UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

x 

BRICKMAN INVESTMENTS INC., On 

Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

GERALD BILGER, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

x 

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-03455-RJH 

CLASS ACTION

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-03815-RJH 

CLASS ACTION

[Caption continued on following page.] 

MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF BRICKMAN 

INVESTMENTS INC. AND JOHN SPITZ FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS 

LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND FOR APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL AND IN 

OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTIONS 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 22
x 

ELIYAHU MOKHTAR, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

SHANNON VINSON, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

x 

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-05456-RJH 

CLASS ACTION

Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-05457-RJH 

CLASS ACTION

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .........................................................................................1 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................4 

A. KGS Issued Materially Misleading Press Releases Concerning This Case 

Which Were Designed to Enable It to Make a Lead Counsel Motion.....................4 

B. The Chen Group Is Assembled in Response to the KGS Solicitation Press 

Releases....................................................................................................................6 

C. Mr. Chen Also Submitted a Certification to Lerach Coughlin and Has 

Indicated an Unwillingness to Serve as a Lead Plaintiff .........................................7 

D. KGS Regularly Files Problematic Lead Plaintiff Motions on Behalf of 

Inadequate Movants.................................................................................................7 

III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................8 

A. The Lead Plaintiff Process.......................................................................................8 

B. The Chen Group Should Not Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff.....................................9 

1. Mr. Chen Is Not Adequate to Serve as Lead Plaintiff .................................9 

2. The Chen Group Is Not Adequate to Serve as Lead Plaintiff 

Because It Is the Product of an Improper Solicitation ...............................10 

3. Counsel Chosen by the Chen Group Is Not Adequate to Serve as 

Lead Counsel in This Case and Does Not Satisfy Rule 23(g) ...................12 

C. Dikla Should Not Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff.....................................................12 

D. Brickman and Spitz Are Otherwise Adequate and Typical and Should Be 

Appointed Lead Plaintiffs......................................................................................14 

IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................15 

- i - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 22
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page 

CASES 

Brickman Investments Inc. v. Allot Communications Ltd., et al., 

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-03455-RJH (S.D.N.Y.) ...............................................................4 

Crafton v. Powerwave Techs., Inc., 

No. SACV-07-0065-PSG(MLGx), (C.D. Cal.) ...................................................................8 

Goldberger v. PXRE Group, Ltd., 

Case No. 06-CV-3410 (KMK), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23925 

(S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2007)..................................................................................................9 

In re Cable & Wireless, PLC, Sec. Litig., 

217 F.R.D. 372 (E.D. Va. 2003) ........................................................................................10 

In re Cavanaugh, 

306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................10, 11, 12 

In re Network Assocs. Sec. Litig., 

76 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1999) ...............................................................................14 

In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 

182 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) .........................................................................................10 

In re Sonus Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 

229 F.R.D. 339 (D. Mass. 2005)........................................................................................10 

In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., 

67 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ohio 1999)................................................................................11 

In re Versata, Inc., 

No. C01-1439SI, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24270 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2001)..................................................................................................11 

In re Xethanol Corp. Sec. Litig., 

06-cv-10234-HB (S.D.N.Y.)................................................................................................8 

In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Sec. Litig., 

237 F.R.D. 13 (D.D.C. 2006)...............................................................................................8 

- ii - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 22
Page 

Mayo v. Apropos Tech., Inc., 

No. 01 C 8406, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1924 

(N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2002).......................................................................................................11 

Sakhrani v. Brightpoint, Inc., 

78 F. Supp. 2d 845 (S.D. Ind. 1999)..................................................................................14 

Schulman v. Lumenis, Ltd., 

No. 02 Civ. 1989 (DAB), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10348 

(S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2003)...................................................................................................10 

Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc., 

206 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D.N.J. 2002) ....................................................................................11 

STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4 ................................................................................................................... passim 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Rule 23(g) .................................................................................................................. passim 

New York Code of Professional Conduct............................................................................1, 5, 6, 7 

- iii - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 22
Plaintiff Brickman Investments Inc. (“Brickman”) and John Spitz (“Spitz”) respectfully 

submit this memorandum of law in further support of their Motion for Consolidation, Appointment 

as Lead Plaintiffs and for Approval of their Selection of Lead Counsel and in Opposition to the 

Competing Motions. 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Presently pending before this Court are three Lead Plaintiff motions: (1) Brickman and Spitz; 

(2) Shichao Chen, Cynthia E. Hober and Robert Jonkheer (the “Chen Group”); and (3) Dikla 

Mondial Mutual Fund (“Dikla”). Each of the movants seek consolidation of the above-captioned 

actions, their appointment as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of Allot Communications Ltd. 

