C ORP. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND EMPLOYEE RE TI REMENT INC OME SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : $2.425 billion in cash; significant corporate governance reforms to resolve all claims. This recovery is by far the largest shareholder recovery related to the subprime meltdown and credit crisis; the single largest securities class action settlement ever resolving a Section 14(a) claim – the federal securities provision designed to protect investors against misstatements in connection with a proxy solicitation; the largest ever funded by a single corporate defendant for violations of the federal securities laws; the single largest settlement of a securities class action in which there was neither a financial restatement involved nor a criminal conviction related to the alleged misconduct; and one of the 10 largest securities class action recoveries in history.

D ESCRIPTION : The firm represented Co-Lead Plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas in this securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders of Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”) arising from BAC’s 2009 acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The action alleges that BAC, Merrill Lynch, and certain of the companies’ current and former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making a series of materially false statements and omissions in connection with the acquisition. These violations included the alleged failure to disclose information regarding billions of dollars of losses which Merrill had suffered before the BAC shareholder vote on the proposed acquisition, as well as an undisclosed agreement allowing Merrill to pay billions in bonuses before the acquisition closed despite these losses. Not privy to these material facts, BAC shareholders voted to approve the acquisition.

CASE: IN RE NO RTEL NE TWO RKS CORPORATION SECURI TIES LITIGA TIO N (“NO RTEL II”)

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : Over $1.07 billion in cash and common stock recovered for the class.

D ESCRIPTION : This securities fraud class action charged Nortel Networks Corporation and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements with respect to Nortel’s financial results during the relevant period. BLB&G clients the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board and the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs for the Class in one of two related actions (Nortel II), and BLB&G was appointed Lead Counsel for the Class. In a historic settlement, Nortel agreed to pay $2.4 billion in cash and Nortel common stock (all figures in US dollars) to resolve both matters. Nortel later announced that its insurers had agreed to pay $228.5 million toward the settlement, bringing the total amount of the global settlement to approximately $2.7 billion, and the total amount of the Nortel II settlement to over $1.07 billion.

CASE: IN RE MERCK & C O., INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court, District of New Jersey

H IGHLIGHTS : $1.06 billion recovery for the class.

D ESCRIPTION : This case arises out of misrepresentations and omissions concerning life-threatening risks posed by the “blockbuster” Cox-2 painkiller Vioxx, which Merck withdrew from the market in 2004. In January 2016, BLB&G achieved a $1.062 billion settlement on the eve of trial after more than 12 years of hard-fought litigation that included a successful decision at the United States Supreme Court. This settlement is the second largest recovery ever obtained in the Third Circuit, one of the top 11 securities recoveries of all time, and the largest securities recovery ever achieved against a pharmaceutical company. BLB&G represented Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi.

8 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 26 of 50

CASE: IN RE MC KESSON HBOC, I NC. SECURI TIES LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Northern District of California H IGHLIGHTS : $1.05 billion recovery for the class.

D ESCRIPTION : This securities fraud litigation was filed on behalf of purchasers of HBOC, McKesson and McKesson HBOC securities, alleging that Defendants misled the investing public concerning HBOC’s and McKesson HBOC’s financial results. On behalf of Lead Plaintiff the New York State Common Retirement Fund, BLB&G obtained a $960 million settlement from the company; $72.5 million in cash from Arthur Andersen; and, on the eve of trial, a $10 million settlement from Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., with total recoveries reaching more than $1 billion.

CASE: IN RE LEHMA N B RO THERS EQUITY/DEBT SECU RITIES LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : $735 million in total recoveries.

D ESCRIPTION : Representing the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, BLB&G successfully prosecuted this securities class action arising from Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s issuance of billions of dollars in offerings of debt and equity securities that were sold using offering materials that contained untrue statements and missing material information. After four years of intense litigation, Lead Plaintiffs achieved a total of $735 million in recoveries consisting of: a $426 million settlement with underwriters of Lehman securities offerings; a $90 million settlement with former Lehman directors and officers; a $99 million settlement that resolves claims against Ernst & Young, Lehman’s former auditor (considered one of the top 10 auditor settlements ever achieved); and a $120 million settlement that resolves claims against UBS Financial Services, Inc. This recovery is truly remarkable not only because of the difficulty in recovering assets when the issuer defendant is bankrupt, but also because no financial results were restated, and that the auditors never disavowed the statements.

CASE: HEALTHSOU TH C ORPORATION B ONDHOLDER LITIGA TION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

H IGHLIGHTS : $804.5 million in total recoveries.

D ESCRIPTION : In this litigation, BLB&G was the appointed Co-Lead Counsel for the bond holder class, representing Lead Plaintiff the Retirement Systems of Alabama. This action arose from allegations that Birmingham, Alabama based HealthSouth Corporation overstated its earnings at the direction of its founder and former CEO Richard Scrushy. Subsequent revelations disclosed that the overstatement actually exceeded over $2.4 billion, virtually wiping out all of HealthSouth’s reported profits for the prior five years. A total recovery of $804.5 million was obtained in this litigation through a series of settlements, including an approximately $445 million settlement for shareholders and bondholders, a $100 million in cash settlement from UBS AG, UBS Warburg LLC, and individual UBS Defendants (collectively, “UBS”), and $33.5 million in cash from the company’s auditor. The total settlement for injured HealthSouth bond purchasers exceeded $230 million, recouping over a third of bond purchaser damages.

9 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 27 of 50

CASE: IN RE CITIGROUP, INC. BO ND ACTI ON LITIGA TIO N

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : $730 million cash recovery; second largest recovery in a litigation arising from the financial crisis.

D ESCRIPTION : In the years prior to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Citigroup issued 48 offerings of preferred stock and bonds. This securities fraud class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup bonds and preferred stock alleging that these offerings contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Citigroup’s exposure to billions of dollars in mortgage- related assets, the loss reserves for its portfolio of high-risk residential mortgage loans, and the credit quality of the risky assets it held in off-balance sheet entities known as “structured investment vehicles.” After protracted litigation lasting four years, we obtained a $730 million cash recovery – the second largest securities class action recovery in a litigation arising from the financial crisis, and the second largest recovery ever in a securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of debt securities. As Lead Bond Counsel for the Class, BLB&G represented Lead Bond Plaintiffs Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, and Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund.

CASE: IN RE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the District of Arizona

H IGHLIGHTS : Over $750 million – the largest securities fraud settlement ever achieved at the time.

D ESCRIPTION : BLB&G was appointed Chair of the Executive Committee responsible for litigating the action on behalf of the class in this action. The case was litigated for over seven years, and involved an estimated 200 million pages of documents produced in discovery; the depositions of 285 fact witnesses and 34 expert witnesses; more than 25,000 introduced exhibits; six published district court opinions; seven appeals or attempted appeals to the Ninth Circuit; and a three-month jury trial, which resulted in a settlement of over $750 million – then the largest securities fraud settlement ever achieved.

CASE: IN RE SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION/ENHANCE SECURITIES LITIGATION; IN RE MERCK & CO., I NC. VYTORIN/ZETIA SECU RITIES LI TI GATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

H IGHLIGHTS : $688 million in combined settlements (Schering-Plough settled for $473 million; Merck settled for $215 million) in this coordinated securities fraud litigations filed on behalf of investors in Merck and Schering-Plough.

D ESCRIPTION : After nearly five years of intense litigation, just days before trial, BLB&G resolved the two actions against Merck and Schering-Plough, which stemmed from claims that Merck and Schering artificially inflated their market value by concealing material information and making false and misleading statements regarding their blockbuster anti-cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin. Specifically, we alleged that the companies knew that their “ENHANCE” clinical trial of Vytorin (a combination of Zetia and a generic) demonstrated that Vytorin was no more effective than the cheaper generic at reducing artery thickness. The companies nonetheless championed the “benefits” of their drugs, attracting billions of dollars of capital. When public pressure to release the results of the ENHANCE trial became too great, the companies reluctantly announced these negative results, which we alleged led to sharp declines in the value of the companies’ securities, resulting in significant losses to investors. The combined $688 million in settlements (Schering- Plough settled for $473 million; Merck settled for $215 million) is the second largest securities recovery ever in the Third Circuit, among the top 25 settlements of all time, and among the ten largest recoveries ever in a case where there was no financial restatement. BLB&G represented Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System.

10 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 28 of 50

CASE: IN RE LUCEN T TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECU RITIES LI TI GATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

H IGHLIGHTS : $667 million in total recoveries; the appointment of BLB&G as Co-Lead Counsel is especially noteworthy as it marked the first time since the 1995 passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that a court reopened the lead plaintiff or lead counsel selection process to account for changed circumstances, new issues and possible conflicts between new and old allegations.

D ESCRIPTION : BLB&G served as Co-Lead Counsel in this securities class action, representing Lead Plaintiffs the Parnassus Fund, Teamsters Locals 175 & 505 D&P Pension Trust, Anchorage Police and Fire Retirement System and the Louisiana School Employees’ Retirement System. The complaint accused Lucent of making false and misleading statements to the investing public concerning its publicly reported financial results and failing to disclose the serious problems in its optical networking business. When the truth was disclosed, Lucent admitted that it had improperly recognized revenue of nearly $679 million in fiscal 2000. The settlement obtained in this case is valued at approximately $667 million, and is composed of cash, stock and warrants.

CASE: IN RE W ACHO VIA PREFE RRED SECURITIES AND BOND/NO TES LITIGA TIO N

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : $627 million recovery – among the 20 largest securities class action recoveries in history; third largest recovery obtained in an action arising from the subprime mortgage crisis.

D ESCRIPTION : This securities class action was filed on behalf of investors in certain Wachovia bonds and preferred securities against Wachovia Corp., certain former officers and directors, various underwriters, and its auditor, KPMG LLP. The case alleges that Wachovia provided offering materials that misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the nature and quality of Wachovia’s multi-billion dollar option-ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) “Pick-A-Pay” mortgage loan portfolio, and that Wachovia’s loan loss reserves were materially inadequate. According to the Complaint, these undisclosed problems threatened the viability of the financial institution, requiring it to be “bailed out” during the financial crisis before it was acquired by Wells Fargo. The combined $627 million recovery obtained in the action is among the 20 largest securities class action recoveries in history, the largest settlement ever in a class action case asserting only claims under the Securities Act of 1933, and one of a handful of securities class action recoveries obtained where there were no parallel civil or criminal actions brought by government authorities. The firm represented Co-Lead Plaintiffs Orange County Employees Retirement System and Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund in this action.

CASE: BEAR S TEARNS MO RTGAGE PASS-TH ROUGH LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : $500 million recovery - the largest recovery ever on behalf of purchasers of residential mortgage- backed securities.

D ESCRIPTION : BLB&G served as Co-Lead Counsel in this securities action, representing Lead Plaintiffs the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi. The case alleged that Bear Stearns & Company, Inc.’s sold mortgage pass-through certificates using false and misleading offering documents. The offering documents contained false and misleading statements related to, among other things, (1) the underwriting guidelines used to originate the mortgage loans underlying the certificates; and (2) the accuracy of the appraisals for the properties underlying the certificates. After six years of hard-fought litigation and extensive arm’s-length negotiations, the $500 million recovery is the largest settlement in a U.S. class action against a bank that packaged and sold mortgage securities at the center of the 2008 financial crisis.

11 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 29 of 50

CASE: GA RY HEFLER ET AL. V. W ELLS FARGO & COMPANY ET AL

C OURT : United States District Court for the Northern District of California

H IGHLIGHTS : $480 million recovery - the fourth largest securities settlement ever achieved in the Ninth Circuit and the 31st largest securities settlement ever in the United States.

D ESCRIPTION : BLB&G served as Lead Counsel for the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding, AG in this action, which alleged that Wells Fargo and certain current and former officers and directors of Wells Fargo made a series of materially false statements and omissions in connection with Wells Fargo’s secret creation of fake or unauthorized client accounts in order to hit performance-based compensation goals. After years of presenting a business driven by legitimate growth prospects, U.S. regulators revealed in September 2016 that Wells Fargo employees were secretly opening millions of potentially unauthorized accounts for existing Wells Fargo customers. The Complaint alleged that these accounts were opened in order to hit performance targets and inflate the “cross-sell” metrics that investors used to measure Wells Fargo’s financial health and anticipated growth. When the market learned the truth about Wells Fargo’s violation of its customers’ trust and failure to disclose reliable information to its investors, the price of Wells Fargo’s stock dropped, causing substantial investor losses.

CASE: OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETI REMENT SYSTEM V. F REDDIE MAC

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

H IGHLIGHTS : $410 million settlement.

D ESCRIPTION : This securities fraud class action was filed on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio alleging that Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and certain of its current and former officers issued false and misleading statements in connection with the company’s previously reported financial results. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Defendants misrepresented the company’s operations and financial results by having engaged in numerous improper transactions and accounting machinations that violated fundamental GAAP precepts in order to artificially smooth the company’s earnings and to hide earnings volatility. In connection with these improprieties, Freddie Mac restated more than $5 billion in earnings. A settlement of $410 million was reached in the case just as deposition discovery had begun and document review was complete.

CASE: IN RE REFCO, INC. SECU RI TIES LITIGA TIO N

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : Over $407 million in total recoveries.

D ESCRIPTION : The lawsuit arises from the revelation that Refco, a once prominent brokerage, had for years secreted hundreds of millions of dollars of uncollectible receivables with a related entity controlled by Phillip Bennett, the company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. This revelation caused the stunning collapse of the company a mere two months after its initial public offering of common stock. As a result, Refco filed one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history. Settlements have been obtained from multiple company and individual defendants, resulting in a total recovery for the class of over $407 million. BLB&G represented Co-Lead Plaintiff RH Capital Associates LLC.

12 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 30 of 50

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND SHAREHOLDERS’ RIGHTS

CASE: CITY OF MONROE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC. V. RUPERT MURDOCH, ET AL.

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery

H IGHLIGHTS : Landmark derivative litigation establishes unprecedented, independent Board-level council to ensure employees are protected from workplace harassment while recouping $90 million for the company’s coffers.

D ESCRIPTION : Before the birth of the #metoo movement, BLB&G led the prosecution of an unprecedented shareholder derivative litigation against Fox News parent 21st Century Fox, Inc. arising from the systemic sexual and workplace harassment at the embattled network. After nearly 18 months of litigation, discovery and negotiation related to the shocking misconduct and the Board’s extensive alleged governance failures, the parties unveil a landmark settlement with two key components: 1) the first ever Board-level watchdog of its kind – the “Fox News Workplace Professionalism and Inclusion Council” of experts (WPIC) – majority independent of the Murdochs, the Company and Board; and 2) one of the largest financial recoveries – $90 million – ever obtained in a pure corporate board oversight dispute. The WPIC is expected to serve as a model for public companies in all industries. The firm represented 21st Century Fox shareholder the City of Monroe (Michigan) Employees’ Retirement System.

CASE: IN RE ALLERGAN, INC. PR O XY VIOLATI ON SECUR ITIES LITIGATION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Central District of California

H IGHLIGHTS : Litigation recovered over $250 million for investors in challenging unprecedented insider trading scheme by billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.

D ESCRIPTION : As alleged in groundbreaking litigation, billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and his Pershing Square Capital Management fund secretly acquire a near 10% stake in pharmaceutical concern Allergan, Inc. as part of an unprecedented insider trading scheme by Ackman and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. What Ackman knew – but investors did not – was that in the ensuing weeks, Valeant would be launching a hostile bid to acquire Allergan shares at a far higher price. Ackman enjoys a massive instantaneous profit upon public news of the proposed acquisition, and the scheme works for both parties as he kicks back hundreds of millions of his insider-trading proceeds to Valeant after Allergan agreed to be bought by a rival bidder. After a ferocious three-year legal battle over this attempt to circumvent the spirit of the U.S. securities laws, BLB&G obtains a $250 million settlement for Allergan investors, and creates precedent to prevent similar such schemes in the future. The Plaintiffs in this action were the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, and Patrick T. Johnson.

13 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 31 of 50

CASE: UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIV A TIVE LI TIGATI ON

C OURT : United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

H IGHLIGHTS : Litigation recovered over $920 million in ill-gotten compensation directly from former officers for their roles in illegally backdating stock options, while the company agreed to far-reaching reforms aimed at curbing future executive compensation abuses.

D ESCRIPTION : This shareholder derivative action filed against certain current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. alleged that the Defendants obtained, approved and/or acquiesced in the issuance of stock options to senior executives that were unlawfully backdated to provide the recipients with windfall compensation at the direct expense of UnitedHealth and its shareholders. The firm recovered over $920 million in ill-gotten compensation directly from the former officer Defendants – the largest derivative recovery in history. As feature coverage in The New York Times indicated, “investors everywhere should applaud [the UnitedHealth settlement]…. [T]he recovery sets a standard of behavior for other companies and boards when performance pay is later shown to have been based on ephemeral earnings.” The Plaintiffs in this action were the St. Paul Teachers’ Retirement Fund Association, the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, the Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado.

CASE: CAREMARK MERGER LITIG ATIO N

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery – New Castle County

H IGHLIGHTS : Landmark Court ruling orders Caremark’s board to disclose previously withheld information, enjoins shareholder vote on CVS merger offer, and grants statutory appraisal rights to Caremark shareholders. The litigation ultimately forced CVS to raise offer by $7.50 per share, equal to more than $3.3 billion in additional consideration to Caremark shareholders.

D ESCRIPTION : Commenced on behalf of the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and other shareholders of Caremark RX, Inc. (“Caremark”), this shareholder class action accused the company’s directors of violating their fiduciary duties by approving and endorsing a proposed merger with CVS Corporation (“CVS”), all the while refusing to fairly consider an alternative transaction proposed by another bidder. In a landmark decision, the Court ordered the Defendants to disclose material information that had previously been withheld, enjoined the shareholder vote on the CVS transaction until the additional disclosures occurred, and granted statutory appraisal rights to Caremark’s shareholders—forcing CVS to increase the consideration offered to shareholders by $7.50 per share in cash (over $3 billion in total).

CASE: IN RE PFIZE R INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIV ATIVE LITIGA TION

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : Landmark settlement in which Defendants agreed to create a new Regulatory and Compliance Committee of the Pfizer Board that will be supported by a dedicated $75 million fund.

D ESCRIPTION : In the wake of Pfizer’s agreement to pay $2.3 billion as part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve civil and criminal charges relating to the illegal marketing of at least 13 of the company’s most important drugs (the largest such fine ever imposed), this shareholder derivative action was filed against Pfizer’s senior management and Board alleging they breached their fiduciary duties to Pfizer by, among other things, allowing unlawful promotion of drugs to continue after receiving numerous “red flags” that Pfizer’s improper drug marketing was systemic and widespread. The suit was brought by Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund and Skandia Life Insurance Company, Ltd. In an unprecedented settlement reached by the parties, the Defendants agreed to create a new Regulatory

14 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 32 of 50

and Compliance Committee of the Pfizer Board of Directors (the “Regulatory Committee”) to oversee and monitor Pfizer’s compliance and drug marketing practices and to review the compensation policies for Pfizer’s drug sales related employees.

CASE: MILLER ET A. V. IAC/INTERACTIVECO RP ET AL.

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery

H IGHLIGHTS : Litigation shuts down efforts by controlling shareholders to obtain “dynastic control” of the company through improper stock class issuances, setting valuable precedent and sending strong message to boards and management in all sectors that such moves will not go unchallenged.

D ESCRIPTION : BLB&G obtained this landmark victory for shareholder rights against IAC/InterActiveCorp and its controlling shareholder and chairman, Barry Diller. For decades, activist corporate founders and controllers seek ways to entrench their position atop the corporate hierarchy by granting themselves and other insiders “supervoting rights.” Diller lays out a proposal to introduce a new class of non- voting stock to entrench “dynastic control” of IAC within the Diller family. BLB&G litigation on behalf of IAC shareholders ends in capitulation with the Defendants effectively conceding the case by abandoning the proposal. This becomes critical corporate governance precedent, given trend of public companies to introduce “low” and “no-vote” share classes, which diminish shareholder rights, insulate management from accountability, and can distort managerial incentives by providing controllers voting power out of line with their actual economic interests in public companies.

CASE: IN RE DELPHI FINA NCIAL GR OUP SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery – New Castle County

H IGHLIGHTS : Dominant shareholder is blocked from collecting a payoff at the expense of minority investors.

D ESCRIPTION : As the Delphi Financial Group prepared to be acquired by Tokio Marine Holdings Inc., the conduct of Delphi’s founder and controlling shareholder drew the scrutiny of BLB&G and its institutional investor clients for improperly using the transaction to expropriate at least $55 million at the expense of the public shareholders. BLB&G aggressively litigated this action and obtained a settlement of $49 million for Delphi’s public shareholders. The settlement fund is equal to about 90% of recoverable Class damages – a virtually unprecedented recovery.

CASE: QUALCOMM B OOKS & REC ORDS LITIGA TIO N

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery – New Castle County

H IGHLIGHTS : Novel use of “books and records” litigation enhances disclosure of political spending and transparency.

D ESCRIPTION : The U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 opinion in Citizens United v. FEC made it easier for corporate directors and executives to secretly use company funds – shareholder assets – to support personally favored political candidates or causes. BLB&G prosecuted the first-ever “books and records” litigation to obtain disclosure of corporate political spending at our client’s portfolio company – technology giant Qualcomm Inc. – in response to Qualcomm’s refusal to share the information. As a result of the lawsuit, Qualcomm adopted a policy that provides its shareholders with comprehensive disclosures regarding the company’s political activities and places Qualcomm as a standard-bearer for other companies.

15 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 33 of 50

CASE: IN RE NEWS CORP. S HAREHOLDER DER IVATIVE LITIGATION

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery – Kent County

H IGHLIGHTS : An unprecedented settlement in which News Corp. recoups $139 million and enacts significant corporate governance reforms that combat self-dealing in the boardroom.

D ESCRIPTION : Following News Corp.’s 2011 acquisition of a company owned by News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, and the phone-hacking scandal within its British newspaper division, we filed a derivative litigation on behalf of the company because of institutional shareholder concern with the conduct of News Corp.’s management. We ultimately obtained an unprecedented settlement in which News Corp. recouped $139 million for the company coffers, and agreed to enact corporate governance enhancements to strengthen its compliance structure, the independence and functioning of its board, and the compensation and clawback policies for management.

CASE: IN RE ACS SHAREHOLDER LITIGA TIO N (XEROX )

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery – New Castle County

H IGHLIGHTS : BLB&G challenged an attempt by ACS CEO to extract a premium on his stock not shared with the company’s public shareholders in a sale of ACS to Xerox. On the eve of trial, BLB&G obtained a $69 million recovery, with a substantial portion of the settlement personally funded by the CEO.

D ESCRIPTION : Filed on behalf of the New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System and similarly situated shareholders of Affiliated Computer Service, Inc., this action alleged that members of the Board of Directors of ACS breached their fiduciary duties by approving a merger with Xerox Corporation which would allow Darwin Deason, ACS’s founder and Chairman and largest stockholder, to extract hundreds of millions of dollars of value that rightfully belongs to ACS’s public shareholders for himself. Per the agreement, Deason’s consideration amounted to over a 50% premium when compared to the consideration paid to ACS’s public stockholders. The ACS Board further breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to certain deal protections in the merger agreement that essentially locked up the transaction between ACS and Xerox. After seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the deal and engaging in intense discovery and litigation in preparation for a looming trial date, Plaintiffs reached a global settlement with Defendants for $69 million. In the settlement, Deason agreed to pay $12.8 million, while ACS agreed to pay the remaining $56.1 million.

CASE: IN RE DOLLAR GENERAL C ORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LI TIGATI ON

C OURT : Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee; Twentieth Judicial District, Nashville

H IGHLIGHTS : Holding Board accountable for accepting below-value “going private” offer.

D ESCRIPTION : A Nashville, Tennessee corporation that operates retail stores selling discounted household goods, in early March 2007, Dollar General announced that its Board of Directors had approved the acquisition of the company by the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (“KKR”). BLB&G, as Co-Lead Counsel for the City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust, filed a class action complaint alleging that the “going private” offer was approved as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty by the board and that the price offered by KKR did not reflect the fair value of Dollar General’s publicly-held shares. On the eve of the summary judgment hearing, KKR agreed to pay a $40 million settlement in favor of the shareholders, with a potential for $17 million more for the Class.

16 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 34 of 50

CASE: LANDRY ’S RESTAURANTS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LI TIGA TION

C OURT : Delaware Court of Chancery – New Castle County

H IGHLIGHTS : Protecting shareholders from predatory CEO’s multiple attempts to take control of Landry’s Restaurants through improper means. Our litigation forced the CEO to increase his buyout offer by four times the price offered and obtained an additional $14.5 million cash payment for the class.

D ESCRIPTION : In this derivative and shareholder class action, shareholders alleged that Tilman J. Fertitta – chairman, CEO and largest shareholder of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. – and its Board of Directors stripped public shareholders of their controlling interest in the company for no premium and severely devalued remaining public shares in breach of their fiduciary duties. BLB&G’s prosecution of the action on behalf of Plaintiff Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System resulted in recoveries that included the creation of a settlement fund composed of $14.5 million in cash, as well as significant corporate governance reforms and an increase in consideration to shareholders of the purchase price valued at $65 million.

17 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 35 of 50

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS

CASE: ROBE RTS V. TEXACO, INC.

C OURT : United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

H IGHLIGHTS : BLB&G recovered $170 million on behalf of Texaco’s African-American employees and engineered the creation of an independent “Equality and Tolerance Task Force” at the company.

D ESCRIPTION : Six highly qualified African-American employees filed a class action complaint against Texaco Inc. alleging that the company failed to promote African-American employees to upper level jobs and failed to compensate them fairly in relation to Caucasian employees in similar positions. BLB&G’s prosecution of the action revealed that African-Americans were significantly under- represented in high level management jobs and that Caucasian employees were promoted more frequently and at far higher rates for comparable positions within the company. The case settled for over $170 million, and Texaco agreed to a Task Force to monitor its diversity programs for five years – a settlement described as the most significant race discrimination settlement in history.

CASE: ECOA - GMAC/NMAC/FORD/TOYOTA /CH RYSLER - CONSUMER FIN ANCE DISCRIMINATION LI TIGATI ON

C OURT : Multiple jurisdictions

H IGHLIGHTS : Landmark litigation in which financing arms of major auto manufacturers are compelled to cease discriminatory “kick-back” arrangements with dealers, leading to historic changes to auto financing practices nationwide.

D ESCRIPTION : The cases involve allegations that the lending practices of General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, Ford Motor Credit, Toyota Motor Credit and DaimlerChrysler Financial cause African-American and Hispanic car buyers to pay millions of dollars more for car loans than similarly situated white buyers. At issue is a discriminatory kickback system under which minorities typically pay about 50% more in dealer mark-up which is shared by auto dealers with the Defendants. NMAC: The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted final approval of the settlement of the class action against Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (“NMAC”) in which NMAC agreed to offer pre-approved loans to hundreds of thousands of current and potential African-American and Hispanic NMAC customers, and limit how much it raises the interest charged to car buyers above the company’s minimum acceptable rate. GMAC: The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted final approval of a settlement of the litigation against General Motors Acceptance Corporation (“GMAC”) in which GMAC agreed to take the historic step of imposing a 2.5% markup cap on loans with terms up to 60 months, and a cap of 2% on extended term loans. GMAC also agreed to institute a substantial credit pre-approval program designed to provide special financing rates to minority car buyers with special rate financing. DAIMLERC HRYSLER: The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval of the settlement in which DaimlerChrysler agreed to implement substantial changes to the company’s practices, including limiting the maximum amount of mark-up dealers may charge customers to between 1.25% and 2.5% depending upon the length of the customer’s loan. In addition, the company agreed to send out pre-approved credit offers of no-markup loans to African-American and Hispanic consumers, and contribute $1.8 million to provide consumer education and assistance programs on credit financing. FORD MO TO R CREDIT : The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of a settlement in which Ford Credit agreed to make contract disclosures informing consumers that the customer’s Annual Percentage Rate (“APR”) may be negotiated and that sellers may assign their contracts and retain rights to receive a portion of the finance charge.

18 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 36 of 50

CLIENTS AND FEES

We are firm believers in the contingency fee as a socially useful, productive and satisfying basis of compensation for legal services, particularly in litigation. Wherever appropriate, even with our corporate clients, we will encourage retention where our fee is contingent on the outcome of the litigation. This way, it is not the number of hours worked that will determine our fee, but rather the result achieved for our client.

Our clients include many large and well known financial and lending institutions and pension funds, as well as privately-held companies that are attracted to our firm because of our reputation, expertise and fee structure. Most of the firm’s clients are referred by other clients, law firms and lawyers, bankers, investors and accountants. A considerable number of clients have been referred to the firm by former adversaries. We have always maintained a high level of independence and discretion in the cases we decide to prosecute. As a result, the level of personal satisfaction and commitment to our work is high.

19 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 37 of 50

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is guided by two principles: excellence in legal work and a belief that the law should serve a socially useful and dynamic purpose. Attorneys at the firm are active in academic, community and pro bono activities, as well as participating as speakers and contributors to professional organizations. In addition, the firm endows a public interest law fellowship and sponsors an academic scholarship at Columbia Law School.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FELLOWS COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL − BLB&G is committed to fighting discrimination and effecting positive social change. In support of this commitment, the firm donated funds to Columbia Law School to create the Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann Public Interest Law Fellowship. This newly endowed fund at Columbia Law School will provide Fellows with 100% of the funding needed to make payments on their law school tuition loans so long as such graduates remain in the public interest law field. The BLB&G Fellows are able to begin their careers free of any school debt if they make a long-term commitment to public interest law.

FIRM SPONSORSHIP OF HER JUSTICE NEW YORK, NY − BLB&G is a sponsor of Her Justice, a non-profit organization in New York City dedicated to providing pro bono legal representation to indigent women, principally battered women, in connection with the myriad legal problems they face. The organization trains and supports the efforts of New York lawyers who provide pro bono counsel to these women. Several members and associates of the firm volunteer their time to help women who need divorces from abusive spouses, or representation on issues such as child support, custody and visitation. To read more about Her Justice, visit the organization’s website at www.herjustice.org.

THE PAUL M. BERNSTEIN MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL − Paul M. Bernstein was the founding senior partner of the firm. Mr. Bernstein led a distinguished career as a lawyer and teacher and was deeply committed to the professional and personal development of young lawyers. The Paul M. Bernstein Memorial Scholarship Fund is a gift of the firm and the family and friends of Paul M. Bernstein, and is awarded annually to one or more second-year students selected for their academic excellence in their first year, professional responsibility, financial need and contributions to the community.

FIRM SPONSORSHIP OF CITY YEAR NEW YORK NEW YORK, NY − BLB&G is also an active supporter of City Year New York, a division of AmeriCorps. The program was founded in 1988 as a means of encouraging young people to devote time to public service and unites a diverse group of volunteers for a demanding year of full-time community service, leadership development and civic engagement. Through their service, corps members experience a rite of passage that can inspire a lifetime of citizenship and build a stronger democracy.

MAX W. BERGER PRE-LAW PROGRAM BARUCH COLLEGE − In order to encourage outstanding minority undergraduates to pursue a meaningful career in the legal profession, the Max W. Berger Pre-Law Program was established at Baruch College. Providing workshops, seminars, counseling and mentoring to Baruch students, the program facilitates and guides them through the law school research and application process, as well as placing them in appropriate internships and other pre-law working environments.

NEW YORK SAYS THANK YOU FOUNDATION NEW YORK, NY − Founded in response to the outpouring of love shown to New York City by volunteers from all over the country in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, The New York Says Thank You Foundation sends volunteers from New York City to help rebuild communities around the country affected by disasters. BLB&G is a corporate sponsor of NYSTY and its goals are a heartfelt reflection of the firm’s focus on community and activism.

20 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 38 of 50

OUR ATTORNEYS

MEMBERS

MAX W. BERGER, the firm’s senior founding partner, has grown BLB&G from a partnership of four lawyers in 1983 into what the Financial Times described as “one of the most powerful securities class action law firms in the United States” by prosecuting seminal cases which have increased market transparency, held wrongdoers accountable, and improved corporate business practices in groundbreaking ways.

Described by sources quoted in leading industry publication Chambers USA as “the smartest, most strategic plaintiffs’ lawyer [they have] ever encountered,” Max has litigated many of the firm’s most high-profile and significant cases and secured some of the largest recoveries ever achieved in securities fraud lawsuits, negotiating seven of the largest securities fraud settlements in history, each in excess of a billion dollars: Cendant ($3.3 billion), Citigroup-WorldCom ($2.575 billion), Bank of America/Merrill Lynch ($2.4 billion), JPMorgan Chase-WorldCom ($2 billion), Nortel ($1.07 billion), Merck ($1.06 billion), and McKesson ($1.05 billion). Max’s prosecution of the WorldCom litigation, which resulted in unprecedented monetary contributions from WorldCom’s outside directors (nearly $25 million out of their own pockets on top of their insurance coverage) “shook Wall Street, the audit profession and corporate boardrooms.” (The Wall Street Journal)

Max’s cases have resulted in sweeping corporate governance overhauls, including the creation of an independent task force to oversee and monitor diversity practices (Texaco discrimination litigation), establishing an industry-accepted definition of director independence, increasing a board’s power and responsibility to oversee internal controls and financial reporting (Columbia/ HCA), and creating a Healthcare Law Regulatory Committee with dedicated funding to improve the standard for regulatory compliance oversight by a public company board of directors (Pfizer). His cases have yielded results which have served as models for public companies going forward.

