Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04883/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04883-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

Patrick D. Robbins (SBN 152288)

probbins@shearman.com

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

535 Mission Street, 25th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 616-1100

Facsimile: (415) 616-1199

Adam S. Hakki (pro hac vice to be submitted)

ahakki@shearman.com

Daniel C. Lewis (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

daniel.lewis@shearman.com

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10022-6069

Telephone: (212) 848-4000 

Facsimile: (646) 848-4924

Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES BLOOM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SUNEDISON , INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Related Case No. 3:16-cv-02265-WHA

STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

CONSOLIDATING CASES

Judge: Hon. William Alsup 

CHARLES BLOOM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al.,

Defendants.

Related Case No. 3:16-cv-04883-WHA

Case 3:16-cv-04883-WHA Document 14 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the parties in the abovecaptioned related actions entitled Bloom, et al. v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02265-

WHA (“Bloom I”) and Bloom, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-04883-WHA 

(“Bloom II” and, together with Bloom I, the “Bloom Actions”), seek to have the Court consolidate 

the Bloom Actions so that they can be promptly transferred to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York pursuant to this Court’s Order (1) Denying Motions to Remand; (2) 

Granting Motions to Transfer; (3) Certifying Issue for Interlocutory Review; and (4) Staying 

Actions, dated August 26, 2016; and 

WHEREAS, the Bloom Actions have the same plaintiffs, were filed by the same counsel, and 

include allegations that plaintiffs purchased the same security and were misled by misrepresentations 

and/or omissions in certain offering materials concerning the strength and liquidity of SunEdison, 

Inc. during the same general time period; and

WHEREAS, prior to Defendants’ removal of Bloom II: (i) the defendants in Bloom I and 

three other actions deemed related thereto (collectively, the “Related Actions”) moved pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1412 to transfer the Related Actions to the Southern District of New York; (ii) plaintiffs 

in each of the Related Actions moved to remand the Related Actions to San Mateo County Superior 

Court; and (iii) the parties’ motions for remand and transfer were fully briefed and the Court held a 

hearing to consider those motions; 

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2016, in the Related Actions, the Hon. William H. Alsup entered 

an order: (i) denying plaintiffs’ motions to remand the Related Actions, (ii) granting defendants’ 

motions to transfer the Related Actions, (iii) certifying for interlocutory review the question of 

whether Section 22(a) of the 1933 Securities Act bars removal of actions “related to” a bankruptcy 

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a); and (iv) staying the Related Actions until September 5, 2016, 

unless plaintiffs file a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), in which case the Related Actions 

are stayed until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit acts upon any such petition;

WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the Bloom Actions did not file a petition seeking interlocutory 

review of the Court’s August 26, 2016 order as to Bloom I; 

Case 3:16-cv-04883-WHA Document 14 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

WHEREAS, the parties in the Bloom Actions agree to be bound by the Court’s August 26, 

2016 order as to Bloom II without requiring the parties to separately brief motions to remand and 

transfer; and 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Plaintiffs in the Bloom Actions reserve and have not 

waived their right to argue in Bloom I and Bloom II that the Southern District of New York lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case in the event that the Ninth Circuit reverses this Court’s 

August 26, 2016 order and that the Defendants reserve and have not waived their right to oppose 

such arguments.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the 

undersigned attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

1. The above-captioned Bloom Actions are hereby consolidated before the undersigned 

Judge. 

2. The Bloom Actions shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412. 

Dated: September 21, 2016 By: /s/ Patrick D. Robbins

Patrick D. Robbins, SBN 152288

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

535 Mission Street, 25th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 616-1210

Facsimile: (415) 616-1199 

probbins@shearman.com

Adam S. Hakki (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

Daniel C. Lewis (pro hac vice to be submitted)

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

599 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022-6069

Telephone: (212) 848-4000 

Facsimile: (646) 848-4924

ahakki@shearman.com

daniel.lewis@shearman.com

Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants

Case 3:16-cv-04883-WHA Document 14 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

Dated: September 21, 2016 By: _/s/ John T. Jasnoch_____________________

John T. Jasnoch, SBN 281605

SCOTT+SCOTT, attorneys at law, LLP

707 Broadway, Suite 1000

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619/233-4565

619/233-0508 (fax)

jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: September 21, 2016

Dated: September 21, 2016

By: /s/ Jie (Lisa) Li

Jie (Lisa) Li (State Bar No. 260474)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

950 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 858-6000

Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

Lisa.Li@wilmerhale.com

Attorneys for Defendant Peter Blackmore

By: /s/ Sara B/ Brody

Sara B. Brody (State Bar No. 130222)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

555 California Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 772-1200

Facsimile: (415) 772-7400

sbrody@sidley.com

Attorneys for Defendants Ahmad Chatila, 

Jeremy Avenier, Martin Truong, 

Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez, 

Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, 

Steven Tesoriere, James Williams, Randy 

Zwirn, and Brian Wuebbels

Case 3:16-cv-04883-WHA Document 14 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing 

document. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of 

this document has been obtained from each signatory.

Dated: September 21, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Patrick D. Robbins

Patrick D. Robbins, SBN 152288

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

535 Mission Street, 25th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 616-1210

Facsimile: (415) 616-1199 

probbins@shearman.com

Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants

* * *

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

William H. Alsup

United States District Judge

September 21, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-04883-WHA Document 14 Filed 09/21/16 Page 5 of 5