(“Allot” or the “Company”) securities and approval of their selection of Lead Counsel. 

The Lead Plaintiff process in this case has been disrupted and tainted by lawyer-driven 

machinations which are antithetical to the policies underlying the Private Securities Litigation 

Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) and which, we respectfully submit, should not be countenanced 

by this Court. The Chen Group was formed by its lawyers, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (“KGS”), 

through a materially misleading solicitation campaign. On May 2, 2007, one day after Plaintiff 

Brickman issued the first statutorily mandated notice, KGS filed a press release announcing that a 

“shareholder class action has been filed against Allot Communications” and which directed class 

members to contact it: “KGS urges you to sign up with the firm. . . .” At the time KGS issued the 

press release, it did not represent a purchaser of Allot and had not filed a complaint, although the 

press release did not disclose these material facts. Again, on May 15, 2007 (announcing “48 Days 

Remaining . . . to Request Lead Plaintiff Position”) and June 30, 2007 (announcing “2 Days 

Remain...”), KGS issued additional press releases designed to solicit clients so that KGS could make 

a lead plaintiff application on its behalf. As detailed herein, all of the press releases issued by KGS 

were materially misleading in numerous respects and were in violation of the New York Code of 

- 1 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 22
Professional Conduct. See DR 2-101[F] (requiring law firm advertisements to be labeled “Attorney 

Advertising”). Following these improper press releases, KGS filed a motion on behalf of the Chen 

Group seeking their appointment as Lead Plaintiffs. 

The Chen Group’s motion raises serious questions about the adequacy of the Chen Group, 

underscores the danger in permitting such lawyer solicitations in PSLRA cases and should be denied. 

First, misleading solicitations often result in lead plaintiff motions by movants who: (i) do not 

understand that they are moving to be lead plaintiff of a securities class action; and (ii) have simply 

filled out a certification under the mistaken assumption that it is a claim form. See In re Network 

Assocs. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (stating that the published notices 

were “imperfect” because “recipients could easily have thought that they needed to sign up to 

participate at all.”). Shichao Chen appears to fit this description. As detailed herein and in the 

accompanying Declaration of Mario Alba, Jr.,1 Mr. Chen, who recently moved to this country from 

Beijing, China, executed certifications retaining both Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & 

Robbins LLP (“Lerach Coughlin”) and KGS as proposed Lead Counsel. Mr. Chen has advised that 

he did not understand the roles and responsibilities of a Lead Plaintiff and he did not speak to any 

member of KGS prior to the filing of the Lead Plaintiff motion on his behalf. As a result of the 

foregoing, Mr. Chen is not adequate to serve as Lead Plaintiff because he clearly is not interested in 

pursuing this case and has not demonstrated a willingness to do so. At a minimum, the facts and 

circumstances surrounding Mr. Chen’s entry into this lawsuit will undoubtedly create a side-show 

that will detract from the prosecution of this action. As will be shown herein, KGS has had other 

 

1

 “Alba Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Mario Alba Jr. in Further Support of the Motion of 

Brickman Investments Inc. and John Spitz for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and for 

Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel and in Opposition to the Competing Motions. 

- 2 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 22
instances in which it filed Lead Plaintiff motions on behalf of movants, like Mr. Chen, who 

“mistakenly” submitted certifications to multiple law firms. 

Second, misleading solicitations lead to the creation of an infirm lead plaintiff group which is 

detrimental to the interests of the Class. The lead plaintiff provisions of the PSLRA were enacted in 

order to place securities litigation in the control of determined lead plaintiffs who are to direct lead 

counsel. Where the lead plaintiff group has been cobbled together by its lawyers in response to a 

misleading solicitation campaign, as here, the Court cannot have confidence that the lead plaintiffs 

are in charge of the litigation. How can the Court vest this important securities case in the hands of 

several individuals who do not know each other, likely did not speak to each other before filing their 

motion and who responded affirmatively to a misleading solicitation campaign by a law firm that 

had not even filed a case? Indeed, the Court cannot be assured that it has performed its function to 

ensure that the interests of the Class are adequately protected. Instead, the appointment of groups, 

such as the Chen Group, will lead to nuisance value settlements and the compromise of valuable 

claims because the lead counsel will be concerned that the “lead plaintiffs” will not be able to 

withstand the scrutiny of class certification proceedings. 