Most recently, before the #metoo movement came alive, on behalf of an institutional investor client, Max handled the prosecution of an unprecedented shareholder derivative litigation against Fox News parent 21st Century Fox, Inc. arising from the systemic sexual and workplace harassment at the embattled network. After nearly 18 months of litigation, discovery, and negotiation related to the shocking misconduct and the Board’s extensive alleged governance failures, the parties unveiled a landmark settlement with two key components: 1) the first ever Board-level watchdog of its kind – the “Fox News Workplace Professionalism and Inclusion Council” of experts (WPIC) – majority independent of the Murdochs, the Company and Board; and 2) one of the largest financial recoveries – $90 million – ever obtained in a pure corporate board oversight dispute. The WPIC is expected to serve as a model for public companies in all industries.

Max’s work has garnered him extensive media attention, and he has been the subject of feature articles in a variety of major media publications. The New York Times highlighted his remarkable track record in an October 2012 profile entitled “Investors’ Billion-Dollar Fraud Fighter,” which also discussed his role in the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Merger litigation. In 2011, Max was twice profiled by The American Lawyer for his role in negotiating a $627 million recovery on behalf of investors in the In re Wachovia Corp. Securities Litigation, and a $516 million recovery in In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation. For his outstanding efforts on behalf of WorldCom investors, he was featured in articles in BusinessWeek and The American Lawyer, and The National Law Journal profiled Max (one of only eleven attorneys selected nationwide) in its annual 2005 “Winning Attorneys” section. He was subsequently featured in a 2006 New York Times article, “A Class-Action Shuffle,” which assessed the evolving landscape of the securities litigation arena.

21 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 39 of 50

One of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America”

Widely recognized as the “Dean” of the US plaintiff securities bar for his remarkable career and his professional excellence, Max has a distinguished and unparalleled list of honors to his name. • He was selected as one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America” by The National Law Journal for being “front and center” in holding Wall Street banks accountable and obtaining over $5 billion in cases arising from the subprime meltdown, and for his work as a “master negotiator” in obtaining numerous multi-billion dollar recoveries for investors. • Described as a “standard-bearer” for the profession in a career spanning over 40 years, he was the recipient of Chambers USA’s award for Outstanding Contribution to the Legal Profession. In presenting this prestigious honor, Chambers recognized Max’s “numerous headline- grabbing successes,” as well as his unique stature among colleagues – “warmly lauded by his peers, who are nevertheless loath to find him on the other side of the table.” Max has been recognized as a litigation “star” and leading lawyer in his field by Chambers since its inception. • Benchmark Litigation recently inducted him into its exclusive “Hall of Fame” in recognition of his career achievements and impact on the field of securities litigation. • Upon its tenth anniversary, Lawdragon named Max a “Lawdragon Legend” for his accomplishments. He was recently inducted into Lawdragon’s ”Hall of Fame.” He is regularly included in the publication’s “500 Leading Lawyers in America” and “100 Securities Litigators You Need to Know” lists. • Law360 published a special feature discussing his life and career as a “Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar,” named him one of only six litigators selected nationally as a “Legal MVP,” and selected him as one of “10 Legal Superstars” nationally for his work in securities litigation. • Max has been regularly named a “leading lawyer” in the Legal 500 US Guide, as well as The Best Lawyers in America® guide. • Max was honored for his outstanding contribution to the public interest by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, which named him a “Trial Lawyer of the Year” Finalist in 1997 for his work in Roberts, et al. v. Texaco, the celebrated race discrimination case, on behalf of Texaco’s African-American employees.

Max has lectured extensively for many professional organizations, and is the author and co-author of numerous articles on developments in the securities laws and their implications for public policy. He was chosen, along with several of his BLB&G partners, to author the first chapter – “Plaintiffs’ Perspective” – of Lexis/Nexis’s seminal industry guide Litigating Securities Class Actions. An esteemed voice on all sides of the legal and financial markets, in 2008 the SEC and Treasury called on Max to provide guidance on regulatory changes being considered as the accounting profession was experiencing tectonic shifts shortly before the financial crisis.

Max also serves the academic community in numerous capacities. A long-time member of the Board of Trustees of Baruch College, he served as the President of the Baruch College Fund from 2015-2019 and now serves as its Chairman. In May 2006, he was presented with the Distinguished Alumnus Award for his contributions to Baruch College, and in 2019, was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree at Baruch’s commencement, the highest honor Baruch College confers upon an individual for non-academic achievement. The award recognized his decades-long dedication to the mission and vision of the College, and in bestowing it, Baruch described Max as “one of the most influential individuals in the history of Baruch College.”

A member of the Dean’s Council to Columbia Law School, Max has taught Profession of Law, an ethics course at Columbia Law School, and serves on the Advisory Board of Columbia Law School’s Center on Corporate Governance. In February 2011, Max received Columbia Law School’s most prestigious and highest honor, “The Medal for Excellence.” This award is presented

22 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 40 of 50

annually to Columbia Law School alumni who exemplify the qualities of character, intellect, and social and professional responsibility that the Law School seeks to instill in its students. As a recipient of this award, Max was profiled in the Fall 2011 issue of Columbia Law School Magazine. Max is a member of the American Law Institute and an Advisor to its Restatement Third: Economic Torts project.

Among numerous charitable and volunteer works, Max is a significant and long-time contributor to Her Justice, a non-profit organization in New York City dedicated to providing pro bono legal representation to indigent women, principally battered women, in connection with the many legal problems they face. He is also an active supporter of City Year New York, a division of AmeriCorps, dedicated to encouraging young people to devote time to public service. In July 2005, he was named City Year New York’s “Idealist of the Year,” for his commitment to, service for, and work in the community. A celebrated photographer, Max has held two successful photography shows that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for City Year and Her Justice. He and his wife, Dale, have also established the Dale and Max Berger Public Interest Law Fellowship at Columbia Law School and the Max Berger Pre-Law Program at Baruch College.

EDUCATION: Baruch College-City University of New York, B.B.A., Accounting, 1968; President of the student body and recipient of numerous awards. Columbia Law School, J.D., 1971, Editor of the Columbia Survey of Human Rights Law.

BAR ADMISSIONS: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court.

GERALD H. SILK’S practice focuses on representing institutional investors on matters involving federal and state securities laws, accountants’ liability, and the fiduciary duties of corporate officials, as well as general commercial and corporate litigation. He also advises creditors on their rights with respect to pursuing affirmative claims against officers and directors, as well as professionals both inside and outside the bankruptcy context.

Jerry is a member of the firm’s Management Committee. He also oversees the firm’s New Matter department in which he, along with a group of attorneys, financial analysts and investigators, counsels institutional clients on potential legal claims. In December 2014, Jerry was recognized by The National Law Journal in its inaugural list of “Litigation Trailblazers & Pioneers” – one of several lawyers in the country who have changed the practice of litigation through the use of innovative legal strategies – in no small part for the critical role he has played in helping the firm’s investor clients recover billions of dollars in litigation arising from the financial crisis, among other matters.

In addition, Lawdragon magazine, which has named Jerry one of the “100 Securities Litigators You Need to Know,” one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America,” and one of America’s top 500 “Rising Stars” in the legal profession, also profiled him as part of its “Lawyer Limelight” special series, discussing subprime litigation, his passion for plaintiffs’ work and the trends he expects to see in the market. Recognized as one of an elite group of notable practitioners, Chambers USA ranked Jerry nationally “for his expertise in a range of cases on the plaintiff side.” He is also named as a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark, is recommended by the Legal 500 USA guide in the field of plaintiffs’ securities litigation, and has been selected by Thomson Reuters as a Super Lawyer every year since 2006.

In the wake of the financial crisis, he advised the firm’s institutional investor clients on their rights with respect to claims involving transactions in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). His work representing Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. on claims under Massachusetts state law against numerous investment banks arising from the purchase of billions of dollars of RMBS was featured in a 2010 New York Times article by Gretchen Morgenson titled, “Mortgage Investors Turn to State Courts for Relief.”

23 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 41 of 50

Jerry also represented the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System in a securities litigation against the General Motors Company arising from a series of misrepresentations concerning the quality, safety, and reliability of the Company’s cars, which resulted in a $300 million settlement. He was also a member of the litigation team responsible for the successful prosecution of In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation in the District of New Jersey, which was resolved for $3.2 billion. In addition, he is actively involved in the firm’s prosecution of highly successful M&A litigation, representing shareholders in widely publicized lawsuits, including the litigation arising from the proposed acquisition of Caremark Rx, Inc. by CVS Corporation – which led to an increase of approximately $3.5 billion in the consideration offered to shareholders.

A graduate of the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania and Brooklyn Law School, in 1995-96, Jerry served as a law clerk to the Hon. Steven M. Gold, U.S.M.J., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Jerry lectures to institutional investors at conferences throughout the country, and has written or substantially contributed to several articles on developments in securities and corporate law, including his most recent article, “SEC Statement On Emerging Markets Is A Stunning Failure,” which was published by Law360 on April 27, 2020. He has authored numerous additional articles, including: “Improving Multi-Jurisdictional, Merger-Related Litigation,” American Bar Association (February 2011); “The Compensation Game,” Lawdragon, (Fall 2006); “Institutional Investors as Lead Plaintiffs: Is There A New And Changing Landscape?,” 75 St. John’s Law Review 31 (Winter 2001); “The Duty To Supervise, Poser, Broker-Dealer Law and Regulation,” 3rd Ed. 2000, Chapter 15; “Derivative Litigation In New York after Marx v. Akers,” New York Business Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Fall 1997).

Jerry has also been a commentator for the business media on television and in print. Among other outlets, he has appeared on NBC’s Today, and CNBC’s Power Lunch, Morning Call, and Squawkbox programs, as well as being featured in The New York Times, Financial Times, Bloomberg, The National Law Journal, and the New York Law Journal.

EDUCATION: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, B.S., Economics, 1991. Brooklyn Law School, J.D., cum laude, 1995.

BAR ADMISSIONS: New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

AVI JOSEFSON prosecutes securities fraud litigation for the firm’s institutional investor clients, and has participated in many of the firm’s significant representations, including In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Securities Litigation, which resulted in a recovery worth in excess of $143 million for investors. He was also a member of the team that litigated the In re OM Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, which resulted in a settlement of $92.4 million.

As a member of the firm’s new matter department, Avi counsels institutional clients on potential legal claims. He has presented argument in several federal and state courts, including an appeal he argued before the Delaware Supreme Court.

Recognized as a “Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer” by Lawdragon, Avi is also actively involved in the M&A litigation practice, and represented shareholders in the litigation arising from the proposed acquisitions of Ceridian Corporation and Anheuser-Busch. A member of the firm’s subprime litigation team, he has participated in securities fraud actions arising from the collapse of subprime mortgage lender American Home Mortgage and the actions against Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, arising from those banks’ multi-billion dollar loss from mortgage- backed investments. Avi has prosecuted actions against Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley

24 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 42 of 50

arising from their sale of mortgage-backed securities, and is advising U.S. and foreign institutions concerning similar claims arising from investments in mortgage-backed securities.

Avi practices in the firm’s Chicago and New York offices.

EDUCATION: Brandeis University, B.A., cum laude, 1997. Northwestern University, J.D., 2000; Dean’s List; Justice Stevens Public Interest Fellowship (1999); Public Interest Law Initiative Fellowship (2000).

BAR ADMISSIONS: Illinois, New York; U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of Illinois.

JONATHAN D. USLANER prosecutes class and direct actions on behalf of the firm’s institutional investor clients.

Jonathan has litigated many of the firm’s most high-profile litigations. These include, among others, In re Bank of America Securities Litigation, which resulted in a historic settlement shortly before trial of $2.43 billion, one of the largest shareholder recoveries ever obtained; In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, which settled for $219 million, the largest recovery ever obtained in a securities class action in Virginia; In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, which settled for $150 million; In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation, which settled for $125 million; and In re Rayonier Securities Litigation, which settled for $73 million.

Jonathan is also actively involved in the firm’s direct action opt-out practice. He recently represented clients in opt-out actions brought against American Realty Capital Properties, which resulted in settlements totaling $85 million.

Jonathan has been a member of the Board of Governors of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL). He has also been a member of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) and the San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA).

Jonathan is also an editor of the American Bar Association’s Class Actions and Derivative Suits Committee’s Newsletter. He has authored multiple articles relating to class actions and the federal securities laws, including “Much More Than ‘Housekeeping’: Rule 23(c)(4) in Action,” “Keeping Plaintiffs in the Driver’s Seat: The Supreme Court Rejects ‘Pick-off’ Settlement Offers,” and “Combating Objectionable Objections.” Most recently, Jonathan authored an article for Pensions & Investments titled “When Watchdogs Go Astray” and co-authored a piece for SACRS Magazine titled “When One Share Does Not Mean One Vote: The Fight Against Dual-Class Capital Structures.”

For his achievements, Jonathan has been recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a “Litigation Star,” and selected to its “Under 40 Hot List” of the “most notable up-and-coming litigators” in the U.S. He was also selected by Law360 as a national “Rising Star” and has been named by the Daily Journal as one of the “Top 40 Under 40” legal professionals in California. Leading industry publication, Lawdragon, has also named him among its “500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” list.

Jonathan has also been a board member of Home of Guiding Hands, a non-profit organization that serves individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in the San Diego community. For his work and contributions to the organization, he was named “Volunteer of the Year.”

Prior to joining BLB&G, Jonathan was a senior litigation associate at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where he successfully prosecuted and defended claims from the discovery stage through trial. He also gained significant trial experience as a volunteer

25 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 43 of 50

prosecutor for the City of Inglewood, California, as well as a judicial extern for Justice Steven Wayne Smith of the Supreme Court of Texas.

EDUCATION: Duke University, B.A., magna cum laude, 2001, William J. Griffith Award for Leadership; Chairperson, Duke University Undergraduate Publications Board. The University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 2005; University of Texas Presidential Academic Merit Fellowship; Articles Editor, Texas Journal of Business Law.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California; New York; U.S. District Courts for the Central and Northern Districts of California; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

MICHAEL D. BLATCHLEY’s practice focuses on securities fraud litigation. He is currently a member of the firm’s new matter department in which he, along with a team of attorneys, financial analysts, forensic accountants, and investigators, counsels the firm’s clients on their legal claims.

Michael has also served as a member of the litigation teams responsible for prosecuting a number of the firm’s cases. For example, Michael was a key member of the team that recovered $150 million for investors in In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, a securities fraud class action arising out of misrepresentations and omissions concerning JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office, the company’s risk management systems, and the trading activities of the so-called “London Whale.” He was also a member of the litigation team in In re Medtronic, Inc. Securities Litigation, an action arising out of allegations that Medtronic promoted the Infuse bone graft for dangerous “off-label” uses, which resulted in an $85 million recovery for investors. In addition, Michael prosecuted a number of cases related to the financial crisis, including several actions arising out of wrongdoing related to the issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities and other complex financial products.

Most recently, he was a member of the team that achieved a $250 million recovery for investors in In re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Securities Litigation, a precedent-setting case alleging unlawful insider trading by hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman.

Among other accolades, Michael has been repeatedly named to Benchmark Litigation’s “Under 40 Hot List,” selected as a leading plaintiff financial lawyer by Lawdragon, and recognized as a “Rising Star” by Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers. He frequently presents to public pension fund professionals and trustees concerning legal issues impacting their funds, has authored numerous articles addressing investor rights, including, for example, a chapter in the Practising Law Institute’s 2017 Financial Services Mediation Answer Book, and is a regular speaker at institutional investor conferences. While attending Brooklyn Law School, Michael held a judicial internship position for the Honorable David G. Trager, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York. In addition, he worked as an intern at The Legal Aid Society’s Harlem Community Law Office, as well as at Brooklyn Law School’s Second Look and Workers’ Rights Clinics, and provided legal assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana.

EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin, B.A., 2000. Brooklyn Law School, J.D., cum laude, 2007; Edward V. Sparer Public Interest Law Fellowship, William Payson Richardson Memorial Prize, Richard Elliott Blyn Memorial Prize, Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review, Moot Court Honor Society.

BAR ADMISSIONS: New York, New Jersey; U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey and the Western District of Wisconsin; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DAVID KAPLAN is a former partner of the firm. He practiced in the firm’s California office and helped investors achieve hundreds of millions of dollars in recoveries in federal and state courts nationwide. David’s practice focused on advising institutional investors on whether to

26 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 44 of 50

remain passive participants in securities class actions, or to pursue larger recoveries through strategic “opt-out” actions.

David also had extensive experience advising the firm’s institutional clients on securities claims outside the United States. His work in this area included shareholder group actions and collective settlements in Canada, Australia, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Brazil and Russia.

David has authored multiple articles relating to class actions and the federal securities laws, which have been published in The National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, Law360, Pensions & Investments, and The NAPPA Report, among other publications. For his achievements, David was repeatedly selected as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers.

Prior to joining BLB&G, David was a senior litigation associate at the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, where he successfully prosecuted and defended claims in a variety of complex litigation matters.

EDUCATION: Washington & Lee University, B.A., 1999. Duke University School of Law, J.D., 2003; High Honors; Duke Law Journal; Stanley Starr Scholar.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California, U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

SENIOR COUNSEL

DAVID L. DUNCAN’s practice concentrates on the settlement of class actions and other complex litigation and the administration of class action settlements.

Prior to joining BLB&G, David worked as a litigation associate at Debevoise & Plimpton, where he represented clients in a wide variety of commercial litigation, including contract disputes, antitrust and products liability litigation, and in international arbitration. In addition, he has represented criminal defendants on appeal in New York State courts and has successfully litigated on behalf of victims of torture and political persecution from Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire and Serbia in seeking asylum in the United States.

While in law school, David served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, he clerked for Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

EDUCATION: Harvard College, A.B., Social Studies, magna cum laude, 1993. Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 1997.

BAR ADMISSIONS: New York; Connecticut; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

LUCAS GILMORE is a former senior counsel who practiced out of the firm’s San Diego office and focused on securities fraud litigation. He was a member of the teams that prosecuted Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al., the Pfizer Direct Action and the LIBOR Manipulation Actions.

27 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 45 of 50

EDUCATION: Vanderbilt University, B.A. cum laude, Political Science, 2002. University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D., 2007; Computer Assisted Learning Institute Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy I and II.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California.

RICHARD D. GLUCK has almost 30 years of litigation and trial experience in bet-the-company cases. His practice focuses on securities fraud, corporate governance, and shareholder rights litigation. He has been named a Super Lawyer in securities litigation, recognized for achieving “the highest levels of ethical standards and professional excellence” by Martindale Hubbell®, and named one of San Diego’s “Top Lawyers” practicing complex business litigation.

Since joining BLB&G, Rich has been a key member of the teams prosecuting a number of high- profile cases, including several RMBS class and direct actions against a number of large Wall Street Banks. He was a senior attorney on the team prosecuting the In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which resulted in over $615 million for investors and is considered one of the largest total recoveries for shareholders in any case arising from the financial crisis. Specifically, he was instrumental in developing important evidence that led to the $99 million settlement with Lehman’s former auditor, Ernst & Young – one of the top 10 auditor settlements ever achieved. He also was a senior member of the teams that prosecuted the RMBS class actions against Bear Stearns, which settled for $500 million; JPMorgan, which settled for $280 million; Wilmington Trust, which settled for $210 million; and Morgan Stanley, which settled for $95 million. He was also a key member of the trial teams that prosecuted the litigations against MF Global, which recovered $234.3 million on behalf of investors; and Genworth, which settled for $219 million.

Before joining BLB&G, Rich represented corporate and individual clients in securities fraud and consumer class actions, SEC investigations and enforcement actions, and in actions involving claims of fraud, breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets in state and federal courts and in arbitration. He has substantial trial experience, having obtained verdicts or awards for his clients in multi-million dollar lawsuits and arbitrations. Prior to entering private practice, Rich clerked for Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Rich currently is a senior member of the teams prosecuting In re Vale, S.A. Securities Litigation, In re Intel Securities Litigation, Qualcomm, Inc. Securities Litigation, and a number of direct actions against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. on behalf of almost two dozen institutional investors and government retirement systems. He practices out of the firm’s San Diego office.

Rich is a former President of the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and currently is a member of its Board of Governors.

EDUCATION: California State University Sacramento, B.S., Business Administration, with honors, 1987. Santa Clara University, J.D., summa cum laude, 1990; Articles Editor of the Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California; U.S. District Courts for the Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California.

BRETT M. MIDDLETON is a former senior counsel at the firm. Brett has extensive experience in corporate governance litigation, having prosecuted over twenty (20) successful transactional and derivative suits, including Louisiana Municipal Police Employee Retirement System v. Crawford, which arose out of CVS’s acquisition of Caremark and resulted in over $3

28 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 46 of 50

billion in additional merger consideration for Caremark’s shareholders. Brett received national recognition for his achievements in this field, including recognition by The Legal 500 USA Guide under the “Mergers, Acquisitions and Buyouts – M&A: Litigation” category.

Brett also had significant jury trial experience, having worked on the trial team responsible for successfully prosecuting Clarent Corp. Securities Litigation, a securities fraud class action which resulted in a rare jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against the former CEO of Clarent Corp.

Brett helped manage the team that successfully prosecuted In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, the securities class action involving the largest bankruptcy in United States history. Lead Plaintiffs achieved a cash settlement of $615 million with the Underwriter Defendants ($426 million), the Officer and Director Defendants ($90 million), and Lehman Brothers’ public auditor, Ernst & Young ($99 million), on behalf of Lehman Brothers’ former shareholders. The settlement is one of the largest recoveries in a case arising from the financial crisis. The settlement with Ernst & Young is one of the largest auditor settlements in a securities fraud class action case.

Brett helped successfully prosecute In re Medco/Express Scripts Merger Litigation, the second largest merger announced that year. Following the completion of extended motion practice and the filing of a preliminary injunction brief, the defendants agreed to settle the action and reduce the Termination Fee by an unprecedented $300 million, limit the matching rights to a single round, and postpone the shareholder vote on the challenged transaction.

Previously, Brett represented public pension systems seeking to vindicate shareholder voting rights allegedly infringed by Yahoo!, Inc.’s employee severance plan adopted to ward off a hostile takeover attempt by Microsoft; by a unique merger agreement and “Naked No-Vote” provisions used in the acquisition of Arena Resources, Inc.; by the combination of a “NOL Rights Agreement” and by-law amendment adopted by the Board of Directors of Tenet Healthcare Corporation to ward off a hostile acquisition attempt by an industry rival; and by the Emulex Board’s allegedly bad faith rejection of a premium takeover offer by Broadcom Corporation and adoption of a “Poison Pill” and by-law amendment.

While at BLB&G, Brett also helped obtain for shareholders higher prices and meaningful corporate governance improvements and disclosures in suits arising from, among other things, the takeover battles over Caremark Rx, Inc. and Longs Drug Stores, Corp., as well as the acquisitions of Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., iPCS, Inc., and Alberto-Culver, Co. Brett prosecuted important shareholder derivative cases for corporate waste such as the Apollo Group, Inc. and the Activision, Inc. stock option backdating cases, as well as the Ryland Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, which resulted in monetary reimbursement and significant mortgage lending compliance oversight reforms to remedy alleged reckless lending practices at the national home builder’s home lending subsidiary.

Brett also assisted in the prosecution of a number of other prominent securities class actions. For example, Brett was a member of the team that prosecuted the Williams Securities Litigation, which resulted in a $311 million cash settlement – the largest known settlement at the time without a company restating its financial statements. Brett was responsible for the prosecution of the case against Ernst & Young for its 2001 audit of Williams’ Energy Marketing & Trading subsidiary and was instrumental in obtaining a settlement from the auditor in the amount of $21 million. Other notable cases include Accredo Health, Inc. Securities Litigation ($33 million settlement), Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. ($22 million settlement), and Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation ($12 million settlement).

Prior to joining BLB&G in 2004, Brett was a litigation associate at the San Diego office of Gordon & Rees LLP, where he practiced intellectual property and securities litigation for the second largest law firm in San Diego County.

29 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 47 of 50

EDUCATION: University of California, Los Angeles, 1993. University of San Diego School of Law, J.D., 1998.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California; U.S. District Courts for the Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California.

ASSOCIATES

LAUREN M. CRUZ practices out of the firm’s Los Angeles office, where she prosecutes class and direct actions on behalf of the firm’s institutional investor clients. She is currently a member of the teams prosecuting securities class actions against NVIDIA Corporation, Impinj, Inc., and Qualcomm, Inc.

Prior to joining BLB&G, Lauren was a litigation associate at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, where she represented domestic and international clients in complex civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution. She also gained considerable experience advising company boards following internal investigations of shareholder demands. In addition, Lauren’s practice included substantial pro bono civil rights work on behalf of detainees with mental health concerns.

While attending New York University School of Law, Lauren worked at the Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice as part of NYU Law’s Children’s Rights Clinic and served as a Senior Articles Editor for the Journal of Law and Liberty and a Staff Editor for the Environmental Law Journal.

EDUCATION: California State University Channel Islands, B.A., Business, summa cum laude, 2008. New York University School of Law, J.D., 2014. Senior Articles Editor, Journal of Law and Liberty; Staff Editor, Environmental Law Journal.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California; U.S. District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of California; US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

ROSS SHIKOWITZ was a former associate of the firm. He focused his practice on securities litigation. He was a member of the firm’s new matter department, in which he, as part of a team of attorneys, financial analysts, and investigators, counseled institutional clients on potential legal claims.

Ross also served as a member of the litigation teams responsible for successfully prosecuting a number of the firm’s significant cases involving wrongdoing related to the securitization and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. He successfully represented Allstate Insurance Co., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Bayerische Landesbank, Dexia SA/NV, Sealink Funding Limited, and Landesbank Baden-Württemberg against various issuers of RMBS in both state and federal courts.

Ross served as a member of the litigation team prosecuting the securities fraud class action against Volkswagen AG, which resulted in a recovery of $48 million for Volkswagen investors and arose out of Volkswagen’s illegal use of defeat devices in millions of purportedly clean diesel cars to cheat emissions standards worldwide. He also served as a member of the team litigating the securities class action concerning GT Advanced Technologies Inc., which alleged that defendants knew that the company’s $578 million deal to supply Apple, Inc. with product was an onerous and massively one-sided agreement that allowed GT executives to sell millions worth of stock. The case concerning GT resulted in $40.2 million in recoveries.

30 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 48 of 50

For his accomplishments, Ross was consistently named by Super Lawyers as a New York “Rising Star” in the area of securities litigation.

While in law school, Ross was a research assistant to Brooklyn Law School Professor of Law Emeritus Norman Poser, a widely respected expert in international and domestic securities regulation. He also served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Brian M. Cogan of the Eastern District of New York, and as a legal intern for the Major Narcotics Investigations Bureau of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

EDUCATION: Brooklyn Law School, J.D., 2010, magna cum laude, Notes/Comments Editor, Brooklyn Law Review; Moot Court Honor Society; Order of Barristers Certificate; CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Products Liability, Professional Responsibility. Indiana University-Bloomington, M.M, Music, 2005. Skidmore College, B.A., Music, 2003, cum laude.

BAR ADMISSIONS: New York; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

STAFF ATTORNEYS

MICHELLE ARELLANO has worked on several matters at BLB&G, including Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al, and In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Michelle was an attorney at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, where she worked on class action securities litigation. Previously, Michelle was a corporate associate at Allen & Overy LLP in London and Madrid, where she focused on international capital markets.

EDUCATION: Trinity University, B.S., 2002. Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio - Madrid, Spain, Licenciatura en Derecho (LL.B.), 2006. American University, Washington College of Law, J.D., 2006.

BAR ADMISSIONS: New York.

HANI FARAH, a former staff attorney of the firm, worked on numerous matters while at BLB&G, including City of Sunrise Firefighters' Pension Fund, et al. v. Oracle Corporation, et al., In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation and In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm in 2016, Hani was a contract attorney at E.C.U.R.E., where he litigated claims against insurance companies.

EDUCATION: University of California, San Diego, B.A., cum laude, 2011. University of San Diego School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2015.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California.

31 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 49 of 50

CHRISTINE KOO has worked on several matters at BLB&G, including Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al, and In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Christine was a staff attorney at Baker Hostetler, LLP, where she worked on discovery and all aspects of trial preparation. Previously, Christine was a litigation associate at Sadis & Goldberg, LLC, where she focused on commercial and consumer protection litigation.

EDUCATION: University of Hawaii at Manoa, B.A., 1999. University of California Hastings College of the Law, J.D., 2003.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California, New York.

JUAN LOSSADA has worked on several matters at BLB&G, including In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Juan was a contract attorney at several firms where he worked on discovery matters. Previously, Juan was an associate at Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, LLP, where he focused on civil litigation, including jury trials, and an associate at Crowe & Rogan, LLP.

EDUCATION: University of Southern California, B.S. University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, J.D., 1987.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California.

RYAN MCCURDY has worked on several matters at BLB&G, including In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Ryan was an e-discovery project manager, where he managed all aspects of e-discovery for large firms and corporate clients. Previously, Ryan worked as a contract attorney on complex litigation, including antitrust and mortgage-backed securities litigation.

EDUCATION: Emory University, B.A., 1999. UCLA School of Law, J.D., 2003.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California.

CAITLIN OYLER has worked on several matters at BLB&G, including In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Caitlin was a senior staff attorney at Covington and Burling LLP, where she managed large scale document reviews and provided in-house counsel guidance and oversight during electronic document discovery.

EDUCATION: Pepperdine University, B.A., cum laude, 2007. American University, Washington College of Law, J.D., 2011.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California.

32 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-6 Filed 09/25/20 Page 50 of 50

ALEX WU has worked on several matters at BLB&G, including In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Alex worked as a contract attorney where he focused on discovery matters. Previously, Alex was a senior staff attorney at O’Melveny & Myers LLP and an associate at The Law Offices of Goldfarb, Sturman & Averbach.

EDUCATION: UCLA, B.A., magna cum laude, 1994. UCLA School of Law, J.D., 1997.

BAR ADMISSIONS: California.

33 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 13

Exhibit 5B Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 13

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL LITIGATION 12 CLASS ACTION

13 DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER IN SUPPORT OF 14 LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR 15 ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES, FILED ON BEHALF OF 16 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 13

1 I, BRADLEY S. KELLER, declare: 2 1. I am a member, and one of the founding partners, of the law firm of Byrnes Keller 3 Cromwell LLP. I submit this declaration in support of Lead Counsel’s application for an award 4 of attorneys’ fees in connection with services rendered in the above-captioned class action (the 5 “Action”), as well as for reimbursement of expenses incurred by my firm in connection with the 6 Action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.1 7 2. My firm acted as, and is the Court-appointed, Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff 8 Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge 9 (“Baton Rouge”), and the Settlement Class. In that capacity, we worked with Lead Counsel on 10 all aspects of litigation, including preparing for and participating in court conferences, reviewing 11 pleadings, briefs, and communications with the Court and opposing counsel, assisted Lead 12 Counsel in connection with important litigation decisions including litigation and settlement 13 strategy, participated in the settlement mediation, advised Lead Counsel regarding local practice, 14 procedure and requirements, and served as one of the principal contacts between Lead Plaintiff 15 and the Court. 16 3. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a summary of the amount of time 17 spent by me working on this case. I was the only attorney at my firm who was involved in this 18 Action who devoted ten or more hours to the Action. The lodestar calculation for my work 19 based on my current hourly rate for this matter also is computed in Exhibit 1. The Exhibit 1 20 schedule was prepared from contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and 21 maintained by my firm. Time expended in preparing this application for fees and expenses has 22 not been included in this request. 23 4. The hourly rate for me in Exhibit 1 is within the range of the hourly rates charged 24 by other Seattle attorneys with comparable levels of experience who do similar types of work. 25

26 1 Unless otherwise defined in this Declaration, all capitalized terms have the meanings set out in the Stipulation of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 91-2). DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -1- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 13

1 My hourly rate also is within the range of the regular hourly rate charged for my services in non- 2 contingent matters. 3 5. The total number of hours expended on this Action by my firm from its inception 4 through and including August 31, 2020, is 87.5. The total lodestar for my firm for that period is 5 $52,442.50. 6 6. My firm’s lodestar figures are based upon the firm’s hourly rates, which rates do 7 not include charges for expense items. 8 7. As detailed in Exhibit 2, my firm also is seeking payment for a total of $2,472.82 9 in unreimbursed expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this Action from its 10 inception through and including August 31, 2020. 11 8. The expenses incurred in this Action are reflected in the records of my firm, 12 which are regularly prepared and maintained in the ordinary course of business. These records 13 are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an 14 accurate record of the expenses incurred 15 9. The expenses reflected in Exhibit 2 are further limited by “caps” based on 16 application of the following criteria: 17 (a) Internal Printing & Copying – Charged at $0.10 per page. 18 (b) On-Line Research – Charges reflected are for out-of-pocket payments to 19 the vendors for research done in connection with this Action. On-line research is billed 20 to each case based on actual time usage at a set charge by the vendor. There are no 21 administrative charges included in these figures. 22 10. With respect to the standing of my firm, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a brief 23 biography of my firm and the attorneys involved in this matter. 24 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true and correct. 25 26

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -2- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 13

1 Executed on: August 31, 2020 2 3 /s/ Bradley S. Keller BRADLEY S. KELLER 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -3- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 13

1 EXHIBIT 1 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wash.) 3 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 4 5 TIME REPORT 6 Inception through August 31, 2020

7 NAME HOURLY HOURS RATE LODESTAR 8 Partners 9 Bradley S. Keller 87.5 $625 $52,442.50 TOTALS 87.5 $625 $52,442.50 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -4- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 13

1 EXHIBIT 2 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wash.) 3 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 4 5 EXPENSE REPORT 6 Inception through August 31, 2020 7 8 CATEGORY AMOUNT Court Fees $2,279.50 9 On-Line Legal Research 4.02 10 Hand Delivery Charges -- Messenger 50.00 Local Transportation 20.00 11 Internal Copying 119.30 TOTAL EXPENSES: $2,472.82 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -5- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 13

1 EXHIBIT 3 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3 No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wash.)

