Case 4:18-cv-00920-CW Document 61 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 31 1 ROBBINS LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS (190264) 2 [email protected] ASHLEY R. RIFKIN (246602) 3 [email protected] 5040 Shoreham Place 4 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 5 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 6 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 7 [Additional Counsel on Signature Pages] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 10 Lead Case No. 4:18-cv-00920-CW 11 IN RE GOPRO STOCKHOLDER (Consolidated with Case No. 4:18-cv- DERIVATIVE LITIGATION 01284-CW) 12 13 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION This Document Relates To: AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 14 FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE ALL CASES. SETTLEMENT AND MEMORANDUM 15 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 16 Hearing Date: July 28, 2021 Hearing Time: 2:30 p.m. 17 Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lead Case No. 4:18-cv-00920-CW NOTICE OF MOT. AND UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND MEMO. IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 4:18-cv-00920-CW Document 61 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 31 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..............................................................................2 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................2 4 I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 5 II. BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION...........................................................................4 6 A. Related Securities Actions .......................................................................................4 7 B. The California Derivative Action ............................................................................4 8 C. The Consolidated Delaware Action .........................................................................5 9 D. Non-Consolidated Delaware Actions ......................................................................7 10 11 1. Mays Action .................................................................................................7 12 2. De Nicola Action .........................................................................................7 13 E. Stockholder Jason Booth's Litigation Demands ......................................................8 14 F. Settlement Efforts ....................................................................................................9 15 G. Preliminary Approval Granted and Notice to Stockholders ..................................10 16 III. THE STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF A DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT ..................................................................................................................10 17 18 IV. THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE FINALLY APPROVED .........................................11 19 A. The Settlement Confers a Substantial Benefit upon GoPro ...................................11 20 B. The Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages .................................................15 21 C. The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of Continued Litigation Supports Approval of the Settlement .....................................................................17 22 D. The Settlement Was Negotiated by the Parties with a Thorough 23 Understanding of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Parties' Respective 24 Positions .................................................................................................................17 25 E. The Experience and Views of Counsel Favor Approval .......................................18 26 V. THE SEPARATELY NEGOTIATED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES SHOULD BE APPROVED ...............................................................................................19 27 28 - i - Lead Case No. 4:18-cv-00920-CW NOTICE OF MOT. AND UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND MEMO. IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 4:18-cv-00920-CW Document 61 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 31 A. Unopposed Fees Negotiated at Arm's-Length Are Favored ..................................19 1 B. The Fee and Expense Amount Is Fair and Reasonable in Light of the 2 Substantial Benefits Obtained ................................................................................20 3 C. A Lodestar Cross-Check Supports the Fairness and Reasonableness of the 4 Fee and Expense Amount ......................................................................................22 5 D. The Incentive Awards to Settling Shareholders Are Reasonable ..........................24 6 VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ii - Lead Case No. 4:18-cv-00920-CW NOTICE OF MOT. AND UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND MEMO. IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 4:18-cv-00920-CW Document 61 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 31 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 CASES ...............................................................................................................................PAGE(S) 2 Banerjee v. Avinger, Inc., 3 No. 17-cv-3400-CW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184028 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2018).............24 4 Blum v. Stenson, 5 465 U.S. 886 (1984) ...........................................................................................................23 6 Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1979) ....................................................................................17 7 Cohn v. Nelson, 8 375 F. Supp. 2d 844 (E.D. Mo. 2005)..........................................................................17, 23 9 Feuer v. Thompson, 10 No. 10-cv-00279, 2013 WL 2950667 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2013) ......................................22 11 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) ...........................................................................................................19 12 In re Apple Comput., Inc. Derivative Litig., 13 No. C 06-4128 JF (HRL), 2008 WL 4820784 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008) ....................11, 20 14 In re CNET Networks, Inc., 15 483 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...............................................................................16 16 In re Finisar Corp. Derivative Litig., 542 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...............................................................................16 17 In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 18 No. 02-cv-3400, 2010 WL 4537550 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010)..........................................23 19 In re Google Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., 20 No. CV-11-0448-PJH, 2015 WL 12990195 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015) .............................21 21 In re GoPro, Inc., No. 2018-0784-JRS, 2020 WL 2036602 (Del. Ch. Apr. 28, 2020) ...............................7, 16 22 In re Infosonics Corp. Derivative Litig., 23 No. 06-CV-1336, 2007 WL 2572276 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2007) ........................................16 24 In re Linear Tech. Corp. Derivative Litig., 25 No. C-06-3290, 2006 WL 3533024 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2006) ...........................................16 26 In re Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-8144, 2009 WL 5178546 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) .............................................24 27 28 - iii - Lead Case No. 4:18-cv-00920-CW NOTICE OF MOT. AND UNOPPOSED MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND MEMO. IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 4:18-cv-00920-CW Document 61 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 31 In re MRV Commc'ns, Inc. Derivative Litig., 1 No. 08-03800 GAF, 2013 WL 2897874 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2013) ....................................19 2 In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., 3 No. C-06-06110-SBA (JCS), 2008 WL 5382544 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008) .............10, 12 4 In re Openwave Sys. S'holder Derivative Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................16 5 In re OSI Sys., Inc. Derivative Litig., 6 No. CV-14-2910-MWF, 2017 WL 5642304 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2017) ..................... passim 7 In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 8 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................15, 17, 18 9 In re PMC-Sierra, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. C 06-05330, 2007 WL 2427980 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2007).......................................16 10 In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litig., 11 No. C 06-3513 JF (HRL), 2009 WL 166689 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009) ............................21 12 In re VeriSign, Inc. Derivative Litig., 13 531 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................16 14 Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., No. 08 Civ. 214 CM, 2012 WL 2505644 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2012).................................24 15 Lloyd v. Gupta, 16 No. 15-CV-04183-MEJ, 2016 WL 3951652 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2016) ............................10 17 Maher v. Zapata Corp., 714 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1983) .......................................................................................12, 21 18 19 Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1970) .....................................................................................................12, 20 20 Officers for Just. v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 21 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ...........................................................................11, 15, 17, 18 22 Roberti v. OSI Sys., Inc., No. 13-09174, 2015 WL 8329916 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015) .............................................23 23 24 Seinfeld v. Coker,