Finally, it is respectfully submitted that the Court should reject the Chen Group as inadequate 

to serve as Lead Plaintiff as a policy matter. The PSLRA lead plaintiff provisions were instituted to 

benefit the prosecution of meritorious cases by putting them in the control of the plaintiffs. If the 

Court condones lawyer-driven solicitation campaigns that are designed to “game” the system, it will 

lead to further perversion of the lead plaintiff provisions. As detailed herein, KGS, and other firms 

like it, routinely issue a barrage of press releases announcing securities cases in which they did not 

even file a complaint in an effort to “collect” clients. These releases do not benefit anyone other 

- 3 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 22
than the lawyers issuing them and, in fact, they undermine the bona fide efforts by other counsel and 

plaintiffs to investigate and pursue securities cases. 

The motion of Dikla, the movant with the next largest claimed financial interest, should 

likewise be denied because: (i) Dikla has not submitted a proper certification; (ii) it is unclear who or 

what Dikla is; (iii) there is no evidence that Dikla is authorized to bring this action; (iv) there is no 

evidence that Migdal Mutual Funds Management Ltd. (“Migdal”), that purported to sign Dikla’s 

certification, is authorized to move on behalf of Dikla; (v) it is not clear if Dikla, as a foreign 

investor, understands what its role in this action will be; and (vi) it is not clear if all of Dikla’s 

related mutual funds have disclosed their trades in Allot securities during the Class Period. 

Moreover, Dikla has requested that an attorney, who is not admitted to practice law in the United 

States, serve as lead counsel in this action – a most unusual request that raises concerns about its 

adequacy, especially since the resume submitted by this proposed lead counsel contains inaccurate 

descriptions of its experience in representing shareholders in securities class actions. 

For these reasons, and as set forth herein in more detail, it is respectfully submitted that the 

motion of Brickman and Spitz should be granted in all respects and that the Court appoint them as 

Lead Plaintiffs and approve their selection of Lerach Coughlin and Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & 

Kessler, LLP (“Schiffrin Barroway”) as Lead Counsel, and deny the competing motions. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. KGS Issued Materially Misleading Press Releases Concerning This 

Case Which Were Designed to Enable It to Make a Lead Counsel 

Motion 

This action was first commenced by Plaintiff Brickman on May 1, 2007. See Complaint filed 

in Brickman Investments Inc. v. Allot Communications Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-03455-

RJH. In accordance with the notice provision of the PSLRA, that same day, Brickman issued a press 

release through Business Wire, a national, business-oriented newswire service (the “Brickman 

- 4 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 22
Notice”). The Notice advised investors of the pendency of this action, described the action and 

advised class members of the opportunity for them to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in this action 

within the next 60 days. 

Within hours of the issuance of the Brickman Notice, at 12:33 a.m. on May 2, 2007, KGS 

issued a press release announcing that a class action had been filed against Allot and urging class 

members to “sign up with the firm.” See Exhibit A (hereinafter “KGS First Solicitation Release”). 

The KGS First Solicitation Release was misleadingly styled to look like a statutorily mandated 

notice issued under the PSLRA and, in fact, copied many sections of the Brickman Notice verbatim. 

Importantly, KGS did not represent any Allot investors at the time that it issued this press release, 

nor had it filed any complaint on behalf of any Allot investors at this time. However, the KGS First 

Solicitation Release failed to mention any of these material facts. In fact, the KGS First Solicitation 

Release implied that KGS had filed a suit against Allot when it had not. The release stated in this 

regard: 

SPECIAL NOTICE: Multiple law firms often file the same class action. However, 

courts will generally appoint only one of these firms to prosecute a securities fraud 

action on behalf of the shareholders based upon the amount of losses its “lead 

plaintiffs” have suffered. Accordingly, while KGS urges you to sign up with the 

firm, KGS also encourages you to carefully evaluate any other firm that may be 

competing with KGS to prosecute the Allot class action, should you be considering 

another firm. Critical components of a law firm’s ability to successfully prosecute 

this action and obtain a strong recovery for you include the resources it will dedicate 

to prosecution of the case, including the number of lawyers the firm has available for 

the Allot action in particular, AND especially the quality of the firm’s work. 