4 BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 5 FIRM RESUME 6 Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP was established in 1984 and has become one of Seattle’s 7 foremost litigation boutiques. Byrnes Keller Cromwell combines the legal sophistication and 8 expertise of the largest law firms with extensive in-court jury and other experience, delivered 9 with the efficiencies and responsiveness of a small firm. Representing clients ranging from the 10 nation's largest companies to individuals and small businesses, the firm's practice includes 11 complex commercial disputes, securities, antitrust, business torts, professional liability, trade 12 secrets, insurance-related matters, environmental, product liability, and personal injury. 13 Byrnes Keller Cromwell is known for the depth of its trial experience, which includes 14 nationally-publicized high stakes cases. The firm has been involved in many of the major cases 15 in the Pacific Northwest, ranging from representing a significant portion of the Alaska seafood 16 processing industry in the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation to a central role as trial counsel in the 17 Washington Medicaid recoupment tobacco litigation, the highly publicized litigation over the 18 Seattle Supersonics’ move to Oklahoma City, and other high-profile cases. 19 Byrnes Keller Cromwell offers over 40 years of experience in securities and class action 20 experience. Although well known for its defense work, Byrnes Keller Cromwell’s efforts in 21 various cases helped its clients recover over $300 million in the last decade. The firm has an 22 excellent track record in securities litigation, including favorable jury verdicts in a number of 23 cases tried. 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -6- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 13

1 ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES 2 Bradley S. Keller 3 Bradley S. Keller is one of the founding partners of the firm. He is a Fellow in the 4 American College of Trial Lawyers, a Fellow in the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, a 5 Fellow in the International Society of Barristers and a Member of the American Board of Trial 6 Advocates. Brad has exclusively been engaged in trial practice since 1980, focusing on business 7 and tort litigation. Brad has tried a substantial number of high stakes and high profile jury and 8 non-jury disputes, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, ranging from RICO, securities 9 fraud, products liability, Consumer Protection Act, professional liability, dealer-termination, and 10 class action cases. His clients include a wide variety of individuals and businesses, ranging from 11 closely-held private concerns to Fortune 500 companies. 12 Mr. Keller is widely recognized for his professional excellence and achievements. He is 13 consistently rated as one of the top lawyers in Washington State, and was honored by 14 Washington Law & Politics as a “Top 10” attorney each year for over ten years from 2006-2019. 15 Mr. Keller was selected by Best Lawyers in America as the 2020 Lawyer of the Year for 16 Litigation – Securities (Seattle); the 2010, 2014, and 2018 Lawyer of the Year for Bet-the- 17 Company Litigation (Seattle); the 2012, 2015 and 2020 Lawyer of the Year for Defense Legal 18 Malpractice (Seattle); and 2016 Lawyer of the Year for Real Estate Litigation (Seattle). He is 19 listed in Best Lawyers in Seattle for Business Litigation in Seattle Magazine, and in Best Lawyers 20 in Seattle for Commercial Litigation in Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, and he has received an 21 “AV Preeminent” client/peer-review rating from Martindale-Hubbell. He also is listed in 22 Benchmark Litigation as a “Washington Litigation Star.” Mr. Keller also is a frequent speaker 23 regarding trial techniques at Continuing Legal Education seminars. 24 A copy of Mr. Keller’s resume is attached to this exhibit. 25 Education: Brooklyn Law School, J.D., magna cum laude (1979) Beloit College, B.A., cum laude (1976) 26 Court Washington State; U.S. District Court, W.D. Wash.; U.S. District Court, E.D. Admissions: Wash.

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY S. KELLER -7- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 13

BRADLEY S. KELLER

I. EDUCATION

Beloit College, B.A., cum laude, Government - 1976. Brooklyn Law School, J.D., magna cum laude - 1979.

II. TRIAL EXPERIENCE

Engaged in trial practice continuously since 1980; tried a substantial number of jury and non- jury cases in state and federal courts; litigated cases before private arbitration panels. Types of cases tried include federal and state securities fraud, RICO, professional liability, breach of contract, product liability, personal injury, commercial, and construction. Cases tried:

 Anderson v. Thompson (four-month RICO and securities fraud jury trial)

 SGA v. Sherry (three-week sale-of-business and negligent misrepresentation jury trial)

 Quinn v. CRST, Inc. (two-week wrongful death jury trial)

 Tenore v. Chiafolo (two-week fiduciary duty and securities fraud jury trial)

 Richards v. Overlake Hospital, et al. (seven-week medical malpractice jury trial)

 Staab v. Liable (two-week breach of fiduciary duty bench trial)

 Cratsenberg v. Canam Construction (one-week construction arbitration)

 Tacoma Place Associates v. Healy (four-week contract and misrepresentation jury trial)

 Piha v. F.W. Woolworth and Co. (commercial lease dispute bench trial)

 DeAtley v. TriGraphics (two-week UCC - Article 9 bench trial)

 Alaska Distr. Co. v. Odom Distr. (two-week distributor promissory estoppel bench trial)

 Victoria C. v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., et al. (three-week civil sexual assault jury trial)

 JGLPI v. Peterson, et al. (one-week partnership dispute arbitration)

 Labbe v. Mangan, et al. (two-week medical malpractice jury trial)

 Koll Constr. Co. v. TerraCan Capital Corp. (three-week lender liability bench trial)

 Vidro v. ISC (two-week stock purchase breach of contract bench trial)

 Barnes v. First Affiliated Securities (three-day NASD arbitration)

 Hong v. Morgan Stanley (five-day NASD arbitration)

 Grandmore v. H&L Investment Co. (two-week commercial lease dispute bench trial)

 Smith, et al. v. Greenberg Bros., et al. (three-week securities fraud jury trial)

 Sandquist v. Press Products (one-week sale-of-business fraud jury trial)

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 13

 The Exchange System LP v. EXCLAIM, et al. (one-week AAA arbitration computer software development dispute)

 Edmark v. Kittoe (three-week will contest bench trial)

 In Re T. Aponte (one-week civil sexual assault administrative trial)

 Weinstein v. DeLaHunt (two-week commercial lease dispute jury trial)

 State v. R.J. Reynolds, et al. (nine-week antitrust/consumer protection jury trial)

 Heartstream, Inc. v. Medtronic Physio-Control Corp. (three-week medical device breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation bench trial)

 Fiorito Bros. v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (gravel mining lease dispute jury trial)

 Lumbermens Ins. Co. v. SGA (ten-day sale of business bench trial)

 Western Sea v. Rogers (breach of contract bench trial)

 Rufer v. Abbott Laboratories (nine-week medical device product liability jury trial)

 Bradford v. AlliedSignal, Corp. (eleven-week aviation/toxic exposure product liability jury trial)

 Quinton v. Agilent Technologies (two-week terminated distributor/business tort jury trial)

 Abellera v. Delridge Place LP (two-week housing discrimination class action jury trial)

 Digital Control v. Charles Machine Works (Markman hearing/inequitable conduct bench trial)

 Fiorito v. Pacific Raceways (six-day motor sports partnership arbitration)

 IFSG v. Perkins Coie, LLP (seven-week legal malpractice jury trial)

 Google v. Microsoft (two-day Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing)

 Kimball v. R.J. Reynolds (two-week product liability jury trial)

 Chiron Corp. v. Corus Pharma (two-week trade secret jury trial)

 Shah v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. (ten-day securities fraud jury trial)

 Activated Matrix Partners v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (ten-day legal malpractice jury trial)

 State v. R.J. Reynolds (two-day Consent Decree enforcement proceeding)

 Fluke v. Milwaukee Tool (four-day Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing)

 City of Seattle v. The Professional Basketball Club, LLC (six-day specific performance bench trial)

- 2 - Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 13

 Confidential Arbitration (four-day private equity contract dispute arbitration)

 Odom v. Confidential (two-day legal malpractice/patent arbitration)

 Intermec, Inc. v. IBM (one-week IP contract jury trial)

 Confidential Arbitration (six-day contract/professional responsibility/attorney fee dispute)

 Kern v. First Washington (ten-day FINRA securities arbitration)

 State of Michigan v. Chesapeake Energy Co. (one-week criminal bid rigging jury trial)

 Confidential Arbitration (three-day contract dispute)

 Moore v. Moore (two-week trust administration/fiduciary duty bench trial)

 Harley Marine Services v. Tug Construction (one-day contract dispute)

 In Re Confidential Proceeding (seven-day hospital staff privileges revocation hearing (neurosurgery))

III. BAR MEMBERSHIPS, ACTIVITIES, AND AWARDS

A. Admissions

State of Washington - 1980. Federal District Courts for the Western and Eastern Districts of Washington; Northern District of California; and Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Specially admitted to Federal District Courts for practice in particular cases throughout the United States, including New York, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California and Alaska.

B. Bar Associations

Member of the American Bar Association

Member of the Washington State, Seattle-King County, Federal Bar Association for the Western and Eastern Districts of Washington, and Washington Association for Justice C. Awards

Elected to Fellowship in American College of Trial Lawyers (2002) Elected to membership in American Board of Trial Advocates (2002) Elected to Fellowship in International Society of Barristers (2009) Elected to Fellowship in International Academy of Trial Lawyers (2010) Listed in Best Lawyers in America every year since 2003: 2010, 2014 and 2018 Lawyer of the Year for Bet-the-Company Litigation (Seattle); 2012, 2015 and 2020 Lawyer of the Year for Defense Legal Malpractice (Seattle); 2016 Lawyer of the

- 3 - Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-7 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 13

Year for Real Estate Litigation (Seattle); Commercial Litigation; Bet-the-Company Litigation; Legal Malpractice-Defense; Antitrust Litigation; IP Litigation; Real Estate Litigation; Securities Litigation Listed in America’s Leading Business Lawyers published by Chambers and Partners (U.K.) Law & Politics – Top 10 SuperLawyer in Washington every year since 2006; Top 100 every year since 2003 Martindale-Hubbell – Rated AV Preeminent American Bar Foundation – Life Fellow Listed in Benchmark Litigation: Washington Litigation Star Listed in Seattle Magazine Best Lawyers for Commercial Litigation Listed in Seattle Metropolitan Best Lawyers for Commercial Litigation Listed in National Registry of Who’s Who

IV. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Byrnes & Keller LLP - founding partner, 1984 to present (currently Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP) Bogle & Gates - associate, 1979-1984

- 4 - Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 117

Exhibit 5C Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 117

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL LITIGATION 12 CLASS ACTION

13 DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, DAVID W. HALL, 14 AND THOMAS LAUGHLIN, IV IN 15 SUPPORT OF LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 16 LITIGATION EXPENSES, FILED ON BEHALF OF COUNSEL FOR 17 NEW YORK ACTION PLAINTIFF

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, DAVID BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP W. HALL, AND THOMAS LAUGHLIN, IV 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 117

1 We, GUILLAUME BUELL, DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS LAUGHLIN, IV, 2 declare: 3 1. Guillaume Buell is Of Counsel at the Thornton Law Firm LLP and co-chair of 4 that firm’s securities litigation practice. David W. Hall is a founding partner of Hedin Hall 5 L.L.P. and the manager of that firm’s San Francisco office. Thomas Laughlin, IV is an attorney 6 at Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP. We have personal knowledge of the matters set forth 7 herein as they pertain to our particular law firm. 8 2. Our firms are counsel for plaintiff Plymouth Country Retirement System in 9 Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc. et al., Index No. 650629/2019 (N.Y. 10 Supreme Ct. N.Y. County) (the “New York Action”).1 In the New York Action, Plymouth 11 Country Retirement System asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities 12 Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) based on purchases of Impinj common stock in or traceable to 13 Impinj’s July 21, 2016 Initial Public Offering of common stock and its December 2, 2016 14 Secondary Public Offering of common stock. The claims asserted in the New York Action are 15 against Impinj, the Individual Defendants, other directors of Impinj, and the underwriters of 16 Impinj’s offerings. The Settlement resolves both the Federal Action and New York Action. 17 3. Collectively, our firms worked on all aspects of the New York Action, which 18 included investigating and researching the potential Securities Act claims; researching and 19 drafting the complaint filed in the New York Action on January 31, 2019; and communicating 20 with our client, the court in the New York Action, and defendants. In addition, our firms 21 participated in the settlement negotiations for the Actions, including the May 28, 2020 mediation 22 before Michelle Yoshida, and in reviewing the final settlement papers resolving the Actions. 23 4. The schedules attached hereto as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are detailed summaries 24 indicating the amount of time spent by each attorney and professional support staff employee of 25 our respective firms who devoted hours to this matter, and the lodestar calculation for those

26 1 Unless otherwise defined in this Declaration, all capitalized terms have the meanings set out in the Stipulation of Settlement dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 91-2). DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -1- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 117

1 individuals based on our firms’ current hourly rates. The schedules were prepared from daily 2 time records regularly prepared and maintained by each firm. Time expended in preparing this 3 application for fees and expenses has not been included. 4 5. With respect to the Thornton Law Firm, I, Guillaume Buell, state that the 5 information in this declaration regarding my Firm’s time and expenses is taken from time and 6 expense records prepared and maintained by the Firm in the ordinary course of business. These 7 records were reviewed to confirm both their accuracy and reasonableness. During this review, 8 some reductions were made to time in the exercise of billing judgment. I believe that the time 9 reflected in the Firm’s lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought are 10 reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and 11 resolution of the Action. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a summary indicating the 12 amount of time spent by attorneys and professional support staff members of my Firm who were 13 involved in the prosecution of the Action, and the lodestar calculation based on my firm’s current 14 hourly rates. The schedule was prepared from the timekeeping records for daily activities that 15 were prepared and maintained by my Firm and the relevant timekeepers in the ordinary course of 16 business. These are available at the request of the Court. Time expended in preparing this 17 application for fees and payment of expenses has not been included in this request. The attorneys 18 and professional staff that worked on this Action for my Firm were employees or partners of the 19 Firm at the relevant times. The hourly rates for the attorneys and professional support staff of my 20 Firm included in Exhibit 1 are my Firm’s securities class action rates. My Firm’s lodestar figures 21 are based upon these rates, which do not include any expense items. Expense items are recorded 22 separately and are not duplicated in my Firm’s hourly rates. As detailed in Exhibit 4, my Firm 23 has incurred a total of $10,337.94 in expenses in connection with the prosecution of the Action. 24 The expenses are reflected on the books and records of my Firm. These books and records are 25 prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an accurate 26 record of the expenses incurred.

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -2- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 117

1 6. With respect to Scott & Scott, I, Thomas Laughlin, state that the information in 2 this declaration regarding my Firm’s time and expenses is taken from time and expense records 3 prepared and maintained by the Firm in the ordinary course of business. These records were 4 reviewed to confirm both their accuracy and reasonableness. During this review, some reductions 5 were made to time and expenses in the exercise of billing judgment. As a result of this review 6 and the adjustments made, I believe that the time reflected in the Firm’s lodestar calculation and 7 the expenses for which payment is sought are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the 8 effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the Action. The schedule attached hereto as 9 Exhibit 3 is a summary indicating the amount of time spent by attorneys and professional support 10 staff members of my Firm who were involved in the prosecution of the Action, and the lodestar 11 calculation based on my firm’s current hourly rates. The schedule was prepared from the 12 timekeeping records for daily activities that were prepared and maintained by my Firm and the 13 relevant timekeepers in the ordinary course of business. These are available at the request of the 14 Court. Time expended in preparing this application for fees and payment of expenses has not 15 been included in this request. The attorneys and professional staff that worked on this Action for 16 my Firm were employees or partners of the Firm at the relevant times. Expense items are 17 recorded separately and are not duplicated in my Firm’s hourly rates. As detailed in Exhibit 5, 18 my Firm has incurred a total of $2,260.24 in expenses in connection with the prosecution of the 19 Action. The expenses are reflected on the books and records of my Firm. These books and 20 records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are 21 an accurate record of the expenses incurred. 22 7. With respect to the Hedin Hall, I, David Hall, state that the information in this 23 declaration regarding my Firm’s time and expenses is taken from time and expense records 24 prepared and maintained by the Firm in the ordinary course of business. These records were 25 reviewed to confirm both their accuracy and reasonableness. As a result of this review, I believe 26 that the time and work reflected in the Firm’s lodestar calculation are reasonable in amount and

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -3- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 117

1 were necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the Action. The 2 schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a summary indicating the amount of time spent by 3 attorneys of my Firm who were involved in the prosecution of the Action, and the lodestar 4 calculation based on my firm’s current hourly rates. The schedule was prepared from the 5 timekeeping records for daily activities that were prepared and maintained by my Firm and the 6 relevant timekeepers in the ordinary course of business. Time expended in preparing this 7 application for fees and payment of expenses has not been included in this request. The attorneys 8 that worked on this Action for my Firm were partners of the Firm at the relevant times. The 9 hourly rates for the attorneys of my Firm included in Exhibit 2 are my Firm’s securities class 10 action rates. My Firm’s lodestar figures are based upon these rates, which do not include any 11 expense items. 12 8. The total number of hours expended on the Actions by our firms from their 13 inception through and including August 31, 2020, is 413.2. The total collective lodestar for our 14 firms for that period is $281,859.50. 15 9. As detailed in Exhibits 4 and 5, our firms are seeking payment for a total of 16 $12,598.18 in unreimbursed expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this Action 17 from its inception through and including August 31, 2020. 18 10. The expenses incurred are reflected in the records of our firms, which are 19 regularly prepared and maintained in the ordinary course of business. These records are 20 prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an accurate 21 record of the expenses incurred. 22 11. With respect to the standing of our firms, attached hereto as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 23 are a brief biography of each of our firms and the attorneys involved in this matter. 24 We declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true and correct. 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -4- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 117

1 Executed on: September 23, 2020 2 3 4 /s/ Guillaume Buell GUILLAUME BUELL 5

6 7 /s/ David W. Hall DAVID W. HALL 8

9 10 /s/ Thomas Laughlin THOMAS LAUGHLIN, IV 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -5- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 1 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 4 5 TIME REPORT

6 Inception through August 31, 2020

7 NAME HOURLY HOURS RATE LODESTAR 8 Partners 9 Garrett Bradley 16.7 $850.00 $14,195.00

10 Of Counsel Guillaume Buell 64.8 $725.00 $46,980.00 11 12 Paralegals Elizabeth McLaughlin 16.6 $150 $2,490.00 13 TOTALS 98.1 -- $63,665.00 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -6- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 2 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 HEDIN HALL L.L.P. 4 5 TIME REPORT

6 Inception through August 31, 2020

7 NAME HOURLY HOURS RATE LODESTAR 8 Partners 9 David W. Hall 212.0 $650 $137,800.00 Frank S. Hedin 15.5 $650 $10,075.00 10 TOTALS 227.5 $147,875.00 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -7- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 3 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 4 5 TIME REPORT

6 Inception through August 31, 2020

7 NAME HOURLY HOURS RATE LODESTAR 8 Partners 9 Michael Burnett 8.10 $1,095 $ 8,869.50 Thomas Laughlin 38.70 $995 $ 38,506.50 10 John Jasnoch 2.70 $875 $ 2,362.50

11 Of Counsel 12 Joseph Pettigrew 2.50 $675 $ 1,687.50

13 Associates Rhiana Swartz 16.50 $750 $ 12,375.00 14 15 Paralegals Irina Chilaia 11.40 $305 $ 3,477.00 16 Kaitlin Steinberger 7.70 $395 $ 3,041.50

17 TOTALS 87.60 $ 70,319.50 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -8- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 4 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 4 5 EXPENSE REPORT 6 Inception through August 31, 2020 7 CATEGORY AMOUNT 8 On-Line Legal Research $170.90 Telephones/Faxes $106.73 9 Postage & Express Mail $154.06 10 Experts $7,406.25 Mediation Fees $2,500.00 11 TOTAL EXPENSES: $10,337.94 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -9- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 5 2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 4 5 EXPENSE REPORT 6 Inception through August 31, 2020 7 CATEGORY AMOUNT 8 Courier $57.39 Photocopies $34.00 9 Telephone, Facsimile $50.38 10 On-Line Research $599.27 Filing, Witness & Other Fees $1,519.20 11 TOTAL EXPENSES: $2,260.24 12

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

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -10- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 6

2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 4 THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP

5 FIRM RESUME 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -11- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 117

FIRM RESUMÉ

One Lincoln Street ® Boston, MA 02111 ® Phone: 617-720-1333 Toll Free: 888-491-9726 ® Fax: 617-720-2445 9430 W. Olympic Blvd ® Suite 400 ® Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 310.282.8676 ® Fax: 310.388.5316 www.tenlaw.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 117

ABOUT THE FIRM ...... 3 Guillaume Buell ...... 5 Krista Rosen ...... 6 Garrett J. Bradley ...... 7 Madeline A. Korber ...... 8 Michael A. Lesser ...... 9 Michael P. Thornton ...... 10 David J. McMorris ...... 11 David C. Strouss ...... 13 Andrew S. Wainwright ...... 14 Marilyn T. McGoldrick ...... 15 Brad J. Mitchell ...... 16 Andrea Marino Landry ...... 17 Evan R. Hoffman ...... 17 Leah M. McMorris ...... 18 Brian J. Freer ...... 19 John T. Barrett ...... 19 David Bricker ...... 19 Patricia M. Flannery...... 21 Christian Uehlein ...... 21 Jasmine M. Howard ...... 22 Leslie-Anne Taylor ...... 23 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES...... 24

2

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 117

ABOUT THE FIRM Thornton Law Firm was founded in 1978. It is a leading law firm in Massachusetts, with attorneys representing thousands of clients in a wide variety of plaintiff-side work. The firm’s attorneys practice, among other things, in the areas of securities litigation, consumer class actions, False Claims Act suits, toxic torts, and personal injury law.

The Thornton Law Firm’s securities litigation attorneys have significant experience bringing lawsuits against public companies on behalf of investors. Thornton’s securities litigators have extensive experience litigating under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Congress passed both these laws to protect investors from securities fraud. The basic purpose of the 1934 and 1933 regulatory statutes is to protect investor confidence in the securities markets.

For further information about Thornton Law Firm LLP, visit our website, www.tenlaw.com.

Lead Counsel Appointments In Ongoing Litigation:

 In re Adient plc Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-9116 (S.D.N.Y.)  Tung v. Dycom Industries, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-81448 (S.D. Fl.)  Employees Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority v. Conduent Inc., No. 19-cv-8237 (D.N.J.)  In re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2019-07222 (Montgomery County, Penn. Court of Common Pleas)  Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Mavenir, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-1229-CFC (D. Del.)

Executive Committee or Liaison Counsel in Ongoing Litigation:

 In re iRobot Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-12536 (D. Mass.)  In re Cloudera, Inc., Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CV348674 (California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara)  In re Livent Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 190501229 (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County)  Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 19-cv-6361 (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel In Ongoing Litigation

 Plymouth Cty Ret. Sys. v. Impinj, Inc., et al., No. 650629/2019 (Supreme Court of New York, County of New York)

3

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 117

 Iron Workers Dist. C. of N.E. Pension Fund v. Veeco Instr., et al., Case No. 18CV332644 (California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara) (consolidated into Wolther v. Maheshwari, et al., Case No. 18CV329690 (Lead Case))  Hook v. Casa Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 654548/2019 (Supreme Court of New York, New York County, Commercial Division)

Thornton Law Firm Lawyers Experience In Resolved Litigation

 Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-554-JNL-PAS (United States District Court, District of Rhode Island) ($48 million settlement reached against the nation’s largest pharmacy retail chain)  In re Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:13-cv- 03567 EMC (United States District Court, Northern District of California) ($9 million recovery secured for investors against a leading provider of mobile communication solutions)  In re Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00033-JNP- BCW (United States District Court, District of Utah) ($47 million settlement reached in securities class action involving Nu Skin’s business conduct in China)  In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-2392 (AKH) (United States District Court, Southern District of New York) ($20 million settlement reached with provider of insurance and wealth management services)  In re Castlight Health, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CIV533203 (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo) ($9.5 million settlement with Castlight Inc, in a case alleging that the company’s IPO offering documents were false and misleading because they omitted material information, including significant obstacles and delays faced by customers during the implementation of Castlight’s technology, resulting in low customer renewal rates and negatively impacting the company’s gross margins)  Noppen v. Innerworkings, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-1416 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) ($6.025 million settlement in case alleging misleading statements and omissions regarding accounting improprieties)  Hall v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-0978 (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas) ($11 million settlement in securities class action alleging defendants made material misstatements and omissions in violation of the federal securities laws concerning, among other things, the risks and benefits of a new point-of-sale (POS) system that Rent-A-Center began implementing in early 2015)  In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-13189-FDS (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts) (securities class action against Biogen and certain current or former executives relating to misstatements and omissions about its leading MS drug, Tecfidera)

4

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 117

Guillaume Buell Guillaume Buell is Of Counsel to the Firm and principally litigates securities class actions. Mr. Buell’s securities practice assists institutional investors and individuals in recovering their investment losses caused by violations of the state and federal securities laws. As co-chair of the Firm’s securities litigation practice, Mr. Buell is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in the following securities class actions:

 In re Adient plc Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-9116 (S.D.N.Y.)  Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Mavenir, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-1229-CFC (D. Del.)  Tung v. Dycom Industries, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-81448 (S.D. Fl.)  Employees Ret. Sys. of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority v. Conduent Inc., No. 19-cv-8237 (D.N.J.)  In re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2019-07222 (Montgomery County, Penn. Court of Common Pleas)  Plymouth Cty Ret. Sys. v. Impinj, Inc., et al., No. 650629/2019 (Supreme Court of New York, County of New York)  Iron Workers Dist. C. of N.E. Pension Fund v. Veeco Instr., et al., Case No. 18CV332644 (California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara) (consolidated into Wolther v. Maheshwari, et al., Case No. 18CV329690 (Lead Case))  Hook v. Casa Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 654548/2019 (Supreme Court of New York, New York County, Commercial Division)

Mr. Buell was previously a senior associate with primary responsibility for litigating a portfolio of securities fraud actions for Labaton Sucharow in New York City. Before joining Labaton, he was a litigation associate at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, where he represented major corporations and their officers and directors in the financial, consumer, pharmaceutical, and insurance sectors in commercial and securities litigations and consumer class actions in state and federal courts, state and federal government investigations, and internal investigations.

Mr. Buell received his J.D. from Boston College Law School and was the recipient of the 2009 Boston College Law School Award for outstanding contributions to the law school community. He was also a member of the National Environmental Law Moot Court Team, which advanced to the national quarterfinals and received best oralists recognition. While in law school, Mr. Buell was a judicial intern with the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He spent his third year of law school as an intern with the Government Bureau of the Attorney General of Massachusetts. He received his B.A., cum laude with departmental honors, from Brandeis University.

5

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 117

Mr. Buell is an active member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys and the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys. In 2019 he was named a "Rising Star" for Securities Litigation by Super Lawyers, a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Mr. Buell is an Eagle Scout and is fluent in French.

Mr. Buell is admitted in the following jurisdictions:

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts  State of New York  State of Texas  Supreme Court of the United States

United States Courts of Appeal:

 First Circuit  Second Circuit

United States District Courts:

 Colorado  Massachusetts  Southern District of New York  Eastern District of New York  Eastern District of Texas  Northern District of Texas  Southern District of Texas  Western District of Texas

Krista Rosen Krista Rosen has more than a decade of experience recovering funds for institutional and individual investors under federal and state securities laws. She has represented investors in a wide range of matters, including securities fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, and breaches of fiduciary duties by corporate directors and officers. She has also represented investors in arbitration proceedings against securities brokers.

Prior to joining Thornton Law Firm, Krista was an associate at Labaton Sucharow LLP and Wohl & Fruchter LLP, where she focused on the representation of institutional investors in complex securities class actions. In 2017, Krista was an integral part of the team that obtained

6

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 117

the largest private insider trading class action settlement in U.S. history against a billion dollar hedge fund four months before trial. Separately, Krista helped obtain more than $1 billion in settlements in a case involving one of the world’s largest insurance companies, alleging accounting fraud, stock price manipulation, and a market division scheme.

Krista has authored articles on issues involving director liability and the role of foreign institutional investors in U.S. securities litigation, and she received an award from the Association of Securities and Exchange Commission Alumni for her article, Staying in Court While Staying Discovery: Finding Exceptions for Government-Produced Documents Under the PSLRA.

Krista graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she served as the Articles Editor of the Cardozo Law Review. She received her B.A. from Bowdoin College with concentrations in government & legal studies, and economics.

Admissions

 Massachusetts (2007)  New York (2007)  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (2008)

Education

 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (2006)  Bowdoin College (2002)

Garrett J. Bradley

Garrett Bradley has years of experience helping institutional investors, public pension funds, and individual investors recover losses attributable to corporate fraud. A former state prosecutor, Garrett has been involved in hundreds of securities fraud class action lawsuits that have, in aggregate, recouped hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Garrett’s past and present clients include some of the country’s largest public pension funds and institutional investors. Garrett also serves as the Managing Partner of the Thornton Law Firm.

Garrett is a graduate of Boston College High School, Boston College and Boston College Law School. Prior to joining Thornton Law Firm, Garrett worked as an Assistant District Attorney in the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office. He also served in the Massachusetts House of

7

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 117

Representatives, representing the Third Plymouth District, for 16 years. Garrett is a member of the Massachusetts and the New York Bars.

Garrett is a member of the Public Justice Foundation and has been named a Super Lawyer for Litigation - Securities by Super Lawyers from 2017 to present as well as being named a Rising Star, Massachusetts in 2010. He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell™. He has been named one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Massachusetts by the American Trial Lawyers Association and is a member of Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Garrett was named a Top Lawyer for 2016 by the Global Directory of Who’s Who. The Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys gave him their Legislator of the Year Award in 2007 and the Massachusetts Bar Association named him Legislator of the Year in 2014. He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1995, Massachusetts  2005, New York  1999, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  1999, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Education

 Boston College High School (1988)  Boston College (B.A. 1992)  Boston College Law (J.D. 1995)

Memberships

 Massachusetts Bar Association  Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys  The American Association for Justice  Public Justice Foundation  Million Dollar Advocates Forum

Madeline A. Korber Madeline Korber is an associate at Thornton Law Firm. She is a 2012 graduate of the University of Rochester with a Bachelor of Arts degree in public health. She received her Juris Doctor from

8

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 117

the University of Connecticut School of Law in 2016. Ms. Korber is a member of Thornton’s securities fraud team, where she actively prosecutes complex securities fraud cases on behalf of investors. She is actively participating in litigating cases against Adient plc and Mavenir, Inc. She also practices in the firm’s birth defect, mesothelioma and asbestos, and worker’s compensation cases. She is a member of the American Association for Justice and the Massachusetts Bar Association.

Admissions

 Connecticut 2017  Massachusetts 2018

Michael A. Lesser Mike joined Thornton Law Firm as an associate in 1995 after previously clerking at the firm. He heads the firm’s False Claims Act / Whistleblower litigation section, representing individuals that report fraud on the Federal and State governments. While practicing in traditional areas of False Claims litigation, including Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Mike also handles False Claims Act litigation involving finance and bank fraud.

During his time at Thornton Law Firm, Mike has represented clients in all of the firm’s practice areas, including victims of exposure to asbestos, glycol ethers, and lead. Mr. Lesser was also part of the firm’s litigation team that represented the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its claims against the tobacco industry. Mike was appointed Special Assistant Attorney General representing the Commonwealth from 1996 through 1999 for this purpose.

Mr. Lesser was named an Up-and-Coming Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers’ Weekly in 2002. He has also been selected as a Massachusetts Super Lawyers Rising Star for 2010. He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale- Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1995, Massachusetts  1997, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  2006, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Education

 Brandeis University (B.A., cum laude, 1992)  Boston University (J.D., 1995)

9

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 117

Member

 American Bar Association  The American Association for Justice  Taxpayers Against Fraud

Reported Cases

 Spirito v. Hyster New Eng., Inc., et al., 70 Mass. App. Ct 902, 827 N.E.2d 1160 (2007)

Michael P. Thornton Michael P. Thornton is founder and chairman of Thornton Law Firm LLP. A nationally recognized expert on toxic tort litigation, Mike graduated from Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt Law School. In the 1970’s he successfully undertook the representation of a number of shipyard and construction workers who had developed asbestos-related diseases. Over the years, the firm has grown to become the largest firm in the Northeast representing victims of asbestos and other toxic materials.

The firm has brought justice to workers who contracted cancer and other health issues from exposure to chemicals, defective drugs, and defective products, and to children who have suffered brain damage from lead poisoning and birth defects from chemicals and pesticides to which their parents were exposed.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other states and local government have sought the firm’s expertise to address damage from threats to the public health. Multi-million dollar recovery from tobacco companies resulted from the firm’s work in these areas.

Mike has lead the firm to support many charitable causes; the most visible and important project involves cancer research. Mr. Thornton was approached by clinicians and researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who were interested in studying mesothelioma, a then untreatable and invariably fatal form of asbestos related cancer. After making a multiyear commitment from his own firm, Mr. Thornton helped to recruit several other donors. The program, begun in 2002, has made groundbreaking strides in cancer research generally, and has helped to revolutionize the treatment of mesothelioma, leading to longer survival and better quality of life for victims of this disease.

10

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 117

Mr. Thornton also responded to a call to help establish a place for the families of mesothelioma victims to stay, as the financial impact of staying in hotels can be devastating. The Thornton House was opened in 2008 and houses up to nine families at a time.

Mr. Thornton is a member of the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine bars. He has published a number of articles on legal subjects and has lectured at the Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and Yale Law School. He is the 2016 recipient of the American Association for Justice’s Howard Twiggs award. The Howard Twiggs Award recognizes an AAJ member of at least 10 years standing whose passion, civility, cordiality, and professionalism reflect the high standards set by Howard Twiggs; and whose courtroom advocacy and distinguished service to AAJ have brought honor to the trial bar and the legal profession. He has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer for Class Actions & Mass Torts from 2007 to present. Best Lawyers has named him a Best Lawyer for Mass Torts / Class Actions - Plaintiffs from 2006 to present. In 2016 and 2019 Mike’s peers voted him Boston’s Best Lawyers Lawyer of the Year for Mass Torts / Class Actions – Plaintiffs. He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1975, New Hampshire  1975, U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire  1979, Maine  1979, U.S. District Court, District of Maine  1982, Massachusetts  1984, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Education

 Vanderbilt University, J.D., 1975  Dartmouth College, A.B., 1972

Memberships

 Massachusetts Bar Association  American Bar Association  The American Association for Justice

David J. McMorris

11

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 25 of 117

Mr. McMorris is a trial lawyer and directs Thornton Law Firm’ health care subrogation and workplace injury practice. He is a member of the Massachusetts and New York bars and the American Association for Justice. Mr. McMorris’ trial experience has included several jury verdicts in excess of $1 million dollars in cases involving products liability, construction accidents, toxic exposures, lead paint poisoning, and asbestos exposure. Mr. McMorris was appointed by the federal district court to serve as plaintiff’s liaison counsel in asbestos litigation for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and has served in that position since 1993; he was the plaintiff's liaison counsel for the Massachusetts Superior Court's Massachusetts Asbestos Cases Consolidated Docket from 1993 -2017. He is a graduate of the State University of New York and of Suffolk University Law School. He has been a guest lecturer on latent occupational disease and complex litigation at Tufts University and Boston University Law School.

Mr. McMorris has been named in Best Lawyers in America for many years, as well as a Massachusetts Super Lawyer, and as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by the American Trial Lawyers Association. He is a member of Million Dollar Advocates Forum, has been awarded the highest 10 rating by the lawyer evaluation website avvo.com, and is rated “AV,” the highest available rating from Martindale-Hubbell, a highly respected independent legal rating publisher. The American Lawyer selected him as a 2019 Top Rated Lawyer in Mass Tort Law. He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale- Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1983, Massachusetts  1984, New York  1984, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  1984, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit  1988, U.S. Supreme Court

Education

 State University of New York (B.S. 1976)  Suffolk University (J.D., cum laude, 1983)

Memberships

 New York State Bar Association  Massachusetts Bar Association  American Association for Justice

12

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 26 of 117

David C. Strouss David Strouss, partner, heads Thornton Law Firm’s birth defect litigation involving catastrophic birth defects from parental exposure in occupations such as semiconductor manufacturing and agriculture . He has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 1985. Mr. Strouss is an honors graduate of Brown University and a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law. He is a member of the Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations, the American Association for Justice, and the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Strouss was Special Assistant Attorney General representing the Commonwealth from 1995 through 1999 in the Tobacco Litigation.

Mr. Strouss was named Environmental Litigation (Toxic) Lawyer of the Year in 2017 by Lawyer Monthly magazine. Mr Strouss prosecuted and successfully resolved some of the country’s first cases involving birth defects caused by glycol ethers and other solvent exposures in the semiconductor industry. He currently represents over 150 plaintiffs with birth defects in the United States and South America due to parental occupational and environment exposures. Mr. Strouss has also litigated cases involving cancer arising from exposure to benzene, solvents and other hazardous chemicals, environmental property damage cases and pharmaceutical drug and medical device cases including Fen-Phen and Vioxx. The American Lawyer selected him as a 2019 Top Rated Lawyer in Mass Tort Law. He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1985, Massachusetts  1986, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Education

 Brown University (B.A., with honors, 1978)  Northeastern University (J.D., 1985)

Memberships

 Boston Bar Association  Massachusetts Bar Associations  The American Association for Justice  Massachusetts Academy of Trial Lawyers  Massachusetts Coalition of Occupational Safety and Health (MassCOSH)(Co-Chair, Legal Committee)

13

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 27 of 117

Andrew S. Wainwright Andrew Wainwright is a Thornton Law Firm partner and trial attorney. Mr. Wainwright manages the Thornton Law Firm asbestos trial practice. He has successfully litigated hundreds of asbestos cases in the Massachusetts Superior Court. He has also successfully argued cases before the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (Spellman v. Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc., et al, 445 Mass. 675 (2006)). He has lectured before nationwide continuing legal education seminars on the subjects of asbestos litigation and the admissibility of expert testimony. Mr. Wainwright is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, New York, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. He graduated from Hobart College with a BA in Philosophy and received his Juris Doctorate from Suffolk University cum laude in 1991.

In 2017 he tried and won two of the top three jury trial verdicts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a $7.5 million award in Sylvestre v. New England Insulation , and a $6.8 million award in Ross v. New England Insulation. He is AV Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated, and a Massachusetts Super Lawyer (2004, 2009, 2014-2018). He was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1991, Massachusetts  1992, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  1992, First Circuit Court of Appeals  2005, New York

Education

 Hobart College (B.A., 1985)  Suffolk University (J.D., cum laude, 1991)  Memberships  Boston Bar Association  Massachusetts Bar Association  Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys  American Association for Justice  National Disability Law Center  Professional Hockey Players Association, Workers’ Compensation Panel

Reported Cases

 Spellman v. Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc., 445 Mass. 675, 839 N.E.2d 47 (2006)

14

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 28 of 117

Marilyn T. McGoldrick Marilyn McGoldrick concentrates her practice in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation and class actions. Ms. McGoldrick is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a cum laude graduate of Suffolk University Law School. She is a member of the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, the Massachusetts Bar Association and Boston Bar Association (Co-Chair, New Lawyers Section 2000-2001; Steering Committee Member, New Lawyers Section; Membership Committee), and the American Association for Justice. Ms. McGoldrick is Pro Bono counsel for the Central Square Theater, Arlington Underground Railway Theater Company, and an Advisory Board Member, WOT Theater Festival.

She holds a BV® Distinguished™ rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer. In 2019 she was named to the Best Lawyers in America list for Personal Injury – Plaintiffs.

She represents clients throughout Massachusetts and across the country. She is admitted to the Massachusetts Bar, the U.S. District Court of Appeals, First Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She was selected as one of New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell™.

Admissions

 1992, Massachusetts  1994, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  1994, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Education

 University of Massachusetts at Amherst (B.A., 1987)  Suffolk University (J.D., cum laude, 1992)

Memberships

 Massachusetts Bar Association  Massachusetts Association of Trial Attorneys  The American Association for Justice  The Women’s Bar Association  Pro bono Counsel, Central Square Theater, Underground Railroad Theatre Company  Advisory Board Member, The Women’s Table – June, 2010 – present  Advisory Board Member, WOT Theatre Festival  Boston Bar Association (Co-Chair, New Lawyers Section; Membership Committee, 1999-2001)

15

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 29 of 117

Reported Cases

 Lawrence v. City of Cambridge, 422 Mass. 396, 664 NE 2d 1 (1996)  Town of Middleborough v. Middleborough Gas & Electric, 422 Mass. 583, 664 NE 2d 25

Brad J. Mitchell Mr. Mitchell is a partner at Thornton Law Firm LLP and joined the firm in 1999. His main practice area is toxic exposure litigation, including cases involving birth defects, cancer, and exposure to glycol ethers, benzene, solvents, and other hazardous substances. Mr. Mitchell has represented clients who have been exposed to toxic substances working in semiconductor chip manufacturing, printing, parts washing, and other industries and occupations.

Brad J. Mitchell is a graduate of Colby College (B.A., May 1989) and Vermont Law School (J.D. 1998). Mr. Mitchell was a Note Editor for the Vermont Law Review.

Mr. Mitchell is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association. He is admitted to the Massachusetts bar, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Admissions

 1998, Massachusetts  2006, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  2006, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Education

 Colby College (B.A., 1989)  Vermont Law School (J.D., 1998)

Biography

 Note Editor, Vermont Law Review

Memberships

 Boston Bar Association  Massachusetts Bar Association  The American Association for Justice

16

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 30 of 117

Andrea Marino Landry Andrea Marino Landry is a partner at Thornton Law Firm LLP. She joined the firm as an associate in 2005 after previously clerking at the firm.

During her time at Thornton Law Firm, Ms. Landry has successfully represented clients in a variety of the firm’s practice areas, including personal injury litigation, products liability litigation, victims of exposure to asbestos, victims of toxic exposures, including children of workers born with birth defects, and consumer class actions. She represents clients throughout Massachusetts and nationally. She was co-counsel for Lydon v. Turner & Newall, a $9.3 million verdict for a pipefitter who developed peritoneal mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos.

Ms. Landry is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross (B.A., summa cum laude, 2002) and Boston College Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2005). She was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 2005 and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2006.

Ms. Landry is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and American Association for Justice, and she is a member of the board of the Holy Cross Lawyers Association. Ms. Landry has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer Rising Star for the years 2013-2019. She was an associate adjunct professor at New England Law | Boston 2013-2014, teaching public health law.

Admissions

 2005, Massachusetts  2006, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Education

 College of the Holy Cross, (B.A., summa cum laude. 2002)  Boston College (J.D., cum laude, 2005)

Memberships

 Massachusetts Bar Association  American Association for Justice  Women’s Bar Association

Evan R. Hoffman Evan Hoffman concentrates his practice areas in complex financial fraud class actions, qui tam, and False Claims Act cases. He has successfully represented private whistleblowers and public pension funds in groundbreaking state and federal multi-district litigation against global

17

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 31 of 117

custodial banks for foreign exchange fraud. In addition to his class action work, Mr. Hoffman represents and has helped obtain substantial settlements for plaintiffs who have contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. He is involved in the firm’s birth defects and farmworker pesticide litigation practice, working for clients exposed to dangerous and unsafe chemicals.

Mr. Hoffman is a graduate of American University in Washington, D.C. (2007) and Suffolk University Law School in Boston, MA (2010). In 2019 he was named a "Rising Star" for Class Action and Mass Torts by Super Lawyers, a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The National Trial Lawyers named Mr. Hoffman one of the top 39 Trial Lawyers Under the Age of 39 in Massachusetts from 2012 to 2016. He is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Massachusetts Bar Association, and the Boston Bar Association.

Admissions

 2010, Massachusetts  2011, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Memberships

 American Association for Justice  Massachusetts Bar Association

Leah M. McMorris Leah McMorris is a partner at the Thornton Law Firm LLP in Boston. She has been with the firm since 2005 as a clerk and joined full time as an associate in 2011. Her practice focuses on mesothelioma, toxic exposures, products liability, and catastrophic injury litigation. She has tried several cases in Massachusetts, obtaining significant verdicts and settlements for her clients. In addition to representing victims of mesothelioma exposed to asbestos in the workplace, Ms. McMorris represents mesothelioma clients exposed to asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc.

Ms. McMorris earned her Bachelor’s degree from Fairfield University and her Juris Doctor degree from New England School of Law in 2011. She was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 2011 and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2013.

Ms. McMorris is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the American Association for Justice. She teaches yoga sculpt in Boston, enjoys practicing yoga, and is two-time Boston marathon runner.

Admissions

18

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 32 of 117

 2011, Massachusetts  2013, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Brian J. Freer Brian Freer is a partner at Thornton Law Firm and was previously employed as a law clerk with the Firm. He graduated from Villanova University (B.S. Finance, 2008, cum laude) and New York Law School (J.D. 2011). Mr. Freer is admitted to the Massachusetts and New York bars. He concentrates his practice in the Firm’s personal injury, products liability, financial and insurance fraud areas, as well as asbestos and mesothelioma claims. Mr. Freer is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the American Association for Justice.

John T. Barrett Mr. Barrett is a graduate of the University of Maine and the Boston University School of Law. He practiced in New Hampshire until 1982, when he joined Thornton Law Firm. He manages the firm’s asbestos and personal injury practice in New Hampshire and Maine.

Admissions

 1969, New Hampshire  1997, Massachusetts

Memberships

 American Association for Justice  Massachusetts Bar Association

David Bricker David Bricker is of counsel to Thornton Law Firm LLP. He manages the firm’s California office where his practice focuses on birth injury and asbestos litigation. Mr. Bricker is a graduate of Pitzer College in Claremont, California, where he earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. He received his law degree from Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana. Mr. Bricker is admitted to practice law in the states of California, Illinois, and Massachusetts. In addition, he is admitted to practice before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of California, the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of California, the Central District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of Massachusetts.

19

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 33 of 117

As a trial lawyer, Mr. Bricker brings to his clients more than twenty-five years of state and federal trial experience in complex civil matters, including toxic exposure litigation, birth injury litigation, asbestos litigation, product liability litigation, medical and professional malpractice litigation, railroad litigation and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation. He has devoted a significant portion of his career to representing catastrophically injured individuals with an emphasis on representing injured children. Mr. Bricker has obtained numerous notable verdicts on behalf of his clients including a $17 million verdict in favor of a man left paralyzed by the negligence of a hospital's neurosurgeon and a $32 million verdict in favor of a child severely injured by the negligence of a hospital's delivery room staff. He has also served as class-counsel in national products liability cases, most recently on behalf of nearly 4000 plaintiffs in the Caldera mesh litigation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Bar Admissions

 State of California, 1992  State of Illinois, 2014  State of Massachusetts, 2016  United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit  United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  United States District Court, Northern District of California  United States District Court, Central District of California  United States District Court, Southern District of California  United States District Court, Eastern District of California  United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois  United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

Professional Associations

 California Bar Association  Beverly Hills Bar Association  Los Angeles County Bar Association  American Association for Justice  Professional Negligence Section  Railroad Law Section  Consumer Attorneys of California  Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles

Pro Bono & Community Service

 Physicians for Peace  Bet Tzedek, The House of Justice

20

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 34 of 117

 Pro Bono Representation Panel for the United States District Court for the Central District of California

Patricia M. Flannery Patricia Flannery is a graduate of Boston College (1979. magna cum laude) and the Northeastern University School of Law (1988). She is admitted to the Massachusetts Bar and the United States District Court for Massachusetts, as well as to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Ms. Flannery worked for the firm before attending law school and joined the firm as a partner in 1996. She has worked in the firm’s asbestos practice and tried cases in a number of other areas. She was lead trial counsel in Ortiz del-Valle v. NBA, winning a $7.85 million award for sex discrimination in favor of a female referee passed over for hiring by the National Basketball Association.

She is a member of the American Association for Justice and the Massachusetts Bar Association.

Reported cases: Ortiz-Del Valle v. National Basketball Ass'n, 42 F. Supp. 2d 334

Christian Uehlein Christian Uehlein is of counsel to Thornton Law Firm LLP. He joined the firm as an associate in 2006. Mr. Uehlein is a graduate of Colorado College (B.A. 2002) and New England School of Law (J.D. 2006). He was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 2006 and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2007. Mr. Uehlein focuses his practice on representing victims of toxic exposures as well as employers and business in insurance premium disputes. Since he joined Thornton Law Firm Mr. Uehlein has represented victims of exposure to asbestos and other toxic chemicals in personal injury lawsuits, including representing families across the country in cases involving catastrophic birth defects suffered by children due to their parents’ exposures in occupations such as semiconductor manufacturing and agriculture. He also represents numerous businesses in Massachusetts and other states in class action litigation against insurers for premium overcharges. He has previously litigated cases involving environmental property damage.

Mr. Uehlein a member of the American Association for Justice, Public Justice, and has been selected to The National Trial Lawyers “Top 39 under 39” from 2012 to present.

Admissions

21

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 35 of 117

 2006, Massachusetts  2007, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts  2016, Montana

Education

 Colorado College (B.A., Political Science, 2002)  New England School of Law (J.D. 2006)

Memberships

 American Association for Justice  Public Justice

Jasmine M. Howard Jasmine Howard is an associate at Thornton Law Firm. She is a 2011 graduate of Boston College with a bachelor of arts in political science. She received her Juris Doctor degree from Northeastern University School of Law in 2017, as well as a Masters in Public Health from Tufts University School of Medicine. She concentrates her practice in the firm's birth defect area, as well as in mesothelioma and asbestos cases. She is a member of the American Association for Justice and the Massachusetts Bar Association.

Admissions:

 2017, Massachusetts  2018, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts  Pending, New York

Memberships:

 American Association for Justice  Massachusetts Bar Association

22

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 36 of 117

Leslie-Anne Taylor Leslie-Anne Taylor is an associate at Thornton Law Firm LLP. She joined the firm as a paralegal in 2006. Ms. Taylor is a graduate of Northeastern University (B.S., magna cum laude, 2006) and Suffolk University Law School (J.D., 2013, summa cum laude). She concentrates her practice in the areas of mesothelioma and asbestos claims, drugs and medical devices, and consumer class action litigation. Ms. Taylor is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She is a member of the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, the American Association for Justice, the Massachusetts Bar Association, and the Women’s Bar Association.

23

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 37 of 117

AWARDS AND ACCOLADES

US News & World Report / Best Law Firms US News began ranking firms through Best Lawyers in 2010. Thornton Law Firm has been ranked a national Tier 1 Best Law Firm in Mass Torts & Class Actions since the first edition, in addition to a Tier 1 Boston ranking for Mass Tort Litigation / Class Action and a Tier 1 Boston ranking for Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs.

US News & World Report / Best Lawyers Michael P. Thornton

David J. McMorris

Marilyn T. McGoldrick

Super Lawyers Michael P. Thornton

Boston Lawyer of the Year for Mass Torts / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (2016)

Boston Lawyer of the Year for Mass Torts / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (2019)

David J. McMorris

Andrew S. Wainwright

Garrett Bradley

Michael A. Lesser

Marilyn T. McGoldrick

Andrea Marino Landry

Massachusetts Super Lawyers Rising Stars Andrea M. Landry

Evan Hoffman

Guillaume Buell

24

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 38 of 117

New England's 2020 Top Rated Lawyers by ALM Media and Martindale-Hubbell Marilyn T. McGoldrick

Andrew S. Wainwright

Michael P. Thornton

David C. Strouss

David J. McMorris

Michael A. Lesser

Garrett J. Bradley

Martindale-Hubbell AV Rated Michael P. Thornton

David J. McMorris

David C. Strouss

Andrew S. Wainwright

Martindale-Hubbell Peer-Review Rated Michael P. Thornton

David J. McMorris

David C. Strouss

Garrett J. Bradley

Andrew S. Wainwright

Michael A. Lesser

Marilyn T. McGoldrick

Brad J. Mitchell

Christian F. Uehlein

American Association for Justice Michael P. Thornton, Howard Twiggs Award, 2016

25

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 39 of 117

American Trial Lawyers Association Garrett J. Bradley, Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Massachusetts

Lawyer Monthly Magazine David C. Strouss, Environmental Litigation (Toxic) Lawyer of the Year (2017)

Million Dollar Advocates Forum David J. McMorris

Garrett J. Bradley

The National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Trial Lawyers Under Age 40 Evan R. Hoffman

Christian F. Uehlein

26

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 40 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 7

2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 4 HEDIN HALL L.L.P.

5 FIRM RESUME 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -12- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 41 of 117

FIRM RÉSUMÉ

With offices in Miami, Florida and San Francisco, California, Hedin Hall LLP represents consumers and shareholders in data-privacy, financial services, and securities class actions in state and federal courts nationwide. Our firm prosecutes difficult cases aimed at redressing injuries suffered by large, diverse groups of people. Over the past decade alone, our work has helped secure billions of dollars in relief for consumers and investors and facilitated important changes in business practices across a wide range of industries.

Representative Matters

Notable examples of our work include:

Consumer & Data-Privacy Matters

• Owens, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 19-CV-20614-MGC (S.D. Fla.) (class counsel in overdraft fee class action, non-reversionary $4.95 million settlement pending final approval)

• Liggio v. Apple Federal Credit Union, No. 18-cv-1059-LO (E.D. Va.) (class counsel in overdraft fee class action, non-reversionary $2.7 million settlement granted final approval) • Olsen, et al. v. ContextLogic Inc., No. 2019CH06737 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 7, 2020) (class counsel in action alleging violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), non-reversionary $16 million settlement finally approved) • Kokoszki v. Playboy Enterpises, Inc., No. 19-cv-10302-BAF (E.D. Mich.) (class counsel in action alleging violation of Michigan’s Personal Privacy Preservation Act (“PPPA”), non-reversionary $3.8 million settlement pending final approval) • In re Everi Holdings, Inc. FACTA Litigation, No. 18CH15419 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 7, 2020) (class counsel in 14 related actions alleging violations of Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act against various casino entities and common payment processor, $14 million non-reversionary class settlement recently reached)

• Chimeno-Buzzi v. Hollister Co. (S.D. Fla.) (class counsel in action alleging violation of TCPA, non-reversionary $10 million settlement finally approved)

1395 Brickell Avenue • Suite 1140 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 357-2107 • www.hedinhall.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 42 of 117

• Farnham v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc. (W.D. Wisc.) (class counsel in action alleging violation of TCPA, non-reversionary $8.5 million settlement finally approved)

• Lin v. Crain Communications, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-11889-VAR-APP (E.D. Mich.) (counsel for putative nationwide class in action alleging violation of Michigan’s PPPA against Michigan-based publishing conglomerate)

• Norberg v. Shutterfly, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (putative class action alleging the collection of individuals’ immutable “scans of face geometry” in violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”))

• Rivera v. Google, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (putative class action arising from Google’s alleged collection of individuals’ immutable “scans of face geometry” in violation of BIPA)

• In re Facebook Biometric Privacy Litig. (N.D. Cal.) (first-of-its-kind data privacy class action arising from Facebook’s alleged collection of individuals’ immutable “scans of face geometry” in violation of BIPA)

• In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litig. (N.D. Cal.) (class action alleging claims in connection with the Volkswagen diesel- cheating scandal, resulting in over $17 billion recovery)

Securities Matters

• City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc. (D. N.J.) ($33 million settlement for class of aggrieved investors)

• Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Pension Fund v. KPMG, LLP, et al. (N.D. Ohio) ($32.6 million settlement for class of aggrieved investors)

• Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, (U.S. Supreme Court) (contributed to certiorari, merits, and amici briefing in 9-0 plaintiffs’ victory on issues of first impression pertaining to concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereignty, the PSLRA and SLUSA, and the Securities Act removal bar)

• Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct., San Mateo Cnty.) ($8.5 million settlement for class of aggrieved investors)

• In re MobileIron Shareholder Litig. (Cal. Sup. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.) ($7.5 million settlement for class of aggrieved investors)

• In re Model N Shareholder Litig. (Cal. Sup. Ct., San Mateo Cnty.) ($8.55 million settlement for class of aggrieved investors)

• Silverman v. Motorola, et al. (N.D. Ill.) ($200 million settlement for class of aggrieved investors)

1395 Brickell Avenue • Suite 1140 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 357-2107 • www.hedinhall.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 43 of 117

• United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 880 v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al. (W.D. Okla.) (obtained multiple favorable precedent-setting decisions related to typicality, tracing, adequacy, materiality, and negative causation under the Securities Act of 1933)

• Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.) (obtained favorable precedent-setting decisions related to statute of limitations, falsity, causation, and materiality under the Securities Act of 1933)

• Buelow v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct., San Mateo Cnty.) ($75 million settlement, obtained several favorable precedent-setting decisions related to statute of limitations, the relation-back doctrine, falsity, causation, and materiality under the Securities Act of 1933)

• In re Herald, Primeo, and Thema Funds Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) ($62.5 million settlement for victims of Madoff Ponzi scheme)

Biographies of Principal Attorneys

Frank S. Hedin Frank S. Hedin manages the firm’s Miami office. He is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar and the State Bar of California. Mr. Hedin received his Bachelor of Arts from University of Michigan and his Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from Syracuse University College of Law. After graduating from law school, he served for fifteen months as law clerk to the Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California. Prior to establishing Hedin Hall LLP, Mr. Hedin was a partner at a litigation boutique in Miami,

Florida, where he represented both plaintiffs and defendants in consumer and data-privacy class actions, employment-related collective actions, and patent and trademark litigation, and served as head of the firm’s class action practice.

David W. Hall David W. Hall manages the firm’s San Francisco office. Before founding Hedin Hall LLP, Mr. Hall managed cases for one of the largest plaintiffs’ firm in the United States, where he

1395 Brickell Avenue • Suite 1140 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 357-2107 • www.hedinhall.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 44 of 117

pioneered and developed, inter alia, the firm’s state court Securities Act and data privacy practices. Earlier in his legal career, he served as judicial law clerk to the Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California. Mr. Hall is a graduate of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, cum laude, and the New England Conservatory of Music. At Hastings College of the Law, he served as Staff Editor of the Hastings Business Law Journal, teaching assistant in the Legal Writing & Research Department, and extern to the Honorable Joyce L. Kennard of the California Supreme Court.

Firm Offices

Miami, Florida San Francisco, California

Frank S. Hedin David W. Hall 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33131 San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

1395 Brickell Avenue • Suite 1140 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 357-2107 • www.hedinhall.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 45 of 117

1 EXHIBIT 8

2 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 3 4 SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

5 FIRM RESUME 6 7 8

9

10

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

DECLARATION OF GUILLAUME BUELL, -13- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP DAVID W. HALL, AND THOMAS 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor LAUGHLIN, IV Seattle, Washington 98104 (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) Telephone: (206) 622-2000

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 46 of 117

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Firm Profile

New York + London + Amsterdam + California + Connecticut + Ohio scott-scott.com Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 47 of 117 MISSION STATEMENT

Founded in 1975, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP is an internationally recognized law firm with offices located in New York, London, Amsterdam, California,

Connecticut, and Ohio. The Firm represents public pension funds, Taft-Hartley funds, Fortune 500 companies, and individuals victimized by securities fraud, anticompetitive conduct, and corporate wrong - doing. The Firm has successfully prosecuted diverse, complex cases and recovered billions of dollars on behalf of its clients — promoting corporate social responsibility while achieving precedent-setting reforms in corporate governance. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 48 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

SPECIALTIES ANTITRUST Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP represents investors, businesses, and consumers in price-fixing, bid-rigging, monopolization, and other restraints of trade cases on both a class-wide and individual basis. The firm’s work for its clients helps ensure that markets remain free, open, and competitive. Scott+Scott has been recognized by the American Antitrust Institute in receiving an Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice award in 2018 and an honorable mention in 2014. The firm’s success is reflected in the money recovered for its clients. The 2018 Antitrust Annual Report: Class Action Filings in Federal Court co-authored by the University of San Francisco School of Law and The Huntington National Bank found that from 2013 to 2018, Scott+Scott ranked second nationally in total value of settlements for antitrust class actions, recovering over $3.4 billion. Scott+Scott’s dedicated team of antitrust partners have built one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ firms for antitrust actions. Furthermore, Scott+Scott’s opening of offices in Europe reflects its commitment and ability to pursue its clients’ claims on a global basis. Scott+Scott stands ready to take on its clients’ complex legal problems and prevail.

Representative actions in which Scott+Scott currently serves as a lead counsel include: • In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (challenging price-fixing of foreign exchange rates (over $2.3 billion in final-approved settlements)); The largest antitrust settlement of 2018 according to the American Antitrust Institute; • In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626 (M.D. Fla.) (class action alleging illegal anticompetitive policies to eliminate discount pricing by the major manufacturers and distributors of disposable contact lenses); • In re European Government Bonds Antitrust Litig., No. 1:19-cv-2601 (S.D.N.Y) (challenging manipulation in the market for European Government Bonds); and • In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig., No. 1:19-cv-01704 (S.D.N.Y.) (challenging manipulation in the market for bonds issued by Government-Sponsored Entities, e.g., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae); • In re ICE LIBOR Antitrust Litig., No. 1:19-cv-02002 (S.D.N.Y.) (class action alleging anticompetitive conduct in the setting of the ICE LIBOR benchmark rate); • Deslandes v. McDonalds USA, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-04857 (N.D. Ill.) (class action challenging no-hire agreement among McDonald’s franchisees); • Butler v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00133 (S.D. Ill.) (class action challenging no-hire agreement among Jimmy John’s franchisees); and • Blanton v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, No. 2:18-cv-13207 (E.D. Mich.) (class action challenging no-hire agreement among Domino’s franchisees). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 49 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

Representative cases in which Scott+Scott has previously served as court-appointed co-lead counsel include: • Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) (challenging bid rigging and market allocation of leveraged buyouts by private equity firms ($590.5 million in settlements)); • Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., No. 14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (challenging price-fixing of the ISDAfix benchmark interest rate ($504.5 million in settlements)) The 3rd largest antitrust settlement of 2018 according to the American Antitrust Institute; • In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1891, No. CV 07-06542 (C.D. Cal.) (challenging price-fixing/illegal surcharge of ticket prices ($86 million in cash and travel voucher settlements)); and • Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., No. 12-cv-03824 (E.D. Pa.) (challenging mo- nopolization in the sale of name-brand pharmaceutical on behalf of indirect purchaser class ($8 million settlement)).

When not serving as lead counsel, Scott+Scott has aided in the recovery for class members by serving on the executive leadership committees in numerous other class action cases, including: • In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 1:05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (challenging price-fixing in the payment cards industry ($6.24 billion settlement preliminarily approved)); • Kleen Products LLC v. Int’l Paper Co., No. 1:10-cv-05711 (N.D. Ill.) (challenging price-fixing of containerboard products (over $376 million in settlements)); • In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2420-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (challenging price-fixing of lithium-ion batteries on behalf of indirect purchaser class (over $113 million in settlements)); and • In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litig., 18-cv-02830 (S.D.N.Y.) (an antitrust class action by eight institutional investors prosecuting 10 global financial institutions for colluding to fix the prices of debt securities issued by the Mexican Government between 2006 and 2017).

When not serving as lead counsel, Scott+Scott has served on the executive leadership committees in numerous class action cases, including: • In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 1:05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (challenging price-fixing in the payment cards industry (p to $6.24 billion settlement preliminarily approved); • Kleen Products LLC v. Int’l Paper Co., No. 1:10-cv-05711 (N.D. Ill.) (challenging price-fixing of containerboard products ($376,400,000 settlement); • In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2420-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (challenging price-fixing of lithium-ion batteries); and • In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litig., 18-cv-02830 (S.D.N.Y.) (an antitrust class action by eight institutional investors prosecuting 10 global financial institutions for colluding to fix the prices of debt securities issued by the Mexican Government between 2006 and 2017).

Scott+Scott’s class action antitrust experience includes serving as co-trial counsel in: • In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 02-cv-0844 (N.D. Ohio), where it helped obtain a $34.5 million jury verdict, which was subsequently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (see In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 524 (6th Cir. 2008); and • Ross v. Bank of America N.A., No. 05-cv-7116, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.), and Ross v. American Express Co., No. 04-cv-5723, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.) (bench trial involving agreement among payment cards to impose arbitration terms on cardholders). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 50 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

In addition to its class action work, Scott+Scott also represents clients in opt-out antitrust litigation. The firm’s success in class actions allows it to provide its opt-out clients unique and valuable insights. Representative clients include Parker Hannifin Corporation, PolyOne Corporation, Eastman Kodak Compa- ny, and Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., in the following matters: • In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2481 (S.D.N.Y.); • In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1648 (N.D. Cal.); • In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1642 (D. Conn.); and • In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 1684 (E.D. Pa.).

CONSUMER RIGHTS Scott+Scott and its attorneys have a proven track record of obtaining significant recoveries for consumers in class action cases. Scott+Scott is one of the premier advocates in the area of consumer protection law and has been appointed to a number of prominent leadership positions.