Interested shareholders are encouraged to call for consultation and to request more 

information about KGS. [Emphasis added.] 

Although the KGS First Solicitation Release was clearly an advertisement by KGS, the 

release was not labeled as such and was in violation of the New York Code of Professional Conduct. 

See DR 2-101[F] (requiring law firm advertisements to be labeled “Attorney Advertising”). 

- 5 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 22
Despite that it still did not represent any party in the pending actions (or perhaps in spite of 

that), on May 15, 2007, KGS issued another press release with the headline: “INVESTOR ALERT: 

48 Days Remaining For Allot Communications Ltd. Investors to Request Lead Plaintiff Position In 

Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit.” See Exhibit B (hereinafter referred to as “KGS Second 

Solicitation Release”). The KGS Second Solicitation Release was virtually identical to the KGS 

First Solicitation Release except that it advised class members how many days it had been since the 

case was filed by Plaintiff Brickman. Although the KGS Second Solicitation Release was clearly an 

advertisement by KGS, the release was not labeled as such and was in violation of the New York 

Code of Professional Conduct. 

Then, on June 30, 2007, KGS issued yet another press release, this time with the headline: 

“INVESTOR ALERT: Only 2 Days Remain for Allot Communications Ltd. Investors to Request 

Lead Plaintiff Position in Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit.” See Exhibit C (the “KGS Third 

Solicitation Release”). This time, KGS made an additional effort to recruit Plaintiffs for its Lead 

Plaintiff Group. The KGS Third Solicitation Release stated, in pertinent part, as follows: 

IF YOU PURCHASED SHARES OF ALLOT SUBSEQUENT TO THE IPO AND 

LOST MONEY ON YOUR TRANSACTIONS, KGS LAWYERS ARE 

AVAILABLE OVER THE WEEKEND TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. 

YOU MAY IMMEDIATELY REACH LEWIS KAHN, KGS MANAGING 

PARTNER, VIA CELL 504.301.7900 OR VIA EMAIL LEWIS.KAHN@ 

KGSCOUNSEL.COM, OR YOU MAY VISIT http://www.kgscounsel.com/case/ 

case.asp?lngCaseId=4995 FOR MORE INFORMATION. 

Although the KGS Third Solicitation Release was clearly an advertisement by KGS, the 

release was not labeled as such and was in violation of the New York Code of Professional Conduct. 

B. The Chen Group Is Assembled in Response to the KGS Solicitation 

Press Releases 

The KGS Solicitation Press Releases served their intended purpose. On May 3, 2007, after 

the issuance of the KGS First Solicitation Release, Cynthia E. Hober, a member of the Chen Group, 

- 6 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 22
signed a certification. On June 2, 2007, Mr. Chen purportedly filled out a certification form seeking 

to retain the KGS law firm. Then, on July 2, 2007, Robert Jonkheer, the third member of the Chen 

Group, signed a certification for KGS. 

C. Mr. Chen Also Submitted a Certification to Lerach Coughlin and Has 

Indicated an Unwillingness to Serve as a Lead Plaintiff 

On May 9, 2007, Shichao Chen, also a member of the Chen Group and who recently moved 

here from Beijing, China, completed a certification form on the Lerach Coughlin website, see

Exhibit D, seeking to retain the Lerach Coughlin firm in this action. From the period of May 9, 2007 

to July 2, 2007, Mario Alba, Jr., an attorney from Lerach Coughlin, made several unsuccessful 

attempts to contact Mr. Chen through phone calls and e-mail.2 See Alba Decl. at ¶4. 