Cases where Scott+Scott has played a leading role in the area of consumer protection litigation include: • In re Providian Financial Corp. Credit Card Terms Litig., MDL No. 1301 (E.D. Pa.) ($105 million settlement was achieved on behalf of a class of credit card holders who were charged excessive interest and late charges on their credit cards); • In re Prudential Ins. Co. SGLI/VGLI Contract Litig., MDL No. 2208 (D. Mass.) ($40 million settlement was achieved on behalf of a class of military service members and their families who had purchased insurance contracts); • In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2522 (D. Minn.) ($59 million settlement achieved on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of personal and financial information of approximately 40 million credit and debit card holders); • Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union v. Kmart Corp., No. 15-cv-02228 (N.D. Ill.) ($18 million monetary and injunctive relief settlement on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of credit and debit card information); • Winsouth Credit Union v. Mapco Express Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1573 (M.D. Tenn.) (largest dollar-per-card settlement obtained on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of credit and debit card information); • Gunther v. Capital One, N.A., No. 09-2966 (E.D.N.Y.) (a net settlement resulting in class members receiving 100% of their damages was obtained); • In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2086 (W.D. Mo.) ($37 million settlement obtained on behalf of class of propane purchasers who alleged defendants overcharged the class for under-filled propane tanks); • Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 1:13-cv-1091 (E.D. Va.) ($7.3 million settlement on behalf of class of consumers who were misled into accepting purportedly 0% interest offers); and • Howerton v. Cargill, Inc., No. 13-cv-00336 (D. Haw.) ($6.1 settlement obtained on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased Truvia, purported to be deceptively marketed as “all-natural”). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 51 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

Moreover, Scott+Scott is currently serving in a leadership capacity in a number of class action consumer protection cases, including: • In re Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2800 (N.D. Ga.) (co-lead counsel on behalf of financial institutions that have been injured because their customers’ personal information was compromised when Equifax’s systems were breached); • In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga.) (co-lead counsel, $27.25 million settlement on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach and the theft of the personal and financial information of over 40 million credit and debit card holders); • First Choice Federal Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Co., No. 2:16-cv-00506 (W.D. Pa.) (co-lead counsel, pre-liminary approval of $50 million settlement on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of personal and financial information of millions of credit and debit card holders); • Negron v. Cigna Corp., No. 3:16-cv-1702 (D. Conn.) (Chair of Executive Committee, claims on behalf of plan participants involving overcharge of copayments for prescription drugs); and • Midwest America Federal Credit Union v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00514 (N.D. Ga.) (member of Executive Committee, claims on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of credit and debit card information).

SECURITIES AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Scott+Scott represents individuals and institutional investors that have suffered from stock fraud and corporate malfeasance. Scott+Scott’s philosophy is simple – directors and officers should be truthful in their dealings with the public markets and honor their duties to their shareholders. The Firm has successfully prosecuted numerous class actions under the federal securities laws, resulting in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders.

Representative cases prosecuted by Scott+Scott under the federal securities laws include: • In re Priceline.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 3:00-cv-01884 (D. Conn. July 19, 2007) ($80 million settlement); • Irvine v. ImClone Sys., Inc., No. 1:02-cv-00109 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2005) ($75 million settlement); • Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Grp., No. 1:08-cv-03758 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011) ($70 million settlement); • Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chi. v. Bank of Am., NA, No. 1:12-cv-02865 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2014) ($69 million settlement); • Weston v. RCS Capital Corp., No. 1:14-cv-10136 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2014) ($31 million settlement); • Schnall v. Annuity & Life Re (Holdings) Ltd., No. 3:02-cv-02133 (D. Conn. June 13, 2008) ($26.5 million settlement); • In re: Wash. Mut. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., No. 2:09-cv-00037 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2014) ($26 million settlement); • In re Conn’s, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 4:14-cv-00548 (S.D. Tex.) ($22.5 million settlement); • In re King Digital, Entm’t plc S’holder Litig., No. CGC-15-544770 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. Cty. Nov. 8, 2016) ($18.5 million settlement); Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 52 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

• Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Insulet Corp., No. 1:15-cv-12345 (D. Mass. Apr. 6, 2018) ($19.5 million settlement); • Birmingham Ret. & Relief Sys. v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC, No. 1:12-cv-09350 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2013) ($10 million settlement); • Hamel v. GT Solar Int’l, Inc., No. 217-2010-CV-05004 (N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack Cty. May 10, 2011) ($10.25 million settlement); and • St. Lucie Cty. Fire Dist. Firefighter’s Pension Tr. Fund v. Oilsands Quest Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01288 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2013) ($10.23 million settlement).

Since its inception, Scott+Scott’s securities and corporate governance litigation department has de- veloped and maintained a reputation of excellence and integrity recognized by state and federal courts across the country. N.Y.U. v. Ariel Fund Ltd., No. 603803/08, slip. op. at 9-10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 22, 2010): “It is this Court’s position that Scott+Scott did a superlative job in its representation, which substantially benefited Ariel...For the record, it should be noted that Scott+Scott has demonstrated a remarkable grasp and handling of the extraordinarily complex matters in this case. . . . They have possessed a knowledge of the issues presented and this knowledge has always been used to the benefit of all investors.” In re Priceline.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 3:00-CV-01884(AVC), 2007 WL 2115592, at *5 (D. Conn. July 20, 2007): “The quality of representation here is demonstrated, in part, by the result achieved for the class. Further, it has been this court’s experience, throughout the ongoing litigation of this matter, that counsel have conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism and respect for the court and the judicial process.”

In addition to prosecuting federal securities class actions, Scott+Scott has a proven track record of handling corporate governance matters through its extensive experience litigating shareholder derivative actions. Scott+Scott has been singularly successful in its shareholder derivative appellate practice, and as a result, has been instrumental in fashioning the standards in this area of law. Examples of this include: • W.moreland Cty. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Parkinson, No. 12-3342 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2013): the Seventh Circuit clarified the parameters of demand futility in those instances where a majority of directors of a corporation are alleged to have breached the fiduciary duty of loyalty by consciously disregarding positive law; • Cottrell v. Duke, No. 12-3871 (8th Cir. Dec. 28, 2013): the Eighth Circuit, in a case of first impression, clarified that the Colorado River stay is virtually never appropriate where there are exclusive federal claims; and • King v. Verifone Holdings, Inc., No. 330, 2010 (Del. Jan. 28, 2011): the Supreme Court of Delaware has clarified the availability of the Delaware Corporate Code §220 “books and records” demands to a shareholder whose original plenary action was dismissed without prejudice in a federal district court.

Representative shareholder derivative actions prosecuted by Scott+Scott include: • In re DaVita Healthcare Partners Derivative Litig., No. 1:12-cv-02074 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2015) (corporate governance reforms valued at $100 million); • Buffalo Grove Police Pension Fund v. Diefenderfer, No. 2:19-cv-00062 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2019) (settlement of derivative claims against Navient Corporation and its officers and directors providing for corporate governance reforms valued at $139 million); Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 53 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

• Tharp v. Acacia Commc’ns, Inc., No 1:17-cv-11504 (D. Mass. Sept. 17, 2018) (settlement of derivative claims against Acacia Communications, Inc. and its officers and directors providing for corporate governance reforms valued at $57 million to $71 million); • N. Miami Beach Gen. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Parkinson, No. 1:10-cv-06514 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2014) (corporate governance reforms valued between $50 million and $60 million); • In re: Marvell Tech. Grp. Ltd. Derivative Litig., No. 5:06-cv-03894 (RS) (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2009) ($54.9 million settlement and corporate governance reforms); • In re Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., No. 1:01-cv-01451 (D. Colo. June 15, 2004) ($25 million settlement and corporate governance reforms); • Plymouth Cty. Contributory Ret. Fund v. Hassan, No. 2:08-cv-01022 (D.N.J. Jan. 10, 2012) (settlement of derivative claims against Merck Schering Plough and its officers and directors providing for corporate governance reforms valued between $50 million and $75 million); • Carfagno v. Schnitzer, No. 1:08-cv-00912 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2009) (modification of terms of preferred securities issued to insiders valued at $8 million); and • Garcia v. Carrion, No. 3:09-cv-01507 (D.P.R. July 8, 2011) (settlement of derivative claims against Popular, Inc. and its officers and directors providing for corporate governance reforms valued between $10.05 million and $15.49 million).

CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION Scott+Scott has also successfully litigated cases to enforce its clients’ civil rights. In The Vulcan Society, Inc. v. The City of New York, No. 07-cv-2067 (E.D.N.Y.), Scott+Scott was part of a team of lawyers representing a class of black applicants who were denied or delayed employment as New York City firefighters due to decades of racial discriminatory conduct. The district court certified the class in a post-Walmart v. Dukes decision, granted summary judgment against the City on both intentional discrimina- tion and disparate impact claims, and after trial ordered broad injunctive relief, including a new examination, revision of the application procedure, and continued monitoring by a court-appointed monitor for at least 10 years. The back pay and compensatory damage award will be determined in a subsequent ruling. In Hohider v. United Parcel Services, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-00363 (W.D. Penn.), Scott+Scott obtained significant structural changes to UPS’s Americans with Disabilities Act compliance policies and monetary awards for some individual employees in settlement of a ground-breaking case seeking nationwide class certification of UPS employees who were barred from reemployment after suffering injuries on the job. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 54 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE In alphabetical order: CAREY ALEXANDER PRACTICE EMPHASIS Carey Alexander prosecutes complex consumer class actions with a focus on deceptive pricing and data breach litigation. ADMISSIONS State of New York: United States Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit; United States District Court: Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York, Districts of Connecticut, Colorado, Eastern District of Wisconsin and Northern District of Illinois EDUCATION St. John’s University School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 2012); Skidmore College (B.A., 2004)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Alexander is an associate in the firm’s New York office and has worked closely with the leadership teams steering numerous class actions, including:

In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 1:17-md-2800 (N.D. Ga.) (member of the Plaintiffs’ Coordination and Discovery Committee); First Choice Federal Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Co., No. 2:16-cv-506 (W.D. Pa.) (settlement valued at $50 million); and Morrow v. Ann Inc., No. 1:16-cv-3340 (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement valued at $7.1 million).

During law school, Mr. Alexander served as Associate Managing Editor of the St. John’s Law Review. Mr. Alexander’s student note, Abusive: Dodd–Frank Section 1031 and the Continuing Struggle to Protect Consumers, 85 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 1105 (2012), has been cited in judicial opinions and several legal journals, including the Harvard Law Review.

Before joining the bar, Mr. Alexander served as an editor of the widely acclaimed consumer-advocacy blog The Consumerist. He also served as a policy advisor to the Bronx Borough President and worked as part of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 55 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

KRISTEN M. ANDERSON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Kristen M. Anderson’s practice focuses on class action litigation with an emphasis on antitrust cases within the financial services industry. ADMISSIONS States of California and New York; the District of Columbia; United States Court of Appeals: Second Circuit EDUCATION University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 2006); St. Louis University (B.A., Philosophy, summa cum laude, 2003)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Anderson is a partner in the firm’s New York office and is recognized as a Rising Star in the 2014-19 editions of Super Lawyers.

Currently, Ms. Anderson represents plaintiff-investors in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) ($2.3 billion settlement) and Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, by and through its Trustees, Gildor Management LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC, No. 15-cv-9323 (S.D.N.Y.) ($50 million settlement), cases alleging misconduct in the foreign exchange market by global financial institutions. She also represented pension funds and individual investors in Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) ($590.5 million settlement), an antitrust action alleging collusion in the buyouts of large publicly traded companies by private equity firms. In addition, she served on the trial team representing certified classes of cardholders in antitrust cases challenging class action-banning arbitration clauses in credit card agreements as restraints of trade in Ross v. Bank of America N.A., No. 05-cv-7116, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.) and Ross v. American Express Co., No. 04-cv-5723, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y). Ms. Anderson also has an active pro bono immigration practice.

Ms. Anderson is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section. She served as Vice Chair of the Antitrust Section’s Trial Practice Committee and was an editor of the Committee’s newsletter, Trying Antitrust. She also served as a Vice Chair of the Antitrust Section’s Books & Treatises Committee. She has been a contributing author to the Antitrust Section’s Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws (3d. ed.), Antitrust Discovery Handbook (2d ed.), Joint Venture Handbook (2d ed.), and the 2010 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments.

In addition, Ms. Anderson served as an editor for Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases (2016 ed.). Ms. Anderson was a co-author of an article appearing in the Fall 2014 edition of Competition: Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section of the State Bar of California, titled The Misapplication of Associated General Contractors to Cartwright Act Claims, 23 COMPETITION: J. ANTI. & UNFAIR COMP. L. SEC. ST. B. CAL. 120 (2014). Ms. Anderson is also a frequent speaker on women in the law and antitrust topics through the American Bar Association and other organizations.

During law school, Ms. Anderson served as an extern at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in San Francisco and as an extern to Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar of the Supreme Court of California. She was also a research assistant to Professor James R. McCall in the areas of antitrust and comparative antitrust law. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 56 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

PETER A. BARILE III PRACTICE EMPHASIS Peter A. Barile III litigates high-stakes, complex antitrust and commodities litigation. ADMISSIONS States of New York and Connecticut; District of Columbia; Supreme Court of the United States; United States Court of Appeals: Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Federal, and D.C. Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of Columbia, District of Connecticut, Northern District of Illinois, and District of Columbia EDUCATION University of Connecticut School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1999); University of Connecticut, (BA)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Barile is a partner in Scott+Scott’s competition practice. He has twenty years of experience litigating complex antitrust and commodities cases, having representing clients on both sides of the docket in a variety of industries and contexts, from consumers and investors to institutions and corporations, whether as individual plaintiffs, class plaintiffs, opt-outs, targets of government investigations, or defendants. Prior to joining the firm, he practiced both in New York and in Washington D.C. with major law firms renowned for their historically leading antitrust practices.

Mr. Barile devotes a substantial amount of his practice to federal antitrust and commodity class action litigation involving the fi- nancial services industry in the Southern District of New York. Among other matters, he currently plays a leading role representing class plaintiffs in In re ICE LIBOR Antitrust Litigation, 1:19-cv-02002 (S.D.N.Y.). He is or has been involved in a leadership role or otherwise representing investor rights in major cases involving financial benchmarks and commodities, including: In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, 1:13-md-02481 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Term Commodities Cotton Futures Litigation, 1:12-cv-05126 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Foreign Currency Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, 1:13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litigation, 1:11-cv-03600 (S.D.N.Y.); In re London Silver Fixing Antitrust Litigation, 1:14-md-02573 (S.D.N.Y.); and In re Zinc Antitrust Litigation, 1:14-cv-03728 (S.D.N.Y.).

He recently played a very significant role in the ISDAfix antitrust litigation (Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.)), in which the firm achieved more than $500 million in settlements for investors, and for which the firm was awarded the 2018 Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice by the American Antitrust Institute.

In addition, Mr. Barile has held leadership roles on behalf of plaintiff classes in a number of high tech antitrust matters, including: In re Online DVD Antitrust Litigation, 1:09-md-2029 (N.D. Cal.); In re High Tech Employees Antitrust Litigation, 5:11-cv-02509 (N.D. Cal.), as well as in agricultural-related antitrust litigation, including his representation of classes of dairy farmers as lead counsel in In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, 2:08-md-01000 (E.D. Tenn.).

Mr. Barile also has considerable appellate experience. or instance, he has helped nonprofit advocacy groups be heard in matters of national importance as Friends of the Court in major cases before the United States Supreme Court. His work has included Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), in which he served as lead counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Federation of America in a landmark antitrust case on resale price fixing, and Giles v. State of California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), in which he served as lead counsel for amicus curiae Battered Women’s Justice Project, in a case concerning the scope of the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 57 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

Mr. Barile is active in the antitrust bar, having held a number of leadership posts in the ABA and other organizations. Currently, Mr. Barile is Secretary and a member of the Executive Committee of the Antitrust a d Trade Regulation Section of the Connecticut Bar Association and serves on the U.S. Advisory Board of the Loyola Institute for Antitrust Studies.

Mr. Barile has published numerous articles and served as a panelist or speaker on antitrust and related issues. His work has been cited by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Modernization Commission, as well as by leading academics and practitioners. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 58 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

JUSTIN W. BATTEN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Mr. Batten’s practice focuses primarily on antitrust litigation and other aspects of competition law. ADMISSIONS State of New York EDUCATION HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Batten is an associate in the firm’s New York office. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Batten served as an Assistant Attorney General in the New York Attorney General’s Antitrust Bureau.

Mr. Batten is an active member of the New York State Bar Association’s Antitrust Section. He serves as the Young Lawyer Liaison to the Antitrust Section’s Executive Committee, and is a member of the Donnelly Act Revision Committee. While at NYU, Mr. Batten served as an intern with the Georgia Attorney General’s Office and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, assisted clients in a clinic with employment law matters, and was a Teaching Assistant to Professor Mark Geistfeld for a first-year torts course. Mr. Batten also served as an articles editor for NYU’s Journal of Law & Liberty. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 59 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

DAMIËN F. BERKHOUT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Damiën F. Berkhout is a dispute resolution specialist whose focus is on complex commercial disputes - in particular antitrust and collective action claims - and corporate litigation disputes (including complex (corporate) employment matters). ADMISSIONS The Netherlands EDUCATION Columbia Law School (LL.M, Harlan Fiske Stone scholar, 2007); University of Amsterdam (doctoral, cum laude, 2006)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Berkhout is a partner in the firm’s Amsterdam office. He has extensive experience in successfully coordinating and resolving cross-border litigation. Damiën acts as counsel for a broad spectrum of clients: institutional investors, companies, as well as (former) supervisory and management board members. He regularly publishes peer-reviewed articles on various topics, such as corporate, European, employment and procedural law.

His representative cases include:

• A major air-cargo company in the air-cargo follow-on civil damages cases in the Netherlands. • The Supervisory Board of Akzo Nobel N.V. in the successful defense against a request for inquiry into the company affairs at the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam court of appeal. • Mylan N.V. during the successful takeover defense against Teva’s hostile bid for the company. • ASR in inquiry proceedings involving Van der Moolen Holding N.V., resulting in a finding that mismanagement took place at Van der Moolen. • The company in a shareholders dispute, resulting in a EUR 12 million earn out incentive package for the management board and obtaining further financing for the company for the next three years. • The majority shareholder in a post-M&A dispute, resulting in a negotiated settlement and a clawback of EUR 10 million of the purchase price for the client. • The former chairman of a listed company in a class action claim involving, inter alia, a class action claim in excess of EUR 1 billion, successfully defending the chairman with the court finding that he was not liable. • KLM N.V. in a landmark litigation case against airline pilots regarding supposed age discrimination in the collective bargaining agreement, resulting in a favorable decision for KLM at the Dutch Supreme Court. • Albert Heijn B.V., Gall & Gall B.V and Etos B.V. in landmark litigation regarding the all-in pay of over 50,000 short part-time employees, resulting in the favorable decisions in both summary as well as substantive proceedings.

Damiën also served as legal cousel for a client in Dutch enforcement action, successfully defending the client against the enforcement of an arbitral award with a value in excess of EUR 130 million; and, in arbitration, obtaining an arbitral award finding the counter-party liable for damages estimated in the range of EUR 10-12 million.

Damiën has been recognized as a “Recommended lawyer” in the Legal 500 EMEA (2018 and 2019 editions) and was the Winner of the Dutch national and Amsterdam bar association pleading contest (2009). He is a frequent lecturer at the University of Amsterdam and for the Dutch bar association (corporate law specialization track). And has published over 20 articles in peer-reviewed law journals. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 60 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

ANJALI BHAT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Anjali Bhat specializes in antitrust, securities, and other complex litigation. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York EDUCATION Columbia Law School (J.D., 2011); Swarthmore College (B.A., High Honors, 2007)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Bhat is an associate in the firm’s New York office and focuses on general litigation and securities class actions. Her experience also encompasses real estate litigation in New York state courts.

Ms. Bhat is the primary associate on the teams prosecuting the securities class actions In re Endochoice Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2016-cv-277772 (Ga. Sup. Ct.) and Okl. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Newell Brands Inc., HUD-L-003492-18 (N.J. Sup. Ct.). She is also a member of the teams prosecuting the fed cattle antitrust litigation and In re Sandisk LLC Sec. Litig., 15-CV-01455 (N.D. Cal.).

During law school, Ms. Bhat was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a finalist in the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition. As an undergraduate, she studied history. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Bhat clerked for the Honorable William F. Kuntz II of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 61 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

THOMAS K. BOARDMAN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Thomas K. Boardman’s practice focuses on antitrust litigation. ADMISSIONS States of New York and California; United States Court of Appeals: Second and Ninth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, Northern and Central Districts of California EDUCATION University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D. 2009); Vassar College (B.A., Political Science and Film Studies, 2004)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Boardman is an associate in the firm’s New York office and represents plaintiff-investors in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation and represents opt-out plaintiffs in Mag Instrument Inc v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Mr. Boardman also represents indirect purchaser plaintiffs in In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation.

While attending law school, he was a member of the Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal and worked as a research assistant to professors Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. and Rory K. Little.

At his prior firm, Mr. Boardman was a member of the trial team in In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation. For his work on that case, Mr. Boardman was nominated by Consumer Attorneys of California as a finalist for Consumer Attorney of the Year. Mr. Boardman was also an instrumental part of the lead counsel team in In re Potash Antitrust Litigation (II), a case that featured a unanimous victory before an en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit, resulting in one of the most influential antitrust appellate opinions in recent memory. The case ended in $90 million in settlements.

Mr. Boardman has co-authored the following articles: Reverse Engineering Your Antitrust Case: Plan for Trial Even Before You File Your Case, ANTITRUST MAGAZINE, Spring 2014, Vol. 28, No. 2, with Bruce L. Simon; and Class Action for Health Professionals, chapter from Advocacy Strategies for Health and Mental Health Professionals, Springer Publishing Co., 2011, with Bruce L. Simon, Stuart L. Lustig, Editor. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Boardman worked at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP in San Francisco and served as a judicial law clerk to the Hon. Christina Reiss in United States District Court, District of Vermont.

Mr. Boardman holds memberships in the ABA Antitrust Section – Model Jury Instruction Revision Task Force, ABA Antitrust Section – Young Lawyers Division – Litigation Committee, ABA Antitrust Section – Young Lawyers Division – Civil Practice and Procedure Committee, New York State Bar Association – Antitrust Section, Bar Association of San Francisco, and Public Justice Foundation. He also enjoys running and regularly does so for charity – including several races to fundraise for various causes, including the New York City Marathon (National Multiple Sclerosis Foundation) and the Boston Marathon (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 62 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

JACEY BOGLER PRACTICE EMPHASIS Jacey Bogler focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of Iowa EDUCATION Drake University Law School (J.D., with honors, 2014); Iowa State University (B.A. Psychology, Criminal Justice minor, cum laude, 2010)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Bogler is an attorney in the firm’s San Diego office specializing in complex litigation. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 63 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE DONALD A. BROGGI PRACTICE EMPHASIS Donald A. Broggi engaged in the Firm’s securities, antitrust, mass tort, and consumer litigation practices. ADMISSIONS States of New York and Pennsylvania; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, District of Western Pennsylvania; State Supreme Courts: New York and Pennsylvania EDUCATION Duquesne University School of Law (J.D., 2000); University of Pittsburgh (B.A., 1990)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Broggi is a partner in the firm’s New York office and is engaged in the firm’s complex securities, antitrust, and consumer litigation, including: In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) ($2.3 billion in settlements to date); Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.) ($504 million settlement); Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, ); Irvine v. ImClone Sys., Inc., No. 02-cv-00109 (S.D.N.Y.) ($75 million settlement); In re Wash. Mut. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., No. 09-cv-00037 (W.D. Wash.) ($69 million settlement); and In re SanDisk LLC Sec. Litig., No. 15-cv-01455 (N.D. Cal.) ($50 million settlement), among others. Currently, Mr. Broggi is representing cities, counties, and other municipalities from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida in both state and federal litigation against the manufacturers and distributors of opioid medications.

Mr. Broggi also works with the Firm’s institutional investor clients, including hundreds of public pension systems and Taft-Hartley funds throughout the United States, to confirm their funds have proper safeguards in place to ensure against corporate malfeasance and regularly consults with institutional investors in the United States on issues relating to corporate fraud in the U.S. securities markets, as well as corporate governance issues and shareholder litigation. He has lectured at institutional investor conferences throughout the United States on the value of shareholder activism as a necessary component of preventing corporate fraud abuses, including the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, Georgia Association of Public Pension Trustees, Michigan Association of Public Retirement Systems, Illinois Public Pension Fund Association, and the Pennsylvania Association of County Controllers, among others. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 64 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

JOEL BOORAS PRACTICE EMPHASIS Joel Booras focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law (J.D., 2012); University of San Diego (B.A., 2008)

HIGHLIGHTS Joel Booras is a staff attorney in Scott+Scott’s California office where he focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Booras practiced in the personal injury field and managed cases in the electronic discovery arena for several high-profile technology clients. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 65 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE CHRISTOPHER M. BURKE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Christopher M. Burke chairs Scott+Scott’s competition practice and sets the firm’s litigation standards. ADMISSIONS State Supreme Courts: California, New York, and Wisconsin, and numerous United States District Courts and Court of Appeals. EDUCATION University of Wisconsin (M.A. 1989; J.D. 1993; Ph.D. 1996); William & Mary (M.A. 1988); The Ohio State University (B.A. 1984)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Burke currently sits as a partner in the firm’s San Diego and New York offices with a principal practice in complex antitrust litigation, particularly in the financial services industry. He has served as lead counsel in some of the world’s largest financial services antitrust matters. Currently, he is co-lead counsel in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) ($2.3 billion settlement); In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626 (M.D. Fla.); and In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig., No. 1:19-cv-01704 (S.D.N.Y.).

He has served as co-lead counsel in Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, 07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) ($590.5 million settlement); Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., 14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y) (ISDAfix litigation) ($504.5 million settlement); Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, by and through its Trustee, Gildor Management LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC, 15-cv-09323 (S.D.N.Y.) ($50 million settlement); In re Currency Conversion Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.) ($336 million settle- ment); In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (subsequently as an executive committee member after joining Scott+Scott) (up to $6.24 billion settlement); LiPuma v. American Express Co., No. 1:04-cv-20314 (S.D. Fla.) ($90 million settlement); and was one of the trial counsel in Schwartz v. Visa, No. 822505-4 (Alameda Cty. Super. Ct.) ($780 million plaintiff’s judgment after six months of trial); and In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1030 (M.D. Fla.) ($90 million settlement with final settlements occurring during trial). Mr. Burke was one of the original lawyers in the Wholesale Elec. Antitrust cases in California, which settled for over $1 billion.

Further, Mr. Burke was trial counsel in Ross v. Bank of America N.A., No. 05-cv-7116, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.) and Ross v. American Express Co., No. 04-cv-5723, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.). He was also co-lead counsel for indirect purchasers in In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1891 (C.D. Cal.) ($86 million settlement), and In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litig., No. 11-md-2208 (D. Mass.) ($40 million settlement). Mr. Burke also investigated and filed the first complaint in In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., 13-md-2476 (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Burke frequently lectures at professional conferences and CLEs on competition matters, including litigation surrounding financial benchmarks, class-barring arbitration clauses, the effects of Twombly in 12(b)(6) motions, and the increasing use of experts at class certification and trial. The American Antitrust Institute (“AAI”) honored Christopher Burke and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law with an Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice award at their 2018 Antitrust Enforcement Awards for efforts in the ISDAfix litigation. In 2014, he was also recognized for his exemplary work in the Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners matter by the AAI and has regularly been designated as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 66 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

Mr. Burke has also served as an Assistant Attorney General at the Wisconsin Department of Justice and has lectured on law-related topics, including constitutional law, law and politics, and civil rights at the State University of New York at Buffalo and at the University of Wisconsin. Mr. Burke’s book, The Appearance of Equality: Racial Gerrymandering, Redistricting, and the Supreme Court (Greenwood, 1999), examines conflicts over voting rights and political representation within the competing rhetoric of communitarian and liberal strategies of justification. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 67 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE VICTORIA BURKE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Victoria Burke focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California and the District of Columbia; United States District Court: Central District of California EDUCATION Loyola Law School’s Fashion Law Summer Intensive Program (certificate of completion, 2014); Southwestern Law School (J.D., 2011); Arizona State University (B.A.,1997)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Burke is an attorney in the firm’s San Diego office. Her practice focuses on class action litigation with an emphasis on privacy data breach cases and antitrust cases within the financial services industry. Victoria also has a background in intellectual property. She holds both CIPP/US and CIPP/E designations, and is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law (Fashion Law), Southwestern Law School.

On behalf of the American Bar Association, Victoria has served as Vice-Chair of the Trademark Transactions Committee, Chair of the Fashion Law Subcommittee, and Vice-Chair of the Trademark Litigation Committee as well as a member of the Beverly Hills Bar Association Executive Committee: IP, Internet & New Media Section. She also frequently authors law articles on a range of topics for various legal publications, most recently Secondary Meaning: Federal Circuit Decision Lays Out New Test for Determining Secondary Meaning. (Daily Journal, March 2019). Victoria has also served as panelist for many programs, such as the Osgoode Fashion Law Society panel, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, CAN (Oct 2018). Victoria has volunteered her time to Bet Tzedek’s Employment Rights Project: Wages and Hour cases and regularly serves as a moot court judge for Pepperdine University School of Law’s Annual National Entertainment Law Moot Court Competition.

In 2015 she was awarded the Recognition of Outstanding Leadership Contribution by the American Bar Association and appeared on the Super Lawyers Rising Stars list in 2017 and 2018. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 68 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE MICHAEL BURNETT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Michael G. Burnett practices complex securities litigation at the firm, where he consults with institutional clients on corporate fraud in the securities markets as well as corporate governance issues. ADMISSIONS Supreme Court of Nebraska; United States District Court: District of Nebraska EDUCATION Creighton University School of Law (J.D., 1984); Creighton University (B.A. Finance, 1981)

HIGHLIGHTS In addition to his work with the firm, Mr. Burnett has specialized in intellectual property and related law. His representations include: In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) ($2 billion settlement); Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation, 14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y) ($325 million settlement); Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, 07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) ($590.5 million settlement).

Michael is also a member of the Nebraska Bar Association.

ELIZABETH A. CAMPOS PRACTICE EMPHASIS Elizabeth A. Campos focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. EDUCATION Thomas Jefferson School of Law (J.D., 2001); University of Southern California (B.A., 1997)

HIGHLIGHTS Elizabeth A. Campos is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s California office where she focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 69 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE DOUGLAS CAMPBELL PRACTICE EMPHASIS Douglas Campbell specialises in competition damages litigation. ADMISSIONS England and Wales; Scotland EDUCATION University of Edinburgh (Diploma in Professional Legal Practice, 2012); University of Edinburgh (LLB, honours, 2011)

HIGHLIGHTS Douglas Campbell is an associate in Scott+Scott’s London office. His background is in commercial disputes, giving him experience across a range of areas and industries in the public and private sectors, working on numerous cases in the English High Court and Court of Appeal. Douglas regularly works with clients and counsel, considering competition and regulatory claims, assessing their merits and viability. He has considerable experience in the third-party funding sector, working on funded cases and preparing proposals, and is highly familiar with the collective actions regime under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Amongst other things, Douglas is currently representing a number of clients with potential claims against financial institutions for manipulation of the foreign exchange market, and acting for several retailers with claims against Visa and Mastercard in respect of charges and rules imposed with respect of their card-payment schemes.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Douglas spent six years working for a major UK law firm in Edinburgh and London. During this time he acted in a number of competition damages, and general commercial claims in the English High Court and Court of Appeal. His experience includes acting for a Part 20 Defendant airline in the Air Cargo follow-on and stand-alone damages claims, acting for a FTSE 250 listed company, coordinating a claim against a major UK bank for manipulation of the foreign exchange market, and, acting for a money transfer business in an abuse of dominance claim against a major UK bank (obtaining injunctive relief). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 70 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE DEBORAH CLARK-WEINTRAUB PRACTICE EMPHASIS Deborah Clark-Weintraub has extensive experience in all types of class action litigation. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States Court of Appeals: First, Second, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan and Eastern District of Wisconsin EDUCATION Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY (J.D., with distinction, 1986); St. John’s University, Queens, NY (B.A., summa cum laude, 1981)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Weintraub is a partner in the firm’s New York office and focuses her practice on securities litigation.

Ms. Weintraub has represented investors in numerous cases that have resulted in substantial recov-eries including In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litig., MDL No. 1222 (S.D.N.Y.) ($300 million settlement); In re CVS Corporation Securities Litig., No. 01-11464 (D. Mass.) ($110 million settlement); Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America, NA, 1:12-cv-2865 (S.D.N.Y.) ($69 million settlement); Weston v. RCS Capital Corp., 1:14- cv-10136 (S.D.N.Y.) ($31 million settlement); and In re Conn’s, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 4:14-cv-00548 (S.D. Tex.) ($22.5 million settlement), among others.

Ms. Weintraub has also obtained substantial recoveries in consumer litigation including Young v. Wells Fargo & Co., 4:08-cv-00507-RP-CFB (S.D. Iowa) ($25.7 million settlement).

Ms. Weintraub is currently representing investors in several ongoing securities class action cases including In re SanDisk LLC Securities Litig., 3:15-cv-01455-VC (N.D. Cal.) ($50 million settlement preliminarily approved); Silverberg v. Dryships, Inc., 2:17-cv-04547 (E.D.N.Y.); Robinson v. Diana Containerships, Inc., 2:17-cv-06160 (E.D.N.Y.); and In re Netshoes Securities Litig., Index No. 157435/2018 (N.Y. Supreme Court). She is also representing plaintiffs in In re ICE LIBOR Antitrust Litig., 1:19-cv-00439 (S.D.N.Y.).

Ms. Weintraub is the co-author of Gender Bias and the Treatment of Women as Advocates, Women in Law (1998), and the Dissenting Introduction defending the merits of securities class action litigation contained in the 1994 monograph Securities Class Actions: Abuses and Remedies, published by the National Legal Center for the Public Interest. She is a member of the New York City Bar Association.

While in law school, Ms. Weintraub was a member and research editor of the Hofstra Law Review. Following her graduation from Hofstra Law School, Ms. Weintraub served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jacob Mishler, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York (1986-1987). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 71 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

JOSEPH G. CLEEMANN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Joseph G. Cleemann has extensive experience litigating class actions, complex commercial disputes, and government enforcement actions. ADMISSIONS United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York EDUCATION Brooklyn Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2009); Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (M.S., with honors, 2004; Harvard University (A.B., with honors in History, 1998)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Cleemann is an associate at the firm’s New York Office. He represents dozens of governmental entities in seven states who are prosecuting pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors in opioid litigation.

Prior to coming to the Firm, Joe worked eight years at Ropes & Gray, LLP, where he principally represented corporate defendants in government prosecutions, class actions, and complex business litigation. He has extensive experience in the area of data privacy.

He spent his first year out of law school at a Ropes-sponsored fellowship with the Legal Aid Society’s Prisoners’ Rights Project. During law school, he interned with the Hon. Robert Sack in the Second Circuit and the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York. Prior to entering the law, he worked seven years in trade book publishing. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 72 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE ERIN GREEN COMITE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Erin Green Comite litigates complex class actions throughout the United States, representing the rights of shareholders, employees, consumers, and other individuals harmed by corporate misrepresentation and malfeasance. ADMISSIONS State of Connecticut; United States Court of Appeals: Second, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, District of Connecticut, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and District of Colorado

EDUCATION University of Washington School of Law (J.D., 2002); Dartmouth College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1994)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Comite is a partner in the firm’s Connecticut office and currently serves in a leadership role in a number of complex class actions including: First Choice Federal Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Company, No. 16-cv-00506 (W.D. Pa.), co-lead counsel on behalf of financial institutions arising out of data breach; In re Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. Litig., No. 17-mi-55555 (N.D. Ga.), member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee on behalf of financial institutions arising out of a data breach, In re Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2800 (N.D. Ga.), chair of law and briefing committee; Forth v. Walgreen Co, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02246 (N.D. Ill.), co-lead counsel, asserting claims on behalf of class of consumers alleging overcharge for medically necessary, covered prescription drugs; and Aquilina v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:18-cv-00496 (D. Haw.), co-lead counsel, alleging that insurers, brokers, and agents improperly steered insureds into surplus lines insurance.

Recently, Ms. Comite has played a significant role in the prosecution of consumer class cases such as: In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga.) ($27.25 million settlement) and In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2522 (D. Minn.) ($59 million settlement), two of the largest data breaches impacting consumer personal data to date; Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union v. Kmart Corp., No. 15-cv-02228 (N.D. Ill.), Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee ($8.1 million settlement); Morrow v. Ann, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-03340 (S.D.N.Y.) ($8.1 million settlement); Howerton v. Cargill, Inc., No. 13-cv-00336 (D. Haw.) ($6.1 settlement); Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 13-cv-1091 (E.D. Va.) ($7.3 million settlement); and In re Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-cv-01086 (D.N.J.) ($2.5 million settlement).

Ms. Comite’s appellate victories in consumer class actions include Nunes v. Saks Inc., 2019 WL 2305039 (9th Cir. May 30, 2019); Chavez v. Nestle USA, Inc., 511 F. App’x 606 (9th Cir. 2013) (achieving a reversal of dismissal); and In re Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 589 F. App’x 53 (3d Cir. 2014) (defending settlement from professional objectors).

Since joining Scott+Scott in 2002, she has litigated such cases as In re Priceline.com Securities Litigation ($80 million settlement); Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re (Holdings) Ltd. ($27 million settlement); and In re Qwest Communications International, Inc. (settlement obtaining $25 million for the company and achieving corporate governance reforms aimed at ensuring board independence).

While Ms. Comite is experienced in all aspects of complex pre-trial litigation, she is particularly accomplished in achieving favorable results in discovery disputes. In Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Ms. Comite spearheaded a nearly year- long investigation into every facet of UPS’s preservation methods, requiring intensive, full-time efforts by a team of attorneys Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 73 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

and paralegals well beyond that required in the normal course of pre-trial litigation. Ms. Comite assisted in devising the plan of investigation in weekly conference calls with the Special Master, coordinated the review of over 30,000 documents that uncovered a blatant trail of deception and prepared dozens of briefs to describe the spoliation and its ramifications on the case to the Special Master. In reaction to UPS’s flagrant discovery abuses brought to light through the investigation, the Court conditioned the parties’ settlement of the three individual ADA cases on UPS adopting and implementing preservation practices that passed the approval of the Special Master.

Prior to entering law school, Ms. Comite served in the White House as Assistant to the Special Counsel to President Clinton. In that capacity, she handled matters related to the White House’s response to investigations, including four independent counsel investigations, a Justice Department task force investigation, two major oversight investigations by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and several other congressional oversight investigations.

Ms. Comite’s volunteer activities have included assisting immigrant women, as survivors of domestic violence, with temporary residency applications as well as counseling sexual assault survivors. Currently, Ms. Comite supports Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and March of Dimes/March for Babies. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 74 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

MICHELLE CONSTON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Michelle Conston’s practice focuses on antitrust litigation. ADMISSIONS States of New York, New Jersey and Florida; United States District Court: Southern District of New York;

EDUCATION Marist College (B.A. Journalism, magna cum laude, 2010); University of Miami School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 2013)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Conston is an associate in Scott+Scott’s New York office and devotes much of her time representing investors in cases involving the manipulation of financial benchmarks by numerous major banks, including In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y) and Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., No. 14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y).

During law school, Ms. Conston served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Stephen T. Brown, the Chief Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Conston also served as a certified legal intern for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Ms. Conston represented institutional investors, hedge funds, and individual investors in complex class action litigation arising under the Commodity Exchange Act, Sherman Act, RICO Act, and common law. She was heavily involved in litigating actions alleging the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) for several currencies by large financial institutions (e.g., Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., No. 12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) and Sullivan v. Barclays plc, No. 13-cv-00281 (S.D.N.Y.), as well as an action alleging manipulation of the daily London Silver Fixing by the Fixing Banks and several other financial institutions (In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02573 (S.D.N.Y.). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 75 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

HAL CUNNINGHAM PRACTICE EMPHASIS Hal Cunningham’s practice focuses on complex antitrust and consumer litigation, primarily in the financial services industry. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California

EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law (J.D., 2005); Murray State (B.S., Biological Chemistry, 1997)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Cunningham is an attorney in the firm’s San Diego office and currently represents class plaintiffs in Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., No. 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.), an action challenging collusion in the setting of ISDAfix, a global benchmark used to value interest rate derivatives, and In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Cunningham serves a prominent role in the prosecution of these cases, working with the firm’s financial industry experts and economists and supervising firm attorneys on discovery matters.

Mr. Cunningham’s practice also includes complex securities litigation, achieving notable results, including In re Washington Mutual Mortgage Backed Securities Litigantion, No. C09-0037 (W.D. Wash.) and In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2:04-cv-00575 (S.D. Ohio).

Mr. Cunningham has a background in drug development and holds a Regulatory Affairs Certification (RAC/US).

NGA CUNNINGHAM PRACTICE EMPHASIS Nga Cunningham’s practice focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Central District of California

EDUCATION Thomas Jefferson School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2005); University of California, San Diego, (B.A., Political Science with Public Policy emphasis)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Cunningham is an attorney in the San Diego office. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 76 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

MARGARET (MAGGIE) FERRON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Maggie Ferron focuses on general litigation, transactional matters, and class actions. ADMISSIONS United States District Court: District of Connecticut; State of Connecticut

EDUCATION University of Connecticut School of Law (J.D., High Honors, 2009); Middlebury College (B.A., Classical Studies, 2003)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Ferron is an associate in the firm’s Connecticut office. During law school, Ms. Ferron worked for the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in New Haven, Connecticut. As an undergraduate, she studied classical languages and history in Athens, Greece; as a law student, she studied international human rights law at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Ferron worked as a plaintiffs’ employment lawyer in Hartford for several years. Her experience also encompasses municipal affairs and state grant compliance. Ms. Ferron practices in varied Connecticut state court matters as well as federal class actions.

Ms. Ferron is a trustee of Joshua’s Tract Conservation and Historic Trust, located in Mansfield, Connecticut. She successfully led an effort to build an accessible playground in Mansfield and enjoys trail running and reading with her family.

G. DUSTIN FOSTER PRACTICE EMPHASIS Dustin Foster’s main practice areas include antitrust, securities, and complex litigation. ADMISSIONS State of West Virginia EDUCATION West Virginia University College of Law (J.D., 2002); West Virginia Wesleyan College (B.S., Biology, cum laude, 1999)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Foster’s practice areas include antitrust, securities, and complex litigation, which includes such cases as In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.), Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 1:07-cv- 12388 (D. Mass.), and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., No. 2:12-cv-03824 (E.D. Pa.).

During law school, Mr. Foster served as a law clerk for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, after which he assumed a full-time term position as a law clerk for the Hon. Thomas C. Evans, III, of the Fifth Circuit Court of West Virginia. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 77 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

WILLIAM C. FREDERICKS PRACTICE EMPHASIS William Fredericks’ practice focuses primarily on litigating securities and other complex commercial class actions. ADMISSIONS United States Supreme Court; United States Court of Appeals: First, Second, Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and Colorado EDUCATION Columbia University Law School, (J.D., 1988); University of Oxford (M. Litt. in International Relations, 1985); Swarthmore College (B.A. in Political Science, high honors, 1983)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Fredericks is a partner in the firm’s New York office. In addition to serving as lead counsel on behalf of investors in several pending securities fraud actions, he also represents investors in the pending FX antitrust litigation brought against over a dozen leading banks based on their involvement in manipulating foreign exchange (“FX”) rates and spreads, and in pending proceedings relating to data security breaches at FaceBook, Inc.

At Columbia Law School, Bill was a three-time Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, a Columbia University International Fellow, Articles Editor of The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, and winner of Columbia’s Beck Prize (property law), Toppan Prize (advanced constitutional law) and Greenbaum Prize (written advocacy). A three-judge panel chaired by the late Justice Antonin Scalia also awarded him the Thomas E. Dewey Prize for best oral argument in the final round of Columbia’s Stone Moot Court Honor Competition. After clerking for the Hon. Robert S. Gawthrop III (E.D. Pa.) in Philadelphia, Mr. Fredericks spent seven years practicing securities and complex commercial litigation at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York before moving to the plaintiffs’ side of the bar in 1996.

Mr. Fredericks has represented investors as a lead or co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in dozens of securities class actions, including In re Wachovia Preferred Securities and Bond/Notes Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) (total settlements of $627 million, reflecting the largest recovery ever in a pure Securities Act case not involving any parallel government fraud claims); In re Rite Aid Securities Litig. (E.D. Pa.) (total settlements of $323 million, including the then-second largest securities fraud settlement ever against a Big Four accounting firm); In re Sears Roebuck & Co. Sec. Litig. (N.D. Ill.) ($215 million settlement, representing the then-largest §10(b) class action recovery in an action that did not involve either a financial restatement or parallel government fraud claims); In re State Street Bank and Trust Co. ERISA Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) (one of the largest ERISA class settlements to date); In re King Digital Sec. Enter. PLC Shareholder Litig. (Super. Ct. San Fran. Cty.) ($18.5 million settlement, representing one of the largest state court §11 class action recoveries to date); and Irvine v. ImClone Systems, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) ($75 million settlement). A consortium of plaintiffs’ counsel also chose Mr. Fredericks to present the (successful) oral argument in opposition to defendants’ efforts to dismiss (on grounds of standing) over fifteen separate securities fraud cases before a three judge panel in In re Mutual Fund Investing Litig. (see 519 F. Supp. 2d 580 (D.Md. 2007)), which later settled for a combined total of several hundred million dollars. Mr. Fredericks also played a leading role on the team that obtained a rare 9-0 decision for securities fraud plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court in Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds (which later settled for $1.052 billion), and he has also coauthored amicus briefs on behalf of clients in a number of other Supreme Court cases (including Halliburton, Amgen, ANZ Securities and Cyan) involving various significant securities law issues. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 78 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

Mr. Fredericks has also represented clients in litigating claims in federal bankruptcy court proceedings, and has obtained substantial recoveries from a bankrupt corporation’s officers, law firm and outside auditors on behalf of a court-appointed Trustee of a creditor’s trust. See In re Friedman’s, Inc., 394 B.R. 623 (S.D. Ga.2008). He also currently represents a putative class of large commercial customers of a bankrupt utility in breach of contract proceedings pending before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

William Fredericks has been recognized in the 2012-19 editions of “America’s Best Lawyers” in the field of commercial litigation, in “Who’s Who in American Law” (Marquis), and in the New York City “SuperLawyers” listings for securities litigation (2013-19). He has been a frequent panelist on various securities litigation programs sponsored by the Practising Law Institute (PLI) – including ten years as a panelist on civil liabilities under the federal Securities Act – and has lectured overseas on American class action litigation on behalf of the American Law Institute/American Bar Association (ALI/ABA). He is also the former chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Military Affairs and Justice, and a member of the Federal Bar Council. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 79 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE YVONNE FUNK PRACTICE EMPHASIS Yvonne Funk’s practice focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of Callifornia EDUCATION UC Hastings Law School (J.D., 2007); UCLA (B.A., 2001)

HIGHLIGHTS Yvonne Funk is an attorney in our San Diego office.

DAVID H. GOLDBERGER PRACTICE EMPHASIS David H. Goldberger’s practice is focused on complex antitrust litigation, initial antitrust case investigations, and other special projects. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California EDUCATION California Western School of Law (J.D., 2002); University of Colorado (B.A., 1999)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Goldberger is an associate in the San Diego office and his notable prior representative actions involving antitrust claims include Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America, No. 10-cv-5711 (N.D. Ill.) ($376.4 million settlement), an action challenging price-fixing in the containerboard industry, and In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2420 (N.D. Cal.), an action challenging price-fixing of Li-Ion batteries. Mr. Goldberger has also worked on antitrust cases involving delayed generic drug entry, such as Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., No. 12-cv-3824 (E.D. Pa.) ($8 million settlement) and In re Prograf Antitrust Litig., No. 1:11-md-02242 (D. Mass.).

Mr. Goldberger currently represents antitrust class plaintiffs in Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., No. 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.), an action challenging collusion in the setting of ISDAfix, a global benchmark used to value interest rate derivatives, and In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.).

Previously, Mr. Goldberger was active in Scott+Scott’s securities fraud and ERISA practice, including In re: Priceline.com Securities Litig., 03-cv-1884 (D. Conn.) ($80 million settlement), Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Pharmacia Corp., No. 03-1519 (D.N.J.) ($164 million settlement), and In re: General Motors ERISA Litig., No. 05-71085 (E.D. Mich.) (resulting in significant enhancements to retirement plan administration in addition to $37.5 million settlement for plan participants).

Mr. Goldberger was also a founding member of Scott+Scott’s institutional investor relations team, providing the firm’s many institutional clients with assistance in various matters pertaining to their involvement in complex civil litigations as well as assisting institutional clients in submitting eligible claims in those actions.

A lifelong resident and native of San Diego, Mr. Goldberger was an instituting member of the Torrey Pines High School “Friends of the Library” and coaches local youth sports in his spare time. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 80 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

JOSEPH P. GUGLIELMO PRACTICE EMPHASIS Joseph P. Guglielmo represents institutional and individual clients in securities, antitrust, and consumer litigation in federal and state courts throughout the United States ADMISSIONS States of New York and Massachusetts; District of Columbia; United States Supreme Court; United States Court of Appeals: First, Second, Third, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Districts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Colorado, Northern district of Illinois, Eastern District of Wisconsin EDUCATION Catholic University of America (J.D., 1995; B.A., cum laude, 1992; Certificate of Public Policy)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Guglielmo is a partner in the firm’s New York office and was recognized for his efforts representing New York University in obtaining a monumental temporary restraining order of over $200 million from a Bernard Madoff feeder fund. Specifically, New York State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Lowe III stated, “Scott+Scott has demonstrated a remarkable grasp and handling of the extraordinarily complex matters in this case. The extremely professional and thorough means by which NYU’s counsel has litigated this matter has not been overlooked by this Court.”

Mr. Guglielmo serves in a leadership capacity in a number of complex antitrust and consumer actions, including: In Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 1:17-md-2800 (N.D. Ga.), co-lead counsel, claims on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of personal and financial information of approximately 150 million consumers, In Re: American Airlines Federal Credit Union v Sonic Corp., Case No., CIV-19-208G (N.D. Ohio.), Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, claims on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of financial information of approximately five million consumers and Arkansas Federal Credit Union v. Hudson Bay, 1:19-cv-4492-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), Lead Counsel, claims on behalf of financial institutions arising of data breach involving over five million payment cards. In Re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626 (M.D. Fla.), co-lead counsel, claims on behalf of a class of contact lens purchasers alleging violations of the antitrust laws, Forth v. Walgreen Co, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02246 (N.D. Ill.), lead counsel, asserting claims on behalf of class of consumers alleging overcharge for medically necessary, covered prescription drugs. Mr. Guglielmo is also actively involved in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 1:13-cv-07789-LGS (S.D.N.Y), which involves claims on behalf of purchasers of foreign exchange instruments alleging violations of federal antitrust laws.

Mr. Guglielmo has achieved significant victories and obtained numerous settlements for his clients. Mr. Guglielmo was co-lead counsel in In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga.), where a $27.25 million settlement was obtained on behalf of financial institutions involving a data breach and the theft of the personal and financial information of over 40 million credit and debit card holders. Mr. Guglielmo is counsel in First Choice Federal Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Company, No. 16-cv-00506 (W.D. Pa.), where a $50 million settlement was obtained. He is also co-lead coun- sel in Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Case No. 2:17-CV-00356-JLR (W.D. Wa.), where a settlement valued at approximately $9.8 million was recently obtained. Previously, Mr. Guglielmo also a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2522 (D. Minn.), where a $59 million settlement was obtained on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of personal and financial information of approximately 110 million credit and debit cardholders. Mr. Guglielmo was also lead counsel in Winsouth Credit Union v. Mapco Express Inc., No.: 3:14-cv-1573 (M.D. Tenn.), which achieved the largest dollar-per-card recovery on behalf of financial institutions Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 81 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

involving data breach of credit and debit card information. Mr. Guglielmo was one of the principals involved in the litigation and settlement of In re Managed Care Litig., MDL No. 1334 (S.D. Fla.), which included settlements with Aetna, CIGNA, Prudential, Health Net, Humana, and WellPoint, providing monetary and injunctive benefits exceeding $1 billion.

Additional cases Mr. Guglielmo played a leading role and obtained substantial recoveries for his clients include: Love v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass’n, No. 03-cv-21296 (S.D. Fla.), which resulted in settlements of approximately $130 million and injunctive benefits valued in excess of $2 billion; In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1897 (D.N.J.), settlements in excess of $180 million; Valle v. Popular Community Bank, No. 653936/2012 (N.Y. Supreme Ct.), $5.2 million settlement on behalf of consumers, In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2086 (W.D. Mo.), consumer settlements in excess of $40 million; Bassman v. Union Pacific Corp., No. 97-cv-02819 (N.D. Tex.), $35.5 million securities class action settlement; Garcia v. Carrion, No. CV. 11-1801 (D. P.R.), substantial corporate governance reforms; Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, No. 09-cv-00037 (W.D. Wash.), $26 million securities class action settlement, Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 13-cv-1091 (E.D. Va.), $7.3 million settlement pending on behalf of class of consumers who were misled into accepting purportedly 0% interest offers, and Howerton v. Cargill, Inc., No. 13-cv-00336 (D. Haw.), $6.1 million settlement obtained on behalf of class of consumers who purchased Truvia, purported to be deceptively marketed as “all-natural.” Mr. Guglielmo was the principle litigator and obtained a significant opinion from the Hawaii Supreme Court in Hawaii Medical Association v. Hawaii Medical Service Association, 113 Hawaii 77 (Haw. 2006), reversing the trial court’s dismissal and clarifying rights for consumers under the state’s unfair competition law.

Mr. Guglielmo lectures on electronic discovery and was a member of the Steering Committee of Working Group 1 of the Sedona Conference®, an organization devoted to providing guidance and information concerning issues such as discovery and production issues, as well as areas focusing on antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property. He is a frequent speaker on electronic discovery issues at the Sedona Conference as well as the Advanced eDiscovery Institute at Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Guglielmo was also recognized for his achievements in litigation by his selection to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List.” In 2019, Mr. Guglielmo was recognized by Super Lawyers as a top Antitrust lawyer in the New York metro area, was named by Who’s Who Legal Litigation: Leading Practitioner-E-Discovery (2019), and was named by Lawdragon as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers.

Mr. Guglielmo is also a member of the following associations: District of Columbia Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, American Bar Association, The Sedona Conference®, and a Board Member on the Advanced eDiscovery Institute at Georgetown University Law Center. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 82 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

STEPHANIE HACKETT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Stephanie Hackett primarily practices in the area of antitrust litigation on behalf of classes and individual plaintiffs. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Southern District of Iowa EDUCATION University of Iowa College of Law (J.D., with distinction, 2005) University of Iowa (B.S., Political Science, International Business Certificate, 2001)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Hackett is an associate in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office and has represented class plaintiffs in Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) ($590.5 million settlement) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., No. 12-3824 (E.D. Pa.) ($8 million settlement). She represented corporate opt-out clients in In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1642 (D. Conn.); and In re Plastics Additives (No. II) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1684 (E.D. Pa.).

Ms. Hackett’s current cases include representing class plaintiffs in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 1:13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.), an action challenging collusion regarding foreign exchange rates, and Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., No. 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.), an action challenging collusion regarding the setting of the ISDAfix benchmark interest rate. Ms. Hackett also represents corporate opt-out clients in In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2481 (S.D.N.Y.), a case challenging collusion regarding the spot metal price of physically delivered aluminum.

While in law school she was a recipient of the Willard L. Boyd Public Service Distinction award. While obtaining her law degree, Ms. Hackett worked as a judicial extern for the Honorable Celeste F. Bremer. In addition to her legal education, Ms. Hackett has engaged in accounting study and passed all four parts of the CPA exam. This background has proved particularly useful in cases involving the financial services industry.

As a part of her pro bono work, Ms. Hackett has worked with the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, providing assistance to immigrant victims of domestic violence, and the ABA Immigration Justice Project, where she obtained a grant of asylum on behalf of her client.

Ms. Hackett is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section and the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 83 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

CARLEY HENEK PRACTICE EMPHASIS Carley Henek’s practice focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS States of New York and California; All Federal Courts in New York and California

EDUCATION St. John’s School of Law (J.D., 2001); State University of New York, Albany (B.S., Human Biology)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Henek is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office and has extensive state and federal court experience litigating against and representing major U.S. and international corporations and individual clients in all phases of the litigation process.

JAMES HAIN-COLE PRACTICE EMPHASIS James Hain-Cole specialises in competition damages litigation and has extensive international experience advising on multijurisdictional antitrust matters. ADMISSIONS England and Wales EDUCATION De Montfort University (BASL DMU Postgraduate Certificate in Sports Law, Merit, 2015); BPP Law School (Graduate Diploma in Law, 2008 and Legal Practice Course, 2009) University of St. Andrews (MA Modern History and International Relations, First Class Honours, 2006)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Hain-Cole is located in Scott+Scott’s London office and works with the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice in advising international clients on their potential to claim damages arising from anticompetitive conduct and working with them to design an effective strategy to compensate them for losses arising from such conduct. He also has experience in commercial arbitration and general commercial litigation.

Prior to working with Scott+Scott, Mr. Hain-Cole spent two and a half years at Cuatrecasas in Madrid, where he advised on competition damages claims before the courts of Spain, England and Italy and also formed part of the team that drafted the legal section of the Study on the Passing-on of Overcharges for the European Commission. Prior to that, Mr. Hain- Cole spent six years in the London office of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, where he advised clients in some of the leading competition damages before the English courts and tribunals, including Deutsche Bahn AG and others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc and Cooper Tire and Rubber Company Europe Ltd and others v. Dow Deutschland Inc and others. He also acted for a major financial institution in competition law investigations before the European Commission and other competition regulators worldwide, including in the North America and Asia.

James also has professional proficiency in Spanish. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 84 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

BELINDA HOLLWAY PRACTICE EMPHASIS Belinda Hollway has over 15 years of competition law experience, and specialises in competition damages litigation. ADMISSIONS English High Court; Competition Appeal Tribunal; Court of Appeal Admitted to practice in England and Wales and in New South Wales, Australia EDUCATION Australian National University (First-class Honours: History, First-class Honours and University Medal: Law, 2001); Kings College London (Masters in Competition Law, 2008)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Hollway is the head of Scott+Scott Europe LLP’s London office and has extensive expertise in developing and coordinating multijurisdictional litigation strategies, both within Europe and beyond. She is currently acting for UK and multinational businesses in claims against Mastercard and Visa in relation to interchange fees. She is also acting for clients seeking to recoup losses suffered as a result of the manipulation by leading banks of the foreign exchange market.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Belinda spent nine years in the London office of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. She represented clients across a wide range of industries, acting in many of the leading English competition damages cases, such as Cooper Tire, relating to the synthetic rubber cartel, and National Grid v. ABB, relating to the cartel in gas insulated switchgear. She was the lead associate on the defence team in Enron v. EWS, which was the first follow-on damages claim ever to reach trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Her wide experience on the defence side gives her a special insight into the issues that claimants must address and overcome in order to recoup losses stemming from breaches of competition law in Europe.

Belinda has also acted for numerous clients in competition law investigations, both internal investigations and those brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading (now the Competition and Markets Authority) and the European Commission. She has been involved in immunity applications, Commission cartel settlements, and contested cases. From this work, she has an in-depth understanding of the interaction between private and public enforcement in Europe and the ramifications that public enforcement has for the strategy and progression of damages claims.

After law school Belinda spent a year as an Associate to Her Honour Justice Catherine Branson at the Federal Court of Australia and then worked for the competition and litigation teams of Allens Arthur Robinson in Sydney, prior to moving to the United Kingdom in 2006.

She has published on competition law issues, including in relation to the EU Damages Directive and has been quoted in the press on competition law in Europe. She is regularly invited to speak at conferences and competition litigation issues. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 85 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE DAVID HOWE PRACTICE EMPHASIS David Howe is a competition, EU, and public lawyer. ADMISSIONS England and Wales EDUCATION Kings College London (LL.M in European Law, 2009); University of Oxford (BCL, 2005 with distinction; Law and French Law, 2003 - First Class Honours - top 3%)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Howe is a senior consultant for Scott+Scott Europe LLP. He trained at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and, after qualification, spent a further eight years in the competition and dispute resolution teams there.

David has acted for a range of multinational clients on the full spectrum of competition investigations (UK and internationally) litigation and advice. He has conducted competition damages claims in the English High Court, Court of Appeal and Competition Appeal Tribunal, and also appeared in the European Court of Justice. He acted for Roche on its defence of litigation arising out of the Vitamins cartel (including in the Devenish litigation, which ruled on the availability of restitutionary and exemplary damages in follow-on claims) and, for EWS in its defence of claims brought by the administrators of Enron for damage following EWS’ abuse of dominance (the first follow-on damages action to go to trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal). More recently, he has acted for several retailers with claims against Visa and Mastercard in relation to the imposition of interchange fees. He also has a working knowledge of the collective action regime under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and experience working with third party funders. He has published several articles on competition law.

David also has significant wider expertise, including in bribery, public and regulatory law, and human rights matters. For instance, he was the lead associate co-ordinating a multi-jurisdictional regulatory and public law strategy for a major consumer products company, and has acted on a number of judicial reviews for a range of clients, including (as lead associate) on a significant judicial review of the lawfulness of domestic consumer products legislation, relying primarily on EU free movement and human rights grounds. In addition to “classic” human rights claims, David also has expertise in the evolving body of hard and soft law arising out of the UN “Ruggie Principles” on Business and Human Rights, having assisted a major technology company on a full Ruggie-compliant assessment of, and mitigation strategy for, a new project. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 86 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

SCOTT JACOBSEN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Scott Jacobsen practices in the areas of shareholder derivative actions, securities class action litigation, and other complex litigation. ADMISSIONS States of New York and New Jersey; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, EDUCATION William & Mary Law School, (J.D., 2014); The George Washington University (B.A., English, magna cum laude; M.A., English)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Jacobsen is an associate in Scott+Scott’s New York office and has primarily focused on securities and derivative litigation, including investigation of corporate books and records to evaluate potential claims on behalf of shareholders. Cases include International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund v. McInerney, C.A. No. 11901-VCN (Del. Ch. Jan 13, 2016) (derivatively on behalf of Genworth Financial Inc.); Carlson v. Dipp, No. 1:15-cv- 14032 (D. Mass. Dec. 7, 2015) (securities class action); Fernicola v. Hugin, C.A. No. 11748-VCMR (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 2015) (derivatively on behalf of Celgene Corp.); Feldman v. Kulas, C.A. No. 11614-VCG (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2015) (derivatively on behalf of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.); Fortunato v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., No. 1:15- cv-13501 (D. Mass. Oct. 5, 2015) (securities class action).

During law school, Mr. Jacobsen externed at the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and served as a staff member for the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. He is also a member of the following professional associations: ABA Business Section and ABA Young Lawyers Division.

JEFFREY P. JACOBSON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Jeffrey P. Jacobson is a litigation associate specializing in federal securities litigation. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States Court of Appeals: Second Circuit; United States District Courts: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; United States Court of Appeals

EDUCATION George Washington University Law School (J.D., High Honors, Order of the Coif, 2017)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Jacobson is an associate in our New York office where he focuses on federal securities litigation. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Jeff was a litigation associate at a major international law firm where he represented clients in securities cases, bankruptcy proceedings, and antitrust matters, and advised clients on employment matters. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 87 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

JOHN T. JASNOCH PRACTICE EMPHASIS John Jasnoch’s practice areas include securities and antitrust class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and other complex litigation. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit; United States District Court: Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of California

EDUCATION University of Nebraska, College of Law (J.D., 2011); Creighton University (B.A., Political Science and International Relations, cum laude, 2007)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Jasnoch is a partner in the San Diego office. He represents clients in complex litigations in state and federal courts across the county.

Mr. Jasnoch has been counsel of record in numerous successful cases where Scott+Scott served in a leadership capacity, including: In re LendingClub Corp. Shareholder Litig., No. CIV537300 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty) ($125 million federal and state settlement); In re King Digital Entertainment plc Shareholder Litig., No. CGC-15-544770, (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty.) ($18.5 million settlement); In re FireEye, Inc. Securities Litig., Case No. 1:14-cv-266866 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cty.) ($10.3 million settlement); In re Pacific Coast Oil Trust Securities Litig., Case No. BC550418 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty.) ($7.6 million settlement); and In re MobileIron, Inc., Shareholder Litig., Case No. 1-15- 284001 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cty) ($7.5 million settlement).

In 2015, Mr. Jasnoch was a member of the trial team in Scorpio Music S.A. v. Victor Willis, (No. 11-cv-1557 (S.D. Cal.)) a landmark copyright jury trial concerning the copyright ownership of hit songs by The Village People. In that suit, Scott+Scott client and Village People lyricist Victor Willis obtained a declaratory judgment confirming his copyright termination and giving him a 50% copyright interest in “YMCA” and compositions. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 88 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

GEOFFREY M. JOHNSON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Geoffrey M. Johnson’s practice focuses on shareholder derivative, corporate governance, and securities class action litigation. ADMISSIONS United States District Court: Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio, Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Texas; United States Court of Appeals: Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth; State Supreme Courts: Ohio EDUCATION University of Chicago Law School (J.D., with Honors, 1999); Grinnell College (B.A., Political Science, with Honors, 1996)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Johnson is a partner in the Ohio office and active in the firm’s settlement and appellate practice groups. He has served as lead or co-lead counsel in several securities class action cases brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, including In re King Digital Entertainment plc S’holder, Litig., No. 15-544770 (Superior Court of California, San Francisco County), a shareholder lawsuit that settled for $18.5 million after suriving two separate motions to dismiss, and Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., No. 14-1531 (Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio), a shareholder lawsuit that settled for $10 million after the firm had engaged in extensive litigation and motion practice.