Subsequent to the filing of the motions for lead plaintiff in this litigation, Mr. Chen contacted 

Lerach Coughlin in response to an earlier message from Mr. Alba. See Alba Decl. at ¶¶5-6. During 

that conversation, Mr. Chen advised that, despite his signing of the certification on the Lerach 

Coughlin website, he was not prepared to commit time to serving as a lead plaintiff in this action and 

did not wish to serve as a lead plaintiff. He also disclosed that he had filled out a similar 

certification form with the KGS law firm, but that he had not spoken to anyone from that firm 

concerning this action. Id. 

D. KGS Regularly Files Problematic Lead Plaintiff Motions on Behalf of 

Inadequate Movants 

KGS’s misleading solicitation tactics have led it to file other problematic lead plaintiff 

applications. As is the case here with Mr. Chen, these problems stem, in part, from KGS’s failure to 

 

2

 It should be noted that the Lerach Coughlin firm did not file a motion for lead plaintiff by 

Mr. Chen because his commitment to this litigation could not be confirmed prior to the statutory 

deadline for filing any motion on his behalf. 

- 7 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 12 of 22
speak with investors who complete certifications before filing motions on their behalf and to make a 

basic inquiry as to whether these investors are able to adequately represent the interests of the class. 

For example, in two recent and unrelated cases, KGS filed motions seeking the appointment 

of investors as lead plaintiff and approval of the KGS firm as lead counsel. At the same time that 

KGS filed those motions, other firms filed competing motions seeking the same relief for the same 

plaintiff, but proposing a different law firm as lead counsel. See Crafton v. Powerwave Techs., Inc., 

No. SACV-07-0065-PSG(MLGx), (C.D. Cal.) (KGS and another firm both filed competing motions 

on behalf of Farokh Etemadieh); In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Sec. Litig., 237 F.R.D. 13, 

(D.D.C. 2006) (KGS and another firm both filed competing motions on behalf of Victor 

Ventimiglia) (relevant pages attached as Exhibit E). Not surprisingly, those investors were not 

appointed as lead plaintiffs. 

Similarly, in In re Xethanol Corp. Sec. Litig., 06-cv-10234-HB (S.D.N.Y.), KGS proposed an 

investor as lead plaintiff who had been twice indicted and convicted for his role as a principal in two 

separate savings and loan scandals as well as an assault on an Internal Revenue Service agent. As 

KGS ultimately conceded in this case, it had not made the appropriate inquiry of this plaintiff prior 

to filing the motion for lead plaintiff on his behalf. See Exhibit F. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Lead Plaintiff Process 

Section 21D of the PSLRA provides that in securities class actions, “courts shall appoint as 

Lead Plaintiff(s) the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to 

be most capable of adequately representing the interests of the class members.” 15 U.S.C. §78u4(a)(3)(B)(i). In determining which class member is “the most adequate plaintiff,” the PSLRA 

provides that: 

- 8 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 13 of 22
[T]he court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any private 

action arising under this Act is the person or group of persons that 

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice... 

(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief 

sought by the class; and 

(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) (emphasis added). 

Pursuant to the PSLRA, once a court finds that a movant has the largest financial interest in 

the litigation, the court affords that movant a rebuttable presumption as most adequate plaintiff. See 

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb); Goldberger v. PXRE Group, Ltd., Case No. 06-CV-3410 

(KMK), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23925 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2007). Once the rebuttable 

presumption described in the PSLRA is established, it may be rebutted only upon proof by a member 

of the purported plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff: (aa) will not fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class; or (bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such 

plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). 

B. The Chen Group Should Not Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff 

1. Mr. Chen Is Not Adequate to Serve as Lead Plaintiff 

Mr. Chen is not adequate to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in this case because he has advised that 

he did not speak to anyone at KGS before its Lead Plaintiff motion was made on his behalf and he is 

not interested in assuming the role and responsibilities of a Lead Plaintiff. See Alba Decl. at ¶¶5-6. 

Under these circumstances, Mr. Chen does not otherwise satisfy Rule 23 and his motion should be 

denied. Moreover, any effort now by KGS to belatedly remedy its apparent failure to consult with 

Mr. Chen prior to the making of the Lead Plaintiff motion on his behalf should be rejected by the 

Court as untimely. 

- 9 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 14 of 22
2. The Chen Group Is Not Adequate to Serve as Lead Plaintiff 

Because It Is the Product of an Improper Solicitation 

Congress expressly provided that before appointing a lead plaintiff, district courts must make 

a finding that the lead plaintiff movant “satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.” See 15 U.S.C. §78u4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc); see also In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 45 

(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“The PSLRA calls for greater supervision by the Court in the selection of which 

plaintiffs will control the litigation.”); In re Cable & Wireless, PLC, Sec. Litig., 217 F.R.D. 372, 377 

(E.D. Va. 2003) (“[A] movant’s financial interest is just a beginning point, and courts acknowledge 

that they must also consider the movant’s ability and willingness to adequately represent the class.”). 

The Rule 23 adequacy requirement is designed to ensure that the lead plaintiff and its choice of 

representation will adequately protect all absent class members. Indeed, lead plaintiffs have a 

fiduciary duty to monitor, manage and control the litigation with the advice of, but not the direction 

of class counsel. 

Here, the motion of the Chen Group is nothing more than the product of lawyer-driven 

machinations designed to secure a lead counsel position for their counsel. Even if the Chen Group 

was entitled to the presumption that they are the most adequate plaintiff (which they are not), that 

presumption can be rebutted upon a showing that the movants are either inadequate or atypical to 

serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). To be sure, lead plaintiff movants that 

permit their lawyers to engage in such tactics are not adequate to serve as lead plaintiff and do not 

otherwise satisfy Rule 23 and their counsel are not adequate to serve as class counsel. See In re 

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 737 (9th Cir. 2002); Schulman v. Lumenis, Ltd., No. 02 Civ. 1989 (DAB), 

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10348, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2003) (“Courts, however, may decline to 

approve Lead Plaintiff’s suggested counsel ‘to protect the interests of the class.’”); In re Sonus 

Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 229 F.R.D. 339, 347 (D. Mass. 2005) (“It is also in the interest of the 

- 10 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 15 of 22
administration of justice to give integrity to the PSLRA’s mandate that litigants not lawyers direct 

and control class action litigation.”); In re Versata, Inc., No. C01-1439SI, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

24270, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2001) (Courts should focus on “whether the asserted group has 

demonstrated the ability to represent the class and direct the litigation without undue influence 

from counsel.”). [Emphasis added.] 

Moreover, when attorneys use misleading press releases – masquerading as “notices” – based 

on other firm’s work-product to solicit clients, the PSLRA’s primary purpose of replacing lawyerdriven litigation with client-driven litigation is subverted. Accordingly, when a lead plaintiff 

proposes as lead counsel attorneys who have not previously filed their own complaints, courts have 

declined to approve their selection without an additional showing of their adequacy.3

 See generally 

Mayo v. Apropos Tech., Inc., No. 01 C 8406, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1924 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2002). 

These lawyer-driven machinations and solicitations are contrary to the policies and purpose 

of the PSLRA and it is respectfully submitted that they should be rejected by this Court. To endorse 

these efforts would be to encourage its conduct and would be contrary to Congress’ intent to prevent 

lawyer-driven litigation. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 737; see also Mayo, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

1924, at *17-*18 (after stating that it was “uncertain” about counsel’s “experience in the current 

matter,” court required counsel to provide evidence of “past efforts in th[e] matter as well as the 

 

3

 Under the PSLRA the most adequate plaintiff is to select and retain counsel subject, of 

course, to the court’s approval. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). A lead plaintiff movant cannot be 

approved “if the Court concludes that that plaintiff, or plaintiffs, and his, her, their, or its counsel, 

will not ‘fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.’” In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., 67 

F. Supp. 2d 803, 816-17 (N.D. Ohio 1999); see also Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc., 206 F. 

Supp. 2d 627, 633 (D.N.J. 2002) (the Rule 23 requirement of “fairly and adequately” representing 

the class is satisfied only when both the class representative and its attorneys are capable of 

satisfying their obligations). In proposing KGS as lead counsel, the Chen Group has chosen as its 

counsel a firm which has never been appointed as sole lead counsel in any significant securities class 

action. 

- 11 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 16 of 22
ability to carry forward such efforts on behalf of any potential class”). Accordingly, the Chen Group 

should not be appointed Lead Plaintiff in this litigation. To do so would violate one of the central 

goals of the PSLRA. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 737. 