Mr. Johnson has been active in the firm’s mortgage-backed securities litigation practice, serving as lead or co-lead counsel in mortgage-backed securities class action cases: In re Washington Mutual Mortgage-Backed Securities Litig., 2:09-cv-00037 (W. D. Wash.) and Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial, Inc., No. 10-cv-302 (C.D. Cal.). Mr. Johnson also helped devel- op the theories that the firm’s pension fund clients have used to pursue class action cases against mortgage-backed security trustees. – Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of New York Mellon No. 11-cv-05459 (S.D.N.Y.); and Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. U.S. Bank NA No. 11-cv-8066 (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Johnson has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in other major securities and ERISA cases, including: In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA Litig., No. 04-1398 (D.N.J.), which settled for $90 million and is one of the three largest recoveries ever obtained in an ERISA class action case; In re Priceline Securities Litig., 00-cv-1884 (D. Conn.), which settled for $80 million and is the largest class action securities settlement ever obtained in the State of Connecticut; and In re General Motors ERISA Litig., 05-cv-71085 (E.D. Mich.), a case that settled for $37.5 million and ranks among the largest ERISA class settlements ever obtained.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Johnson clerked for the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 89 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

BETH KASWAN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Ms. Kaswan specializes in class action litigation including for securities fraud and other complex financial matters. ADMISSIONS States of New York and Massachusetts; United States Court of Appeals: First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Northern District of Illinois and Eastern District of Wisconsin EDUCATION Boston College (J.D. 1976); University of Miami (Bachelor of Business Administration, 1973)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Kaswan has been practicing law for over 40 years and is a partner in the firm’s New York office. During her tenure as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, including with respect to her promotions to Chief of the Commercial Litigation Unit and Deputy Chief of the Civil Division, Ms. Kaswan handled a number of complex fraud actions against major U.S. contractors and served as lead counsel in litigation to enjoin the manufacture of adulterated generic drugs in the landmark case United States v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 458 (D.N.J. 1993). Ms. Kaswan, who began her career as an accountant at the offices of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., and then worked as a civil trial attorney in the tax division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., is the recipient of several awards from the Justice Department and other agencies she represented, including the Justice Department’s John Marshall award, Special Commendation from the Attorney General, an award from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Tax Division Outstanding Achievement awards, and awards from the FDA and U.S. Customs Service.

While at Scott+Scott, Ms. Kaswan served as lead counsel in Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, No. 09-cv-00037 (W.D. Wa.), the WaMu RMBS Section 11 Securities Act case which settled after plaintiffs succeeded in defeating the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, only weeks before it was scheduled to proceed to a jury trial. Ms. Kaswan participated in the nine-week trial in In the Matter of the Application of The Bank of New York Mellon, Index No. 651786/2011 (N.Y. Supr. Ct.) in which she and other interveners challenged the proposed settlement between Bank of New York Mellon and Bank of America to resolve repurchase and servicing claims for 530 Countrywide trusts. She and others settled federal and state law claims against the Securitization Trustees for WaMu and Bear Stearns Trusts in Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 12-cv-2865 (S.D.N.Y.) and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 11-cv-8066 (S.D.N.Y.), respectively.

Ms. Kaswan brought a derivative suit on behalf of New York University against Ezra Merkin to freeze funds belonging to a feed- er fund to Bernard Madoff. She also served as lead counsel to another shareholder derivative case, Carfagno v. Schnitzer, No. 08-CV-912-SAS (S.D.N.Y.), where she successfully negotiated a settlement on behalf of Centerline Holding Company and Centerline shareholders. Ms. Kaswan has served as lead counsel in Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group, No. 08-cv-3758 (S.D.N.Y.) and In re Tetra Technologies, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 08-cv-0965 (S.D. Tex.), among others.

Ms. Kaswan is a member of the New York and Massachusetts bars and has been named a “Super Lawyer” from 2011-2019. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 90 of 117 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

THOMAS LAUGHLIN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Thomas Laughlin’s practice focuses on securities class action, shareholder derivative, ERISA and other complex commercial litigation. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States Court of Appeals: Second, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Northern District of Florida. District of Columbia and Eastern DIstrict of Michigan EDUCATION New York University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2005); Yale University (B.A. History, cum laude, 2001)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Laughlin is a partner in the New York office and focuses on securities class action, shareholder derivative, ERISA and other complex commercial litigation. After graduating from law school, Mr. Laughlin clerked for the Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of California.

While at Scott+Scott, Mr. Laughlin has worked on several cases that have achieved notable victories, including Cornwell v. Credit Suisse, No. 08-3758 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities settlement of $70 million), Rubenstein v. Oilsands Quest Inc., No. 11-1288 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities settlement of $10.235 million) Plymouth County Contributory Ret. Sys. v. Hassan, No. 08-1022 (D.N.J.) (corporate governance reform); and Garcia v. Carrion, No. 09-1507 (D.P.R.) (corporate governance reform).

Mr. Laughlin also has significant appellate experience, having represented clients in connection with several appellate victories, including Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013); Westmoreland County Employee Retir. Sys. v. Parkinson, 727 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2013); Pfeil v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012); and King v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., 12 A.3d 1140 (Del. Supr. 2011).

In 2014, Mr. Laughlin was co-chair of a 13-day bench trial in Bankers’ Bank Northeast v. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC, No. 12-cv-00127 (D. Me.). He represented a consortium of 10 community banks asserting negligence and professional malpractice claims against the former officers and directors of a bank and its auditor in connection with an $18 million loan made to that bank in September 2008. Among other things, Mr. Laughlin conducted the cross-examination of all three witnesses from the defendant’s auditing firm and the direct examination of plaintiff’s auditing expert. The parties to the action succeeded in resolving the action after trial. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 91 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

AMANDA F. LAWRENCE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Amamda Lawrence’s practice splits her time between antitrust and securities matters. ADMISSIONS States of Connecticut and Massachusetts; United States Court of Appeals: First and Ninth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts EDUCATION Yale Law School (J.D.2002); Dartmouth College College (B.A., cum laude, 1998)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Lawrence is a partner in our Connecticut office. In the antitrust realm, Ms. Lawrence currently serves as co-lead counsel in the matter, In re: GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 1:19-cv-01704-JSR (S.D.N.Y.) which alleges manipulation of the prices in the $550 billion government sponsored entities bond market. Ms. Lawrence was also intricately involved in the “ISDAFix case” – Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America, 1:14-cv-07126-JMF-OTW (S.D.N.Y), taking depositions and working through expert discovery, including numerous Daubert motions and responses. That case has to date achieved over $504.5 million in recovery from large financial institutions for investors. She likewise has managed complex international investigations into suspected collusion or manipulation of financial markets. For example, she devoted herself to the international investigation of SSA bonds, which included multiple interviews with former managers of trading banks as well as extensive work with New York University professors to analyze trading data and unearth manipulation.

In her securities practice, Ms. Lawrence has worked on numerous Exchange Act and 1933 Act cases that have resulted in sub- stantial settlements, including: Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Crane, No. 13-cv-00945-VC (N.D. Cal.) ($5.1 million settlement); Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., No. CV-14-828140 (Ohio Com. Pleas) ($10 million settlement in 1933 Act case); Rubenstein v. Oilsands Quest Inc., No. 11-1288 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities settlement of $10.235 million); Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, No. 09-cv-00037 (W.D. Wash.) ($26 million securities class action settlement); In re TETRA Technologies, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 07-cv-00965 (S.D. Tex.) ($8.25 million securities class action settlement); In re LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litig., No. CIV 537300 (Cal. Super., San Mateo) ($125 million securities class action settlement); and In Re: FireEye, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 1-14-cv- 066866 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara) ($10.25 million securities class action settlement).

In addition to antitrust and securities matters, Ms. Lawrence has also worked on consumer cases that have resulted in significant settlements for the affected classes. For example, Ms. Lawrence helped achieve a settlement in the The Vulcan Society, Inc. v. The City of New York, No. 07-CV-2067 (E.D.N.Y.) that brought both monetary and injunctive relief to a class of African American and Hispanic firefighters in New York City, as well as a settlement in In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litig., No. 3:11-md-02208-MAP (D. Mass.) that brought both forms of relief to relatives of deceased servicemen and women.

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 92 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

YIFAN (“KATE”) LV PRACTICE EMPHASIS Kate Lv’s practice focuses on prosecuting antitrust actions with an emphasis on intercultural cartels. ADMISSIONS Ms. Lv is a member of the California, New York, and China Bars. EDUCATION William & Mary School of Law (J.D., 2014); Peoples University of China, Beijing, China, (Master in Law, 2010); Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin, China, (Dual Bachelors in Law and Economics, 2008)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Lv is an associate in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office and represents plaintiffs in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y), challenging foreign-exchange market manipulation by many global financial institutions.

Ms. Lv also represents and advises the firm’s Asian clients and is bilingual – speaking fluent Chinese and English. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 93 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

CIAN MANSFIELD PRACTICE EMPHASIS Cian Mansfield is a commercial litigator who specialises in competition damages litigation. ADMISSIONS England and Wales (including Higher Rights of Audience); Republic of Ireland. EDUCATION King’s College London (Postgraduate Diploma in Competition Law, 2014); University of Cambridge (LL.M, 2009); University College Dublin (Bachelor of Civil Law, 2007, First Class Honours - including exchange year at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland). Following his LL.M he completed a five-month stage (internship) at the Legal Service of the European Commission in Brussels.

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Mansfield is a senior associate in Scott+Scott Europe LLP’s London office and is currently acting as lead associate for: retailers in their claims in the English High Court against Visa and Mastercard in relation to anti-competitive interchange fees; a solar energy business in a dispute against their former CEO; and a number of potential claimants in follow-on damage actions arising from the Trucks cartel.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott Europe LLP, Cian spent over six years in the London office of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. During his time at Freshfields, Cian worked on a number of competition damages claims arising from European Commission infringement decisions in relation to a number of cartels. He also acted in a number of investigations, both internal investigations and those brought by international regulators (including the European Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority), particularly in the financial services sector, and on pieces of general commercial litigation.

Cian also has extensive pro bono experience. He currently acts as an advocate on behalf of failed and pending asylum seekers at the Asylum Support Tribunal as a member of the charity, the Asylum Support Appeals Project. While at Freshfields, Cian worked on UK Supreme Court interventions for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Open Society Justice Initiative. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 94 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

RUTH MANSON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Ruth Manson specialises in commercial and competition damages litigation. ADMISSIONS England and Wales EDUCATION University of Cambridge (Law BA, 2015)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Manson is an associate in Scott+Scott Europe LLP’s London office. She specialises in commercial and competition litigation. With a background in commercial disputes, she has worked on a variety of litigation matters representing multinational corporations from the transport and construction sectors. She is currently working as part of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice advising a number of retailers regarding claims against Visa and Mastercard in respect of anti-competitive interchange fees, and working with numerous clients assessing potential claims arising from the manipulation of the foreign exchange market.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott Europe LLP, Ruth completed her traineeship at a major UK law firm in London. During her traineeship, Ruth worked on a number of large-scale litigations including a multi-million pound breach of contract claim and acted on behalf of a Part 20 Defendant in the on-going Air Cargo cartel litigation. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 95 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

SEAN T. MASSON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Focusing his litigation efforts on mass tort, class action, and complex commercial cases, Mr. Masson represents institutional investors, government entities and consumers around the country. Currently, he is one of the lead attorneys in the firm prosecuting pharmaceutical companies and distributors for their role in the marketing and overprescribing of highly addictive opioid painkillers. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Wisconsin EDUCATION Hofstra University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2009); Queens College (B.A., summa cum laude, 2006)

HIGHLIGHTS Super Lawyers has named Mr. Masson a Rising Star for five consecutive years (2015-2019) for his work as a class action litigator. Prior to entering the private sector, Mr. Masson served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan DA’s Office, successfully arguing over 40 appeals in state and federal courts and gaining extensive experience with large-scale government and regulatory investigations. Notable cases include: People v. McKelvey (upheld 75-year sentence for serial rapist preying on homeless women); People v. Chance (creating precedential law on issue of first impression regarding the disposal of stolen property under N.Y. Penal Law); and People v. Espinal (affirming murder-for-hire and conspiracy convictions for high ranking member of a large-scale cocaine trafficking operation).

During law school, Mr. Masson served as the Senior Notes and Comments Editor of the Hofstra Law Review and won the 1L Excellence in Torts award.

Mr. Masson’s publications include: The Presidential Right of Publicity, 2010 BOSTON COLLEGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY FORUM 012001 and Note, Cracking Open the Golden Door: Revisiting U.S. Asylum Law’s Response To China’s One-Child Policy, 37 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW 1135 (2009). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 96 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE LAUREN MCCABE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Lauren McCabe’s practice focuses on securities class actions. ADMISSIONS State of New York

EDUCATION New York University Law School (J.D., 2008), Pepperdine University (B.A., 2005, summa cum laude)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. McCabe is a senior associate in Scott+Scott’s New York office. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Lauren was a litigation associate at a major international law firm where she represented clients in high stakes trials, securities class actions, breach of fiduciary duty cases, antitrust matters, and employment matters.

Ms. McCabe is the primary associate on the teams prosecuting the securities class actions Castronovo v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., Index No. 155393/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.), Kirkland v. WideOpenWest, Inc., Index No. 653248/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.), and Silverberg v. DryShips Inc., No. 2:17-cv-4547-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y.).

Ms. McCabe’s publications include: Justice Holland’s Lasting Imprint on Corporate Law, DELAWARE BUSINESS COURT INSIDER (March 14, 2017). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 97 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

PATRICK MCGAHAN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Mr. McGahan specializes in antitrust litigation before U.S. and English courts. ADMISSIONS England and Wales (with Higher Rights of Audience); Queensland, Australia EDUCATION King’s College London (Postgraduate Diploma in Competition Law, 2015); University of Queensland (Bachelor of Laws, First Class Honours, and Bachelor of Arts, 2010)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. McGahan is a senior associate in Scott+Scott’s Connecticut and London offices and works closely with other members of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice in counseling corporate and institutional clients, evaluating potential claims and developing strategies to recover losses caused by anticompetitive conduct. He has also acted for clients in a variety of securities litigation, arbitrations (both investment treaty and commercial), and pieces of general commercial litigation.

In the U.S., Mr. McGahan is the lead associate on the teams prosecuting the fed cattle antitrust litigation, Robinson v. Diana Containerships, No. 17-cv-6160 (E.D.N.Y), and In Re Netshoes Sec. Litig., Index No. 157435/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). In England, Mr. McGahan is presently representing numerous clients who have European claims arising from the manipulation of the foreign exchange market.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. McGahan spent four years in the London office of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. During this time he acted in many of the leading English competition damages cases, including National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc v ABB Ltd. He also acted for numerous clients in competition law investigations, both internal investigations and those brought by the Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, and other regulators. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 98 of 117 BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

S. SINAI MEGIBOW PRACTICE EMPHASIS S. Sinai Megibow is an Investigator in Scott+Scott’s Investigations Department. ADMISSIONS State of New York EDUCATION UCLA School of Law (J.D., 2001); University of Chicago (M.A., 1998); Tulane University (B.A., 1995)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Megibow is based in Scott+Scott’s New York office. In addition to being an investigator at the firm, he is also a Certified Fraud Examiner and Licensed Private Investigator in New York and Florida.

He has extensive experience conducting a wide range of investigations, including securities fraud, internal investigations, antitrust matters, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance, corporate due diligence, and litigation intelligence. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Sinai served as a Director in a global private investigation and intelligence consulting firm. Sinai began his career as an associate attorney practicing in the areas of White Collar Criminal matters and commercial litigation. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 99 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

MARIANNE MEIJSSEN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Marianne Meijssen specializes in complex multi-jurisdictional damages litigation, and in antitrust damages claims. ADMISSIONS The Netherlands EDUCATION Utrecht University (LL.M, 2012); University of Amsterdam (LL.M, 2012); Maastricht University (LL.B, 2010)

HIGHLIGHTS Over the years, Ms. Meijssen has gained broad experience representing both claimants and defendants in private as well as administrative proceedings. She frequently draws from this experience when working with clients to set up and litigate their cases.

Marianne has represented defendants in several leading Dutch follow-on damages cases (Elevators & Escalators, Pre-stressing Steel, Sodium Chloride, and Air Cargo). This has granted her valuable insights in the strategies em- ployed by defendants, which she now uses to help plaintiffs recover damages they have suffered as effectively and efficiently as possible; She has acted for plaintiffs in a variety of stand-alone competition law cases, a number of which dealt with abuse of a dominant position or vertical infringements; and has defended numerous undertak- ings during investigations and infringement proceedings of the European Commission and the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, as well as subsequent appeal proceedings with European or national courts.

In addition, Ms. Meijssen has been a staff writer at the Dutch competition law journal Markt & Mededinging and frequently publishes in other journals about both civil law and antitrust issues. She also teaches competition law courses to peers, companies, and students, amongst others at Utrecht University and Academie voor de Rechtspraktijk. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 100 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

RANDY MOONAN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Mr. Moonan’s practice focuses on securities class actions. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York EDUCATION Cornell Law School (J.D. 2013); University at Albany (B.A., History and Political Science, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2010)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Moonan is an associate in Scott+Scott’s New York office. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Moonan was a litigation associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, representing major financial institutions in civil and regulatory matters involving securities, antitrust, corporate governance, and insurance law issues. During law school, Mr. Moonan served as a Managing Editor of the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy as well as a clinical extern at the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of New York. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 101 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

KASSANDRA NELSON PRACTICE EMPHASIS Kassandra Nelson’s practice focuses on securities and antitrust litigation. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York EDUCATION Southern Methodist University (J.D., 2016); University of Alabama (B.A., cum laude, 2012)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Nelson is an associate in the firm’s New York office where she focuses on securities and antitrust litigation. During law school, Ms. Nelson volunteered over 450+ hours in Legal Public Service and received the distinction of Pro Bono Honor Roll upon graduation. She worked as an intern for the Domestic Violence Division at the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office as well as an extern for the Honorable Judge Martin Hoffman. Ms. Nelson served as a student attorney for SMU’s Innocence Clinic, working with the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office and New York Innocence Project, and successfully advocated for the release and exoneration of Steven Chaney, freed after wrongfully serving more than 25 years. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 102 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

WALTER W. NOSS PRACTICE EMPHASIS Walter N. Noss practices complex federal litigation with an emphasis on prosecuting antitrust actions on both a class-wide and individual, opt-out basis. ADMISSIONS Member of the California, New York, and Ohio Bars; United States Court of Appeals: Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits; United States District Court: Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California, the Southern District of New York, and the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio EDUCATION The Ohio State University College of Law (J.D., with honors, 2000); University of Toledo (B.A. in Economics, magna cum laude, 1997)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Noss serves as the managing partner for Scott+Scott’s San Diego office and currently, represents class plaintiffs in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 1:13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.), an action challenging collusion regarding foreign exchange rates, and Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp., No. 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.), an action chal- lenging collusion regarding the setting of the ISDAfix benchmark interest rate.

Mr. Noss represented class plaintiffs in Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners LLC, No. 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.), a case challenging collusion among private equity firms. In Dahl, Mr. Noss served as one of the primary litigation counsel prosecuting the case, including deposing key managing directors, drafting dispositive motions, and arguing in court in opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motions. The defendants in Dahl settled for $590.5 million.

Mr. Noss represented the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs in Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, No. 2:12-cv-03824 (E.D. Pa.), a case challenging monopolistic conduct known as “product hopping” by the defendants. In Mylan, he was appointed sole lead counsel for the indirect class, and directed their prosecution and eventual settlement of the case for $8 million. He also represents corporate opt-out clients in In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2481 (S.D.N.Y.), a case challenging collusion regarding the spot metal price of physically-delivered aluminum. He has previ- ously represented out-out clients in In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1648 (N.D. Cal.); In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1642 (D. Conn.); and In re Plastics Additives (No. II) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1684 (E.D. Pa.), which were cases involving price-fixing by horizontal competitors in the synthetic rubber industry.

In addition, Walter has experience successfully litigating in federal civil jury trials. In April 2011, Mr. Noss served as lead trial counsel in Novak v. Gray, No. 8:09-cv-00880 (M.D. Fla.), winning a $4.1 million jury verdict for breach of oral contract and fraudulent inducement. In December 2009, Mr. Noss served as plaintiffs’ local counsel at trial in Lederman v. Popovich, No. 1:07-cv-00845 (N.D. Ohio), resulting in a $1.8 million jury verdict for plaintiffs on claims of breach of fiduciary duties, conversion, and unjust enrichment. In January and February 2006, Mr. Noss assisted the trial team for In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., No. 1:02-cv-0844 (N.D. Ohio 2006), resulting in a $34.5 million class action plaintiffs’ verdict. Prior to join- ing Scott+Scott in April 2004, he was an associate in the Cleveland, Ohio office of Jones Day. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 103 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

RANDALL AUBREY PETRIE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Randall Aubrey Petrie focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions.. ADMISSIONS States of New York and New Jersey; United States District Court: Southern District of New York EDUCATION George Washington University School of Law (J.D., Dean’s Fellow, 1992); Hamilton College (B.A., 1988)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Petrie is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office.

JOSEPH A. PETTIGREW PRACTICE EMPHASIS Joseph A. Pettigrew’s practice areas include securities, antitrust, shareholder derivative litigation, and other complex litigation. ADMISSIONS States of California and Maryland; United States Supreme Court; United States District Court: Central District of California; District of Maryland EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law (J.D., 2004); Carleton College (B.A., Art History, cum laude, 1998)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Pettigrew is an attorney who works across multiple S+S offices. His work includes the following cases: Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.); In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y); and Marvin H. Maurras Revocable Trust v. Bronfman, 12-cv-3395 (N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Pettigrew has served on the board and as legal counsel to several nonprofit arts organizations. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 104 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

MELANIE PORTER PRACTICE EMPHASIS Melanie Porter focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Southern District of California EDUCATION California Western School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2006); UCLA (B.A., Psychology, 2003)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Porter is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office.

While at CWSL, Melanie served as President of the Asian Pacific Law Student Association and Hawaiian Law Student Association, as well as Secretary and Chair of Community Relations for the Health Law Society and Co-Chair of the Social and Membership Committee for Phi Alpha Delta.

In 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, Melanie received the Rising Star recognition by Super Lawyers. She is currently a member of the California State Bar, San Diego County Bar Association, Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, and the American Bar Association.

SEAN RUSSELL PRACTICE EMPHASIS Sean Russell focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Southern District of California EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law (Masters of Taxation, 2016); Thomas Jefferson School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2015); University of California, Davis (B.A., Economics, 2008)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Russell is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office where he focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions.

During law school Sean was Chief Articles Editor of the Thomas Jefferson Law Review and a Moot Court Competitor. He also served as an extern to the Honorable William V. Gallo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 105 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE MAX SCHWARTZ PRACTICE EMPHASIS Max Schwartz’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation, often involving financial products and services. He also counsels investment firms and institutional investors on strategies to enhance returns and recoup losses. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States Court of Appeals: Second Circuit; United States District Court: Southern District of New York EDUCATION New York University School of Law (J.D.); Columbia University (B.A., cum laude)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Schwartz is a partner in our New York office. He frequently serves as lead counsel in securities cases, where he has won significant recoveries for investors. Recent examples include Weston v. RCS Capital Corp., 1:14-cv-10136 (S.D.N.Y.) ($31 million settlement), In re Conn’s, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 4:14-cv-00548 (S.D. Tex.) ($22.5 million settlement), and Birmingham Ret. & Relief Sys. v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC, No. 1:12-cv-09350 (S.D.N.Y.) ($10 million settlement). Following the financial crisis, Max served as lead counsel in several cases that set important precedents regarding mortgage-backed securities. He argued the first cases to find that securitization trustees must seek to have defective mortgages repurchased from MBS trusts. These efforts led to the recovery of $69 million for investors in Washington Mutual MBS and $6 million for investors in Bear Stearns MBS. Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America, NA, 1:12-cv-2865 (S.D.N.Y.); Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. U.S. Bank N.A., 1:11-cv-8066 (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Schwartz has substantial experience in competition and antitrust matters as well. He has served as counsel in several recent cases involving rate-rigging including Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation, 14-cv- 7126 (S.D.N.Y) (ISDAfix litigation) ($408.5 million settlement) and In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) ($590 million settlement to date). He was also part of the team that secured a $590 million settlement stemming from allegations that several of the largest leveraged buyouts were subject to collusion. Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.). In addition, Mr. Schwartz has advised clients in antitrust matters ranging from pharmaceuticals to precious metals and has advised companies seeking merger review before a number of regulatory agencies.

Super Lawyers named Mr. Schwartz a Rising Star and the Legal Aid Society also recognized him with a Pro Bono Service Award for work before the New York Court of Appeals. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 106 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE JUDY SCOLNICK PRACTICE EMPHASIS Judith Scolnick has extensive experience in the field of pharmaceutical litigation including, in particular, prosecuting opioid litiga- tions on behalf of governmental entities, and shareholder derivative actions against Board of Directors who orchestrated or turned a blind eye toward their companies’ violations of laws such as the False Claims Act, and FDA advertising and safety laws and reg- ulations, etc. Ms. Scolnick also is experienced in prosecuting employment class action lawsuits as well as counseling businesses regarding compliance. ADMISSIONS States of New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey; United States Court of Appeals: Second, Third, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, New Jersey and Colorado

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Scolnick is a partner in the firm’s New York office and began her career, following law school, by serving as a law clerk to the late Honorable Anthony Julian of the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Thereafter, she served as a trial attorney in the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice, where she was lead counsel in several high-profile employment discrimination lawsuits against Fortune 500 companies and defending various U.S. agencies around the country.

Ms. Scolnick then became an advisor to the British Airways Legal Department in the U.S. and U.K., which included negotiating and drafting contracts in various fields such as codeshare agreements, marketing ventures, supply chain agreements, and facilities agreements. In addition, Judith advised British Airways Legal Department in the U.S. on all employment matters including structuring reductions in force, avoiding and defending discrimination lawsuits, and executive contracts and severance agreements. In private practice Ms. Scolnick continued prosecuting single, group and class action employment discrimination actions.

Since 2017 she has primarily been leading the firm in prosecuting opioid litigations on behalf of cities and counties in seven states, and has been positioning these cases well for trial in state courts. Prior to the opioid litigations Ms. Scolnick effectively used the avenue of shareholder derivative actions to correct the abuses of pharmaceutical companies for the benefit of shareholders. She has served as lead counsel in many shareholder derivative actions and is currently lead counsel in North Miami General Employees Retirement Fund v. Parkinson, No. 10-cv-6514 (N.D. Ill.), a shareholder derivative case on behalf of pharmaceutical company, Baxter International, arising from the Board’s failure to comply with FDA orders to remediate a medical device known as the Colleague Pump. She was also co-lead counsel in Bio-Rad in which the Board of Directors was forced to take a top to bottom restructuring of its compliance policies and corporate governance in response to the Company’s wide-spread violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection provision.

Ms. Scolnick has experience litigating at both the trial and appellate level. She successfully argued the Baxter appeal where the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing a trial court’s dismissal, held that a pension fund’s complaint on behalf of all shareholders passed the pre-suit demand futility threshold test under Delaware substantive law. Westmoreland County Employees’ Retirement System v. Parkinson, 727 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2013). Also in 2013, Ms. Scolnick obtained a landmark ruling in the Wal-Mart shareholder derivative litigation from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s stay of the federal action in favor of a related proceeding in Delaware Chancery Court, and held that a Colorado River stay is never appropriate where the federal complaint alleges valid, exclusive federal claims. Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 107 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

Ms. Scolnick has also litigated a number of important employment discrimination class actions. These include U.S. v. City of New York, No. 07-cv-2067, 2011 WL 4639832 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2011) (successfully representing a class of black applicants for entry-level firefighter jobs who were discriminated against by the City of New York), Hohider v. UPS, 243 F.R.D. 147 (W.D. Pa. 2007), reversed and remanded, 574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009), where although the Third Circuit reversed certification of a nationwide-class-of Americans with Disabilities Act protected UPS employees, Ms. Scolnick was able to negotiate with UPS changes to its return to work policy with regard to injured workers.

Ms. Scolnick has also been named a “Super Lawyer” from 2011-2019.

DARYL F. SCOTT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Daryl F. Scott specializes in complex securities litigation. ADMISSIONS State of Virginia EDUCATION Georgetown University Law Center (Masters in Taxation, 1986); Creighton University School of Law (J.D., 1984) Vanderbilt University (B.A. Economics, 1981)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Scott is a partner across all offices and involved in complex securities litigation at Scott+Scott. In addition to his work with the firm, Mr. Scott has specialized in private foundation and ERISA law. He was also formerly an executive officer of a private equity firm that held a majority interest in a number of significant corporations. Mr. Scott is admitted to the Supreme Court of Virginia is a member of the Virginia and Connecticut Bar Associations. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 108 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE DAVID R. SCOTT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Managing Partner David R. Scott represents multinational corporations, hedge funds, and institutional investors in high-stakes, complex litigation, including antitrust, commercial, and securities actions. ADMISSIONS States of New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut; United States Court of Appeals: Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, Connecticut, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Northern and Southern Districts of Texas, and Colorado; United States Tax Court EDUCATION New York University School of Law (LL.M. in taxation); Temple University School of Law (J.D., Moot Court Board, 1989) St. Lawrence University (B.A., cum laude, 1986)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Scott is the Managing Partner of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Scott+Scott Europe LLP, and Scott+Scott Europe BV with offices in New York, Amsterdam, London, California, Connecticut, and Ohio.

In addition to managing the firm’s lawyers worldwide, Mr. Scott advises some of the world’s largest multinational corporations in cartel damages and other complex matters. He has been retained to design corporate policies for the global recoupment of losses, and transatlantic private enforcement programs.

He currently represents multinational companies and hedge funds in cases involving, among other things, price-fixing in the trucks, foreign exchange, high voltage power cables, cardboard, and payment card sectors.

Mr. Scott’s antitrust cases in the United States have resulted in significant recoveries for victims of price-fixing cartels. Among other cases, Mr. Scott served as co-lead counsel in Dahl v Bain Capital Partners, No. 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.), an action alleging that the largest private equity firms in the United States colluded to suppress prices that shareholders received in leveraged buyouts and that the defendants recently agreed to settle for $590.5 million. He was lead counsel in Red Lion Medical Safety v. Ohmeda, No. 06-cv-1010 (E.D. Cal.), a lawsuit alleging that Ohmeda, one of the leading manufacturers of medical anesthesia equipment in the United States, excluded independent service organizations from the market for servicing its equipment. The case was successfully resolved in settlement negotiations before trial.

Mr. Scott has received widespread recognition for his antitrust and competition law work. He has been elected to Who’s Who Legal: Competition 2015- 2019, which lists the world’s top antitrust and competition law lawyers, selected based on comprehensive, independent survey work with both general counsel and lawyers in private practice around the world. He has also received a highly recommended ranking by Benchmark Litigation for each of the years 2013-2015.

In addition to his extensive competition law work, Mr. Scott has also taken the lead in bringing claims on behalf of institutional investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, corporate pension schemes, and public employee retirement funds. For example, he has been retained to pursue losses against mortgaged-backed securities trustees for failing to protect investors. He also represented a consortium of regional banks in litigation relating to toxic auction rate securities (“ARS”) and obtained a sizable recovery for the banks in a confidential settlement. This case represents one of the few ARS cases in the country to be successfully resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Scott is frequently quoted in the press, including in publications such as The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and Law360. He is regularly invited to speak at conferences around the world and before Boards of Directors and trustees responsible for managing institutional investments. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 109 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE MELVIN SCOTT PRACTICE EMPHASIS Melvin Scott’s practice focuses on securities, commercial, and criminal litigation. ADMISSIONS States of Connecticut and Pennsylvania EDUCATION University of Kentucky (M.A., 1953; LL.B., 1957); University of Connecticut (B.A., 1950)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Scott founded the firm in 1975. He formerly practiced in Kentucky and is presently admitted to practice in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Mr. Scott was a member of the Kentucky Law Review, where he submitted several articles for publication. He has served as an Attorney Trial Referee since the inception of the program in the State of Connecticut and is a member of the Fee Dispute Committee for New London County. Mr. Scott also formerly served as a Special Public Defender in criminal cases and as a member of the New London County Grievance Committee. Mr. Scott actively represents aggrieved parties in securities, commercial, and criminal litigation and served or serves as counsel in Irvine v. ImClone Systems, Inc.; Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re (Holdings) Ltd.; In re 360networks Class Action Securities Litigation; In re General Motors ERISA Litig., and Hohider v. UPS, among others. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 110 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE AMY SIPE PRACTICE EMPHASIS Amy Sipe’s practice focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of Kansas; United States Court of Appeals: Eleventh Circuit EDUCATION University of Missouri School of Law, Kansas City (J.D., 1998); University of Missouri (B.A., 1993 and M.A., Communications,

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Sipe is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office where she focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Ms. Sipe worked as in-house counsel for a highly diversified Fortune 500 corporation and for an Am Law Top 20 Law Firm. Additionally, Ms. Sipe served as both General Counsel and VP of Managed Review/ Legal Services for several nationally renowned Electronic Discovery vendors, where her oversight responsibilities included recruiting, staffing, training and managing hundreds of attorneys and projects across the U.S. and overseas. She developed curriculums and trained in the areas of document review, attorney client privilege, contract management and a variety of other litigation support projects. Additionally, she developed product specifications with outside counsel and consulted on all aspects of e-Discovery. Ms. Sipe was instrumental in building dozens of legal service centers both in the U.S. and overseas, including a legal services center for a U.K. Silver Circle Law Firm.