3. Counsel Chosen by the Chen Group Is Not Adequate to Serve 

as Lead Counsel in This Case and Does Not Satisfy Rule 23(g) 

As previously stated, the Chen Group’s proposal of the KGS law firm as Lead Counsel also 

raises questions as to their adequacy. When considering the appointment of class counsel, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(C)(i) directs the Court to consider, among other things, “work counsel has done in 

identifying or investigating potential claims in the action.” Here, the only “work” that the KGS firm 

has done in this action is issue misleading press releases seeking to solicit clients and prepared a 

form Lead Plaintiff motion on behalf of class members who have never spoken to one another and 

who responded to a materially misleading solicitation campaign. This “work” does not qualify them 

to serve as Lead Counsel in this case and they should not be rewarded for employing the tactics 

detailed herein. 

C. Dikla Should Not Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff 

The motion of Dikla should also be denied for several reasons. In making its motion, Dikla 

has provided no information that evidences the authority of Migdal to seek appointment in this 

litigation on behalf of Dikla. Moreover, no details of the relationship between Dikla and Migdal 

have been disclosed. A review of Migdal Insurance & Financial Holdings’ website 

(www.migdal.co.il) also indicates that Dikla is one of many Israeli mutual funds managed by Migdal 

Mutual Funds, Ltd., although no disclosure has been made about other funds that Migdal manages 

that might have benefited from the alleged misconduct at Allot and possibly realized a profit on their 

trading in Allot shares. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(2(A)(iv) (requiring that a plaintiff set forth “all” of 

its transactions in the subject security). 

- 12 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 17 of 22
Dikla’s motion should further be denied because the certification that has been submitted on 

its behalf contains a one letter scribble in the place of a signature and thus is not signed in 

accordance with the PSLRA. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(2(A) (stating that the certification submitted 

must be “personally signed by such plaintiff”). Moreover, there is no indication of whose scribble is 

on the certification or if such person is authorized to act on behalf of the fund in seeking 

appointment as a Lead Plaintiff. In addition to the scribble, there is also a stamp with the Hebrew 

inscription of what appears to be “Migdal Mutual Funds, Ltd.” This stamp only adds to the 

confusion since it is not the stamp of Dikla, the investor that is seeking to be appointed as Lead 

Plaintiff here. 

Lastly, Dikla’s choice of proposed Lead Counsel raises concerns about whether it is adequate 

to represent the interests of the entire class. By proposing an Israeli law firm – The Law Offices of 

Jacob Sabo (the “Sabo Firm”) – as Lead Counsel, a firm that does not employ any lawyers admitted 

to practice law in the United States, Dikla’s motivations here are legitimately questioned. Moreover, 

Dikla offers no explanation as to why this Court should appoint foreign counsel to represent a class 

of investors in a United States court. 

Dikla’s proposed Lead Counsel, the Sabo Firm, has also misrepresented its credentials to 

serve as Lead Counsel in this case. Despite claiming that it is currently serving as “co-Lead 

Counsel” in securities fraud actions in the United States, a review of the dockets in the cases cited by 

the Sabo Firm in its resumé evidence that it not currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in any 

securities fraud actions in the United States. Accordingly, Dikla’s choice of counsel is further proof 

of its inadequacy to serve as Lead Plaintiff.4

 

4

 Because Dikla’s application raises more questions than answers, at a minimum, this Court 

should permit Brickman and Spitz to conduct discovery into the adequacy of Dikla. See 15 U.S.C. 

- 13 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 18 of 22
D. Brickman and Spitz Are Otherwise Adequate and Typical and Should 

Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs 

Brickman and Spitz satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. The claims 

of Brickman and Spitz are typical of the claims of the rest of the class because, just like all other 

class members, they: (1) purchased Allot shares during the Class Period; (2) purchased Allot shares 

in reliance upon the allegedly materially false and misleading statements issued by Defendants; and 

(3) suffered damages thereby. Thus, Brickman and Spitz’s claims are typical of those of other class 

members since their claim and the claims of other class members arise out of the same course of 

events. 

Brickman and Spitz are also adequate representatives of all members of the class. As 

evidenced by the injuries suffered by Brickman and Spitz, who purchased Allot shares at prices 

allegedly artificially inflated by Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements, the interests 

of Brickman and Spitz are clearly aligned with the interests of all the members of the class, and there 

is no evidence of any antagonism between Brickman and Spitz’s interests and those of the other 

members of the class. Further, Brickman and Spitz have taken significant steps which demonstrate 

that they will protect the interests of the class: they have retained highly qualified and experienced 

counsel to prosecute these claims. Thus, Brickman and Spitz prima facie satisfy the commonality, 

typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 for the purposes of this motion. 

Accordingly, Brickman and Spitz should be appointed Lead Plaintiffs and their selection of 

counsel should be approved. 

 

§78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iv); see also In re Network Assocs. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 

1999) (permitting discovery of proposed foreign lead plaintiffs); Sakhrani v. Brightpoint, Inc., 78 F. 

Supp. 2d 845, 854-55 (S.D. Ind. 1999) (ordering discovery to test movant’s adequacy to serve as 

lead plaintiff). 

- 14 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 19 of 22
IV. CONCLUSION 

For all the foregoing reasons, Brickman and Spitz respectfully request that the Court: (i) 

appoint them as Lead Plaintiffs in the Actions; (ii) approve their selection of Lead Counsel as set 

forth herein; (iii) deny the competing motions to the extent they seek appointment of the respective 

movants as Lead Plaintiffs and/or their counsel as Lead Counsel; and (iv) grant such other such relief 

as the Court may deem just and proper. 

DATED: July 20, 2007 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 

/s/ Samuel H. Rudman

SAMUEL H. RUDMAN 

SAMUEL H. RUDMAN (SR-7957) 

DAVID A. ROSENFELD (DR-7564) 

MARIO ALBA, JR. (MA-7240) 

58 South Service Road, Suite 200 

Melville, NY 11747 

Telephone: 631/367-7100 

631/367-1173 (fax) 

SCHIFFRIN BARROWAY TOPAZ 

 & KESSLER, LLP 

SEAN M. HANDLER 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

Telephone: 610/667-7706 

610/667-7056 (fax) 

[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

- 15 - 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 20 of 22
ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS

Service List - 7/20/2007

Page 1 of 2

(07-0093)

Counsel For Defendant(s) 

Vincent R. Fitzpatrick, Jr.

Douglas P. Baumstein

1155 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036-2787

212/819-8200

212/354-8113(Fax)

White & Case LLP

Gideon A. Schor

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor

New York, NY 10019

212/999-5800

212/999-5899(Fax)

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.

Counsel For Plaintiff(s) 

Jack G. Fruchter

One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2805

New York, NY 10119

212/279-5050

212/279-3655(Fax)

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky

Evan J. Smith

240 Mineola Blvd., 1st Floor

Mineola, NY 11501

516/741-4977

516/741-0626(Fax)

Brodsky & Smith, LLC

Nadeem Faruqi

Shane T. Rowley

Antonio Vozzolo

369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10017-6531

212/983-9330

212/983-9331(Fax)

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

Lionel Z. Glancy

Michael Goldberg

1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311

Los Angeles, CA 90067

310/201-9150

310/201-9160(Fax)

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

Corey D. Holzer

Michael I. Fistel, Jr.

1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107

Atlanta, GA 30338

770/392-0090

770/392-0029(Fax)

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC

Michael A. Swick

Kim E. Miller

12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10017

212/696-3730

504/455-1498(Fax)

Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 21 of 22
ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS

Service List - 7/20/2007

Page 2 of 2

(07-0093)

Jacob Sabo

The Tower No. 3

Daniel Frisch Street, 15th Floor

Tel-Aviv, Israel, 64731

Law Offices of Jacob Sabo

Samuel H. Rudman

David A. Rosenfeld

Mario Alba, Jr.

58 South Service Road, Suite 200

Melville, NY 11747

631/367-7100

631/367-1173(Fax)

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & 

Robbins LLP

Brian P. Murray

275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801

New York, NY 10016

212/682-1818

212/682-1892(Fax)

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP

Richard A. Maniskas

D. Seamus Kaskela

280 King of Prussia Road

Radnor, PA 19087

610/667-7706

610/667-7056(Fax)

Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP

Courtesy Copy 

Lewis S. Kahn

650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150

New Orleans, LA 70130

504/455-1400

504/455-1498(Fax)

Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 19 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 22 of 22