Ms. Sipe and her teams advanced a culture of best practices and continuous improvement and were among the first in the legal world to utilize the reasonableness of statistical sampling and metrics, via methods developed with the assistance of Cal Tech and supported by the Sedona Conference’s Working Groups on Document Review, Attorney Client Privilege and Cross Border Discovery, all Working Groups in which she has participated in.

While Ms. Sipe’s focus is antitrust and class action matters, she is also experienced in many areas of complex litigation, including, Securities, IP, Technology, Labor & Employment, Healthcare, Pharma, Bio-Tech, Oil & Gas, Sustainable Energy, Mergers and Acquisitions, and several high-profile take-over attempts. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 111 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE SYLVIA M. SOKOL PRACTICE EMPHASIS Ms. Sokol is focused on the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Law Practice, representing national and international clients in litigation involving domestic and international cartels. ADMISSIONS States of New York and California; District of Columbia; United States Supreme Court; United States District Court: Southern District of New York, and the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California EDUCATION New York University School of Law (cum laude, 1998); University of British Columbia (undergraduate studies)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Sokol is a New York- and European-based partner. She represents and advises large multinational clients in cartel damages claims around the world. Sylvia has substantial experience designing corporate policies regarding potential damages claims, and in the ongoing monitoring of such claims. She works on a daily basis with corporate in-house counsel teams, including at the General Counsel and Global Competition Director level.

Ms. Sokol currently represents and advises her clients in cases involving anticompetitive conduct in the trucks, high voltage power cables, payment card, and foreign exchange sectors. In addition, Ms. Sokol’s civil litigation experience has involved defending corporate clients charged with unlawful business practices and monopolizations. She has also represented clients in criminal and extradition matters.

Ms. Sokol has repeatedly been selected for the International Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers & Economists and for Competition - U.S. in 2016-2019. Honorees are selected based on comprehensive and independent survey responses received from general counsel and private practitioners around the world. She has been selected to be a Fellow in The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society of the Litigation Counsel of America, which is a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. Lawyer Monthly magazine awarded her the Women in Law Award 2017. She has also been named a “Super Lawyer” in 2011- 2019.

After law school, Sylvia was awarded the Soros Justice Fellowship to serve a year in the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender’s Office, where she represented clients condemned to death and developed training materials for members of the capital defense bar. She then served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Warren J. Ferguson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, before spending several years working at Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Ms. Sokol is bilingual in English and French, and holds French and United States citizenships. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 112 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

TOM SOUTHWELL PRACTICE EMPHASIS Tom Southwell’s expertise is in the oil and gas, energy and financial services sectors, in relation to disputes arising out of share sale transactions, joint ventures, and civil fraud. ADMISSIONS Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales EDUCATION Nottingham Law School (Legal Practice Course, 2004); University of Manchester (LL.B., 2003)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Southwell is a partner in Scott+scott Europe LLP’s London office. Tom specialises in international arbitration and has represented individuals, corporate clients, and financial institutions in arbitration proceedings under the rules of the major arbitral institutions and before all levels of the English Courts.

Before joining Scott+Scott, Tom was a member of the International Litigation and Arbitration group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, in London.

RHIANA SWARTZ PRACTICE EMPHASIS Rhiana Swartz’s practice focuses on securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions. ADMISSIONS State of New York; United States Court of Appeals: Second Circuit; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of Colorado EDUCATION Brooklyn Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 2006); Swarthmore College (B.A., 2000)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Swartz is an associate in the firm’s New York office. After graduating from law school, Ms. Swartz clerked for the Honorable Joan M. Azrack in the Eastern District of New York. Currently, Ms. Swartz’s practice focuses on securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Ms. Swartz was Senior Counsel in the Special Federal Litigation Division of the New York City Law Department, Office of Corporation Counsel, where she handled federal cases brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 from initial receipt of complaint through trial verdict. Ms. Swartz settled more than 80 cases and conducted four federal trials. Ms. Swartz also spent more than four years as an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York, representing major financial institutions in civil and regulatory matters involving securities, antitrust, corporate governance, and employment law issues. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 113 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

STEFAN TUINENGA PRACTICE EMPHASIS Stefan Tuinenga’s practice is primarily focused on international antitrust litigation and collective actions. ADMISSIONS The Netherlands EDUCATION University of Groningen, International and European law (LL.B and LL.M, with a LL.M exchange to McGill University, 2008; International Business & Management (BSc), 2008; Law Firm School (post-graduate law school, with honours)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Tuinenga is counsel in Scott+Scott Europe BV’s Amsterdam office. He has more than a decade of dispute resolution and competition law experience: in private practice, as in-house counsel and by working for a competition authority.

Mr. Tuinenga worked eight years for a large first tier firm in Amsterdam, acting in many of the leading antitrust litigation cases such as Air Cargo, wire steel and gas insulated switchgear; He also acted in multiple competiton law investigations by the European Commission and the Dutch competition authority, among others in the Air Cargo, telecommunications, insulated glass, flour and retail food packaging sector, as well as in internal investigations; Mr. Tuinenga has been involved in various immunity and leniency applications, settlements, contested cases and discussions about access to documents and confidentiality.

In addition Mr. Tuinenga was responsible on a secondment basis for worldwide competition law and anti-bribery compliance at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in 2014; stood at the foundation of the competition authority of Curaçao as director and legal counsel of the Fair Trade Authority Curaçao in 2017-2019, of which he is now a non-governmental advisor; coordinating lecturer for the competition law course for students and legal professionals of the University of Curacao in 2018 and 2019;

Stefan regularly publishes articles on developments in competiton law and (antitrust) litigation, such as the overview articles on actions for damages in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany in the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice for the year 2015 and 2017 (coordinating author);

Stefan Is also passionate about triathalons and has completed three Ironmans (70.3 and 140.6) in the past year. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 114 of 117 BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

J. ALEX VARGAS PRACTICE EMPHASIS J. Alex Vargas serves as Scott+Scott’s Director of Investigations ADMISSIONS States of New York and California; District of Columbia EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law (J.D., 2004, B.A., 1997); University of San Diego (B.A., 1997)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Vargas is based in Scott+Scott’s New York office and heads up our investigation department. He conducts and oversees investigations across all practice groups.

Mr. Vargas has devoted over a decade of his career investigating claims on behalf of institutional investors and other stake- holders in the class action arena. He has been involved in several high-profile securities fraud cases, including one where he served as the principal investigator in connection with a 14-year litigation, resulting in the largest securities fraud settlement following a trial; a record $1.575 billion recovery in Jaffe v. Household Int’l, Inc., No. 02-C-05893 (N.D. Ill.).

Representative antitrust class actions include: In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 1:13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litig., No. 2:16-cb-27240-CMR (E.D. Pa.); Putman Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., No 1:19-cv-00439 (S.D.N.Y.); and In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig., No. 1:19-cv-01704 (S.D.N.Y.).

Representative securities class actions include: Banerjee v. Avinger, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-03400 (N.D. Ca.) (settlement of $5 million); Union Asset Management Holding AG v. SanDisk LLC, No. 3:15-cv-01455-VC (N.D. Cal.) ($50 million settlement preliminarily approved); In re LendingClub Corp. S’holder, Litig., No. CIV537300 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo County) (settlement of $125 million); In re MobileIron, Inc. S’holder Litig., No. 1-15-cv-284001 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara County) (settlement of $7.5 million); and Rubenstein v. Oilsands Quest Inc., No. 11-cv-288 (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement of $10.2 million).

Representative consumer and data breach class actions include In re Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 1:17-cmd-2800 (N.D. Ga.); In re Pacific Coast Oil Trust Sec. Lit., No. BC550418 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County) (settlement of $7.6 million); Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union v. Kmart Corp., No. 15-cv-2228 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement of $5.2 million); WinSouth Credit Union v. MAPCO Express, Inc., No. 14-cv-1573 (M.D. Tenn.) (largest dollar-per-card set- tlement obtained on behalf of financial institutions involving data breach of credit and debit card information); and First Choice Fed. Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Co., No. 2:16-cv-00506 (W.D. Pa.) (settlement of $50 million). Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 115 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

PHILIPPA (PIPPA) WINSTANLEY PRACTICE EMPHASIS Pippa Winstanley specialises in commercial and competition damages litigation. ADMISSIONS England and Wales. EDUCATION University of Law (Graduate Diploma in Law, 2013; Legal Practice Course, 2015); University of Oxford (Music, MA 2012)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. WInstanely is an associate in Scott+Scott Europe LLP’s London office. She specialises in competition damages litigation before the English High Court, Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.

Pippa is currently representing potential claimants in follow-on damage actions against Visa and MasterCard in relation to anti-competitive interchange fees. She is also acting on behalf of clients seeking compensation from participants in a long-running multinational cartel. Pippa also works on general commercial litigation, including a dispute relating to a major property portfolio in the UK.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott Europe LLP, Pippa trained at Marriott Harrison LLP and qualified in commercial litigation at Clyde & Co LLP, where she represented major energy and aviation clients in relation to various debt recovery and breach of contract claims. Pippa has experience representing both corporations and individual shareholders.

JING-LI YU PRACTICE EMPHASIS Jing-Li Yu practices in the areas of shareholder derivative and federal securities litigation. ADMISSIONS States of New York and Delaware; United States Court of Appeals: Second Circuit; United States District Court: Southern and Eastern Districts of New York EDUCATION University of Pennsylvania (B.A., Economics, cum laude, 2001); University of Chicago (Master of Arts, Social Sciences, 2005)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Yu is an associate in the New York office where he focuses on shareholder derivative and federal securities litigation.

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Yu was a litigation associate based in Wilmington, Delaware at a litigation boutique firm that primarily represented institutional plaintiffs, and before then, he was a litigation and investigations associate based in New York, New York at two international law firms that primarily represented institutional defendants. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 116 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

BRANDON ZAPF PRACTICE EMPHASIS Brandon Zapf focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS State of California; United States District Court: Central District of California EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law (LL.M. in Taxation, 2011); University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2007); University of California, Santa Barbara (B.A., 2002)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Zapf is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office and has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.

CAITLIN ZAPF PRACTICE EMPHASIS Caitlin Zapf focuses on complex antitrust litigation and class actions. ADMISSIONS United States District Court: Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California; State of California EDUCATION University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2007); University of California, San Diego (B.A., 2003)

HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Zapf is an attorney in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-8 Filed 09/25/20 Page 117 of 117 ATTORNEY BACKGROUND/ EXPERIENCE

JONATHAN ZIMMERMAN PRACTICE EMPHASIS Jonathan Zimmerman practices in the areas of shareholder derivative and federal securities litigation. ADMISSIONS States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania; United States District Court: District of New Jersey and Eastern District of Pennsylvania EDUCATION Temple University, Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2016); McGill University, Desautels School of Management (Bachelor of Commerce, 2009)

HIGHLIGHTS Mr. Zimmerman is an associate in the New York office where he focuses on shareholder derivative and federal securities litigation. While in law school, he served as a Staff Editor on Temple’s International and Comparative Law Journal. He also received the Best Paper Award in Advanced Financial Regulations for his work titled Corporate Diversions: Short-Term Tax Savings at the Expense of Shareholder Rights (Spring 2015).

Prior to joining Scott+Scott, Mr. Zimmerman practiced in the areas of shareholder derivative, federal securities, and Qui Tam litigation.

A former two-time All-Canadian collegiate lacrosse player and co-captain of McGill University’s men’s varsity team, Jonathan loves watching and playing sports when he, his wife, and his son are not exploring New York City’s vibrant food scene. Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-9 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 6 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-9 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2

1 2 EXHIBIT 6 3 In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL (W.D. Wa.) 4

5 BREAKDOWN OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S 6 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY 7 CATEGORY AMOUNT Court Fees $ 2,489.50 8 Service of Process 1,309.20 9 PSLRA Notice Costs 1,325.00 On-Line Legal Research 5,525.58 10 On-Line Factual Research 4,457.67 Document Hosting & Management 5,285.28 11 Telephone & Faxes 203.69 12 Postage, Express Mail & Hand Delivery 261.45 Local Transportation 341.74 13 Internal Copying & Printing 518.20 Out of Town Travel 3,719.90 14 Experts 132,114.00 15 Special Counsel 13,500.00 Mediation Fees 5,720.00 16 TOTAL EXPENSES: $176,771.21 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ALL EXPENSES BY CATEGORY BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP (3:18-cv-05704-RSL) 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-10 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit 7 Case 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPRCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 120 99-10Filed 11/19/18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 Pageof 4 2Page of 5 ID #:3166

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SOUTHERN DIVISION

11

12 ) Case No.: SACV 13-01818-CJC-JPR ) 13 ) ) 14 ) ) 15 ) In re QUALITY SYSTEMS, INC. ) ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ 16 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) FEES AND EXPENSES AND AWARD ) TO LEAD PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT 17 ) TO 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4) ) 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22

23 This matter having come before the Court on November 19, 2018, on the motion of 24 Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses (the “Fee Motion”), the Court, 25 having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted herein, having found the 26 Settlement of this litigation to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and otherwise being fully 27 informed in the premises and good cause appearing therefore; 28

-1- Case 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPRCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 120 99-10Filed 11/19/18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 Pageof 4 3Page of 5 ID #:3167

1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

2 (i) This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation of

3 Settlement dated July 16, 2018 (the “Stipulation”), and all capitalized terms used, but not

4 defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation.

5 (ii) This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this application and all

6 matters relating thereto, including all Members of the Class who have not timely and

7 validly requested exclusion.

8 (iii) Notice of Lead Counsel’s Fee Motion was given to all Class Members who

9 could be located with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Class of

10 the Fee Motion met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

11 and 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(7), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the

12 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, due process, and any other applicable

13 law, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due

14 and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

15 (iv) The Court hereby awards Lead Counsel attorneys’ fees of 25% of the

16 Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of $159,715.35, together with the

17 interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that

18 earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The Court finds that the amount of fees

19 awarded is appropriate and that the amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable under

20 the “percentage-of-recovery” method.

21 (v) The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses and interest earned thereon shall

22 be paid to Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Order,

23 subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, and in particular, ¶6.2

24 thereof, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated herein.

25 (vi) In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the Court has

26 considered and found that:

27 (a) the Settlement has created a fund of $19,000,000 in cash that is

28 already on deposit, and numerous Class Members who submit, or have submitted, valid

-2- Case 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPRCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 120 99-10Filed 11/19/18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 Pageof 4 4Page of 5 ID #:3168

1 Proof of Claim and Release forms will benefit from the Settlement created by Lead

2 Counsel;

3 (b) over 61,200 copies of the Notice were disseminated to potential Class

4 Members indicating that Lead Counsel would move for attorneys’ fees of no more than

5 25% of the Settlement Amount and for expenses (including the reimbursement of

6 expenses to Lead Plaintiffs) in an amount not to exceed $300,000, and no objections to

7 the fees or expenses were filed by Class Members;

8 (c) Lead Counsel has pursued the Litigation and achieved the Settlement

9 with skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy;

10 (d) Lead Counsel has expended substantial time and effort pursuing the

11 Litigation on behalf of the Class;

12 (e) Lead Counsel pursued the Litigation on a contingent basis, having

13 received no compensation during the Litigation, and any fee amount has been contingent

14 on the result achieved;

15 (f) the Litigation involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the

16 absence of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be

17 uncertain;

18 (g) had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would remain a

19 significant risk that the Class may have recovered less or nothing from Defendants;

20 (h) Lead Counsel devoted over 9,300 hours, with a lodestar value of

21 approximately $5 million, to achieve the Settlement;

22 (i) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees

23 and expenses in securities class action litigation; and

24 (j) the attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded are fair and reasonable and

25 consistent with awards in similar cases within the Ninth Circuit.

26 (vii) Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court’s approval regarding the

27 Fee Motion shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered with

28 respect to the Settlement.

-3- Case 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPRCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 120 99-10Filed 11/19/18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 Pageof 4 5Page of 5 ID #:3169

1 (viii) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), the Court awards $2,000 to Lead

2 Plaintiff City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust and

3 $2,119.26 to Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for the time they spent

4 directly related to their representation of the Class.

5 (ix) In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become Final or the

6 Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, this Order

7 shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided in the Stipulation and shall be

8 vacated in accordance with the Stipulation.

9

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

12 DATED: November 19, 2018

13 ______

14 CORMAC J. CARNEY

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4- Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-11 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit 8 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 99-11 364 Filed Filed 03/02/18 09/25/20 Page Page 1 2 of of 5 6

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 1 BERNSTEIN, LLP 2 Katherine L. Benson (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 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. 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 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 16 17 BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ Case No. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR SALVATORE, individually and on behalf of

18 all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

19 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING

20 ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PAYMENT OF v. LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND

21 PAYMENT OF CLASS ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., REPRESENTATIVES’ EXPENSES RORY P. READ, THOMAS J. SEIFERT, 22 RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T.

23 SU,

24 Defendants. 25 26

27

28 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 99-11 364 Filed Filed 03/02/18 09/25/20 Page Page 2 3 of of 5 6

On February 27, 2018, a hearing having been held before this Court to determine, among 1 2 other things, whether and in what amount to award (1) plaintiffs’ counsel in the above-captioned 3 consolidated securities class action (the “Action”) fees and litigation expenses directly relating to

4 their representation of the Class; and (2) Class Representatives their costs and expenses 5 (including lost wages), pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the 6 “PSLRA”). The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing and otherwise; 7 and it appearing that a notice of the hearing substantially in the form approved by the Court (the 8 “Settlement Notice”) was mailed to all reasonably identified Class Members; and that a summary 9 10 notice of the hearing (the “Summary Notice”), substantially in the form approved by the Court,

11 was published in Investor’s Business Daily and transmitted over PR Newswire; and the Court

12 having considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys’ fees 13 and expenses requested; 14 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 15 16 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all 17 parties to the Action, including all Class Members who have not timely and validly requested 18 exclusion, Class Counsel, and the Claims Administrator. 19 2. All capitalized terms used herein have the meanings set forth and defined in the 20 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of October 9, 2017 (the “Stipulation”). 21 3. Notice of Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation 22 expenses was given to all Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. The 23 form and method of notifying the Class of the application for attorneys’ fees and expenses met 24 the requirements of Rules 23 and 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 21D(a)(7) 25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the PSLRA, due 26 process, and other applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the 27 2 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 99-11 364 Filed Filed 03/02/18 09/25/20 Page Page 3 4 of of 5 6

1 circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled 2 thereto. 3 4. Class Counsel are hereby awarded, on behalf of all plaintiffs’ counsel, attorneys’ 4 fees in the amount of $7,375,000 plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund (or 5 25% of the Settlement Fund, which includes interest earned thereon), and payment of litigation 6 expenses in the amount of $2,812,817.52, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. 7 5. The award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses may be paid to Class Counsel 8 from the Settlement Fund immediately upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, 9 and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated 10 herein. 11 6. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses to be 12 paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has analyzed the factors considered within the Ninth 13 Circuit and found that: 14 (a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $29.5 million in cash and 15 that numerous Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the 16 Settlement created by the efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel; 17 (b) The requested attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses have 18 been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by Class Representatives, sophisticated 19 institutional investors that were directly involved in the prosecution and resolution of the Action 20 and who have a substantial interest in ensuring that any fees paid to plaintiffs’ counsel are duly 21 earned and not excessive; 22 (c) Plaintiffs’ counsel undertook the Action on a contingent basis, and have 23 received no compensation during the Action, and any fee and expense award has been contingent 24 on the result achieved; 25 (d) The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence 26 of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain; 27 3 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 99-11 364 Filed Filed 03/02/18 09/25/20 Page Page 4 5 of of 5 6

1 (e) Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted the Action and achieved the Settlement 2 with skillful and diligent advocacy; 3 (f) Plaintiffs’ counsel have devoted approximately 62,765 hours, with a 4 lodestar value of $31,122,958.75 to achieve the Settlement; 5 (g) The amount of attorneys’ fees awarded are fair and reasonable and 6 consistent with fee awards approved in cases within the Ninth Circuit with similar recoveries; 7 (h) Notice was disseminated to putative Class Members stating that Class 8 Counsel would be submitting an application for attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed 30% 9 of the Settlement Fund, which includes interest, and payment of litigation expenses incurred in 10 connection with the prosecution of this Action in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000, plus 11 interest, and that such application also might include a request that Class Representatives be 12 reimbursed their reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly related to their 13 representation of the Class; and 14 (i) There were no objections to the application for attorneys’ fees or 15 expenses. 16 7. In accordance with the PSLRA, the Court hereby awards Class Representative 17 Arkansas Teacher Retirement System $8,348.25 for its costs and expenses directly related to its 18 representation of the Class, and KBC Asset Management NV $14,875.00 for its costs and 19 expenses directly related to its representation of the Class. 20 8. Any appeal or challenge affecting this Court’s approval of any attorneys’ fee, 21 expense application, or award of costs and expenses to Class Representatives in the Action shall 22 in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement. 23 9. Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the subject matter of this Action and over 24 all parties to the Action, including the administration and distribution of the Net Settlement Fund 25 to Class Members. 26 27 4 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document Document 99-11 364 Filed Filed 03/02/18 09/25/20 Page Page 5 6 of of 5 6

1 10. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become Final or the 2 Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, this order shall be 3 rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation and shall be vacated in 4 accordance with the Stipulation. 5

6 Dated: ______,March 2 2018 ______HONORABLE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00226-YGR

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-12 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 4

Exhibit 9 CaseCase 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 99-12 520 Filed Filed 09/25/20 06/23/14 Page Page 2 1of of 4 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 In re NOVATEL WIRELESS SECURITIES ) Lead Case No. LITIGATION ) 11 ) 08-CV-01689-AJB(RBB) ) 12 This Document Relates To: ) CLASS ACTION ) 13 ALL ACTIONS. ) ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ ) FEES AND EXPENSES AND LEAD 14 PLAINTIFFS’ EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) 15 16 DATE: June 20, 2014 TIME: 3:00 p.m. 17 CTRM: 3B, The Honorable Anthony 18 J. Battaglia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

948969_1 CaseCase 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 99-12 520 Filed Filed 09/25/20 06/23/14 Page Page 3 2of of 4 3

1 THIS MATTER having come before the Court on June 20, 2014, on the 2 motion of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in 3 the Action; the Court, having considered all papers filed and proceedings 4 conducted herein, having found the settlement of this Action to be fair, reasonable, 5 and adequate and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good cause 6 appearing therefor; 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 of Settlement dated January 31, 2014 (the 10 “Stipulation”). 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 Lead Counsel attorneys’ fees of 27.5% of 15 the Settlement Fund and expenses in an aggregate amount of $1,454,249.34, 16 together with the interest earned thereon for the same time period and at the same 17 rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. Said fees shall be allocated 18 by Lead Counsel in a manner which, in their good-faith judgment, reflects each 19 counsel’s contribution to the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Action. 20 The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable under the 21 “percentage-of-recovery” method. 22 4. The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses, and interest earned 23 thereon, shall be paid to Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately after 24 the date this Order is executed subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of 25 the Stipulation, which are incorporated herein. 26 5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), Lead Plaintiffs Plumbers & 27 Pipefitters’ Local #562 Pension Fund and Western Pennsylvania Electrical

- 1 - 08-CV-01689-AJB(RBB) CaseCase 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document Document 99-12 520 Filed Filed 09/25/20 06/23/14 Page Page 4 3of of 4 3

1 Employees Pension Fund are awarded $23,503.99 and $9,019.64, respectively, in 2 reimbursement of their time and expenses in serving on behalf of the Class. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: June 23, 2014 5 Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia 6 U.S. District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

- 2 - 08-CV-01689-AJB(RBB) Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-13 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 7

Exhibit 10 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:07-cv-00800-MJP Document Document 99-13 235 Filed Filed 12/20/10 09/25/20 Page Page 1 2 of of 6 7 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:07-cv-00800-MJP Document Document 99-13 235 Filed Filed 12/20/10 09/25/20 Page Page 2 3 of of 6 7 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:07-cv-00800-MJP Document Document 99-13 235 Filed Filed 12/20/10 09/25/20 Page Page 3 4 of of 6 7 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:07-cv-00800-MJP Document Document 99-13 235 Filed Filed 12/20/10 09/25/20 Page Page 4 5 of of 6 7 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:07-cv-00800-MJP Document Document 99-13 235 Filed Filed 12/20/10 09/25/20 Page Page 5 6 of of 6 7 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:07-cv-00800-MJP Document Document 99-13 235 Filed Filed 12/20/10 09/25/20 Page Page 6 7 of of 6 7 Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-14 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit 11 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:06-cv-01633-MJP Document Document 99-14 27 Filed Filed 06/30/09 09/25/20 Page Page 1 2of of 4 5

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN 1 2

3

4 5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 ) Case No. C06-1505 MJP 11 ) 12 IN RE BP PRUDHOE BAY ROYALTY ) ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF TRUST SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 13 ) REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND ) AWARD FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF’S TIME 14 ) AND EXPENSES 15 ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 ) ) 19

20 21 22 23 24

25 26 ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND AWARD FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF’S TIME AND EXPENSES

No. C06-1505 MJP

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:06-cv-01633-MJP Document Document 99-14 27 Filed Filed 06/30/09 09/25/20 Page Page 2 3of of 4 5

1 This matter came before the Court on June 30, 2009, by motion of Lead Counsel for an 2 award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses and an award for Lead Plaintiff’s time 3 and expenses. The Court, having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted herein, 4 and having reviewed the entire record in the Litigation, and good cause appearing, hereby enters 5 6 the following order.

7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

8 1. The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts all defined terms as set forth in the 9 Stipulation of Settlement, dated March 13, 2009, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Dan 10 Drachler in Support of Lead Plaintiff the Teramura Family Trust Group’s Unopposed Motion for 11 12 Entry of the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Approving Notice, and Scheduling 13 Settlement Hearing.

14 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Lead Counsel’s motion and 15 all matters relating thereto, including all Class Members who have not timely and validly 16 requested exclusion. 17 3. Lead Counsel is entitled to a fee paid out of the common fund created for the 18 19 benefit of the Class. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478-79 (1980). The Ninth Circuit

20 recognizes the propriety of the percentage of the fund method when awarding fees. Vizcaino v.

21 Microsoft Corp., 290 F. 3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002). 22 4. The Court adopts the percentage of the fund method of awarding fees in this case, 23 and concludes that the percentage of the fund is the proper method for awarding attorneys’ fees in 24

25 this case. 26

ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND AWARD FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF’S TIME AND EXPENSES 1 No. C06-1505 MJP

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:06-cv-01633-MJP Document Document 99-14 27 Filed Filed 06/30/09 09/25/20 Page Page 3 4of of 4 5

1 5. The Court hereby awards attorneys’ fees of _27_% of the Settlement Fund, to be 2 paid from the Settlement Fund, as set forth in § VI of the Stipulation, and to include any interest 3 on such attorneys’ fees at the same rate and for the same period as earned by the Settlement Fund 4 (until paid). 5 6 6. The attorneys’ fee awarded is fair and reasonable based upon the Court’s

7 consideration of the vigorous prosecution of the Litigation by Lead Counsel and certain other

8 factors, including: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risk of litigation; (3) the skill required and the 9 quality of work; (4) the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by the 10 plaintiffs; and (5) awards made in similar cases. 11 12 7. The objection to the Fee and Expense Application filed by John J. Auld, Jr. and 13 Nancy S. Auld is hereby overruled.

14 8. The Court hereby awards Lead Counsel expenses in the aggregate amount of 15 $280,099.79 to be paid as set forth in § VI of the Stipulation, and to include any interest on such 16 expenses at the same rate and for the same period as earned by the Settlement Fund (until paid). 17 9. The Court hereby awards to George Allen, the representative of Lead Plaintiff, 18 19 $20,037.50 for time and expenses. This award is consistent with the provision in the Private

20 Securities Litigation Reform Act that allows “the award of reasonable costs and expenses 21 (including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the Class to any representative 22 party serving on behalf of the class,” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4), and is further supported by case 23 law. 24

25 10. The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses, and interest earned thereon, shall be 26 paid to Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations

ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND AWARD FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF’S TIME AND EXPENSES 2 No. C06-1505 MJP

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:06-cv-01633-MJP Document Document 99-14 27 Filed Filed 06/30/09 09/25/20 Page Page 4 5of of 4 5

1 of the Stipulation and in particular § VI thereof, which terms, conditions, and obligations are 2 incorporated herein. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated this 30th day of _June__, 2009 5

6 7 A 8 Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge 9

10

11 Presented by: s/Dan Drachler 12 Dan Drachler, WSBA #27728

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND AWARD FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF’S TIME AND EXPENSES 3 No. C06-1505 MJP

Case 3:18-cv-05704-RSL Document 99-15 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit 12 CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:16-cv-00216-RSL Document Document 99-15 118 Filed Filed 02/01/18 09/25/20 Page Page 1 2 of of 4 5

1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL 10 IN RE CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION 11

12 CLASS ACTION

13

14 15 ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES 16

17 This matter came on for hearing on February 1, 2018 (the “Settlement Hearing”) on Lead 18 Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. 19 The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement Hearing and otherwise; 20 and it appearing that notice of the Settlement Hearing substantially in the form approved by the 21 Court was mailed to all Settlement Class Members who or which could be identified with 22 reasonable effort, and that a summary notice of the hearing substantially in the form approved by 23 the Court was published in Investor’s Business Daily and was transmitted over the PR Newswire 24 pursuant to the specifications of the Court; and the Court having considered and determined the 25 fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses requested, 26

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION

EXPENSES (Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL)

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:16-cv-00216-RSL Document Document 99-15 118 Filed Filed 02/01/18 09/25/20 Page Page 2 3 of of 4 5

1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and 3 Agreement of Settlement dated September 15, 2017 (ECF No. 106-2) (the “Stipulation”) and all 4 capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the 5 Stipulation.

6 2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order and over the subject matter of the 7 Action and all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members.

8 3. Notice of Lead Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and 9 reimbursement of Litigation Expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be 10 identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the 11 motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 13 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)), due process, and all other applicable law and rules, constituted the best 14 notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all 15 persons and entities entitled thereto.

16 4. Plaintiffs’ Counsel are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 20% of 17 the Settlement Fund (including interest accrued on the Settlement Amount), and $123,211.61 in 18 reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s litigation expenses (which fees and expenses shall be 19 paid from the Settlement Fund), which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Lead 20 Counsel shall allocate the attorneys’ fees awarded amongst Plaintiffs’ Counsel in a manner 21 which it, in good faith, believes reflects the contributions of such counsel to the institution, 22 prosecution and settlement of the Action.

23 5. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to be paid 24 from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that: 25 26

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES -2- AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION

EXPENSES (Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL)

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:16-cv-00216-RSL Document Document 99-15 118 Filed Filed 02/01/18 09/25/20 Page Page 3 4 of of 4 5

1 (a) The Settlement has created a fund of $20,000,000 in cash that has been 2 funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and that numerous Settlement 3 Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that 4 occurred because of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ Counsel;

5 (b) The fee sought is based on a retainer agreement entered into between Lead 6 Plaintiff, a sophisticated institutional investor that actively supervised the Action, and 7 Lead Counsel at the outset of the Action; and the requested fee has been reviewed and 8 approved as reasonable by Lead Plaintiff;

9 (c) Copies of the Notice were mailed to over 21,000 potential Settlement 10 Class Members and nominees stating that Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys’ fees 11 in an amount not exceed 20% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of Litigation 12 Expenses in an amount not to exceed $200,000, and no objections to the requested 13 attorneys’ fees and expenses were received;

14 (d) Lead Counsel conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement with 15 skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy;

16 (e) The Action raised a number of complex issues; 17 (f) Had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement there would remain a 18 significant risk that Lead Plaintiff and the other members of the Settlement Class may 19 have recovered less or nothing from Defendants;

20 (g) Plaintiffs’ Counsel devoted over 2,900 hours, with a lodestar value of 21 approximately $1,661,000, to achieve the Settlement; and

22 (h) The amounts of attorneys’ fees awarded and expenses to be reimbursed 23 from the Settlement Fund are fair and reasonable and consistent with awards in similar 24 cases. 25 26

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION -3-

EXPENSES (Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL)

CaseCase 3:18-cv-05704-RSL 2:16-cv-00216-RSL Document Document 99-15 118 Filed Filed 02/01/18 09/25/20 Page Page 4 5 of of 4 5

1 6. Lead Plaintiff DAFNA is hereby awarded $18,362.50 from the Settlement Fund 2 as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its representation of the 3 Settlement Class.

4 7. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court’s approval regarding any 5 attorneys’ fees and expense application shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the 6 Judgment.

7 8. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained over the parties and the Settlement Class 8 Members for all matters relating to this Action, including the administration, interpretation, 9 effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation and this Order.

10 9. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the 11 Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this Order shall be rendered null and void to the extent 12 provided by the Stipulation.

13 10. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order, and immediate entry 14 by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. 15 16 Dated this 1st day of February, 2018.

17 A 18 Robert S. Lasnik 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION -4-

EXPENSES (Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL)