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

Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 1

of 57
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

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

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

Lawrence M. Rolnick (pro hac vice application pending)

lrolnick@rksllp.com 

Marc B. Kramer (pro hac vice application pending)

mkramer@rksllp.com 

Michael J. Hampson (pro hac vice application pending)

mhampson@rksllp.com 

Jeffrey A. Ritholtz (pro hac vice application pending) 

jritholtz@rksllp.com 

Frank T.M. Catalina (pro hac vice application pending) 

fcatalina@rksllp.com 

1251 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10020 

Telephone: (212) 597-2800 

Facsimile: (212) 597-2801 

THE LONG LAW FIRM, PLLC 

James A. Long, CSB No. 326404 

8605 Santa Monica Blvd. 

PMB 48629 

West Hollywood, California 90069-4109 

(315) 991-8000 Telephone 

jlong@long.law 

Attorneys for the Movant Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE PG&E CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

Case No. 5:18-cv-03509-EJD 

MOVANT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

INTERVENE AND MEMORANDUM OF 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 

SUPPORT THEREOF

Hearing Information: 

Date: June 29, 2023 

Time: 9:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: Courtroom 4 (5th Floor) 

 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 2

of 57
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

i 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 29, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) in 

Courtroom 4, 5th Floor of the United States District Courthouse, located at 280 South 1st Street, 

San Jose, CA 95113, before the Honorable Judge Edward A. Davila, Movant Plaintiffs (as 

defined in the below Memorandum of Points and Authorities) will and hereby do move the 

Court, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order granting their 

request to intervene as plaintiffs in the action entitled In re PG&E Corp. Securities Litigation, 

No. 5:18-cv-03509-EJD. 

 Movant Plaintiffs seek to intervene in the above-titled action for the purpose of opposing 

a motion to be filed by the putative class representative for dissolution of the stay currently 

pending in the action and/or for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the action. 

Movant Plaintiffs seek to intervene in the action as of right or, in the alternative, by permissive 

intervention. 

 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities, and the arguments of counsel at any hearing on this Motion. 

Dated: February 15, 2023 THE LONG LAW FIRM, PLLC 

By: /s/ James A. Long

 James A. Long 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

Lawrence M. Rolnick (pro hac vice 

application pending) 

Marc B. Kramer (pro hac vice application 

pending) 

Michael J. Hampson (pro hac vice 

application pending) 

Jeffrey A. Ritholtz (pro hac vice application 

pending) 

Frank T.M. Catalina (pro hac vice

application pending) 

Attorneys for the Movant Plaintiffs 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 3

of 57
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

ii 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 3

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9

A. The Movants are Entitled to Intervention as of Right .......................................................... 9

1. The Motion is Timely ..................................................................................................... 10 

2. The Movants Have Substantial Interests in the Subject Matter of the Action ............... 12 

3. The Movants’ Ability to Protect Their Interests Will Be Impaired ............................... 13 

4. The Movants’ Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by PERA ............................ 15 

B. In the Alternative, the Movants Are Entitled to Permissive Intervention .......................... 17

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18

 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 4

of 57
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

iii 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

Abdurahman v. Alltran Financial, LP, 

330 F.R.D. 276 (S.D. Cal. 2018) .............................................................................................. 12 

American Rivers v. Wheeler, 

No. C 20-04636 WHA, 2020 WL 5993229 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) ........................................ 9 

Apple, Inc. v Iancu, 

No. 5:20-cv-06128-EJD, 2021 WL 411157 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2021) ...................................... 11 

Arena v. Intuit Inc., 

No. .19-cv-02546-CRB, 2021 WL 834253 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) ...................................... 16 

Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance Co.,

966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................. 17, 18 

Briseno v. Henderson, 

998 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 17 

Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Association, 

647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................... 9 

Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc., 

No. 3:10-CV-2666-JM-BGS, 2011 WL 3489781 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2011)............................ 13 

Davis v. Wakelee, 

156 U.S. 680 (1895) .................................................................................................................. 11 

Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 

876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................ 10, 13 

Dixon v. Cost Plus, 

No. 12-CV-02721-LHK, 2012 WL 2499931 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) ................................. 19 

Glass v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 

No. C-06-4068 MMC, 2007 WL 474936 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2007) ........................................ 13 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 4 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 5

of 57
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

iv 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Gomes v. Eventbrite, Inc., 

No. 5:19-cv-02019-EJD, 2020 WL 6381343 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) ...................... 12, 14, 15 

Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 

598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 16 

In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 

654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 17 

In re Community Bank of North Virginia, 

418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005)...................................................................................................... 13 

In re Grupo Unidos Por El Canal S.A., 

No. 14-mc-80277-JST (DMR), 2015 WL 1815251 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) ......................... 9 

In re Lendingclub Securities Litigation, 

282 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................. 11, 17 

In re PG&E Corporation, et al., 

No. 21-16507 (9thCir.) ............................................................................................................... 8 

In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2016 WL 4376623 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016 ............................. 13 

Low v. Altus Financial S.A., 

44 Fed. App’x 282 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 10 

Lubocki v. ZipRealty, Inc., 

No. CV 07-02959 SJO (JCx), 2009 WL 10670958 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009)........................ 12 

Munoz v. PHH Corp., 

No. 1:08-cv-0759-AWI-BAM, 2013 WL 3935054 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) ............... 9, 12, 16 

New Hampshire v. Maine, 

532 U.S. 742 (2001) .................................................................................................................. 11 

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 

No. C 09-2292 VRW, 2010 WL 1469749 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010) ................................. 17, 18 

Prete v. Bradbury, 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 5 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 6

of 57
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

v 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................... 9 

Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico v. PG&E Corporation, 

No. 20-cv-01708-HSG, 2021 WL 858418 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021) ......................................... 5 

S.E.C. v. Navin, 

166 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Cal. 1995) .............................................................................................. 13 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., 

No. 10-cv-03098-JSW, 2016 WL 11781870 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) ................................. 10 

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 

268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 13, 15

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 

568 U.S. 588 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 10 

Su v. Siemens Indus., Inc., 

No. 12-cv-03743-JST, 2013 WL 3477202 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2013) ...................................... 18 

Ubaldi v. SLM Corp., 

No. C-11-01320 EDL, 2014 WL 12639952 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) ..................................... 9 

United States v. Carpenter, 

298 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 10, 12 

United States v. City of Los Angeles, 

288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 9 

United States v. Oregon, 

745 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 11 

Wilderness Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 

630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 9 

Winston v. United States, 

No. 14-cv-05417-MEJ, 2015 WL 9474284 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2015) .................................... 10 

Other Authorities

5 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 16:7 (4th ed. 2002) ............ 10 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 6 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 7

of 57
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

vi 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ............................................................................................................................ 5 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ................................................................................................................ 9, 13, 17 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 7 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 8

of 57
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

1 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Nearly 700 unnamed members of the putative class (“Putative Class”) in the abovecaptioned action (“Action”) who are represented by Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP (“Movants” or 

“Movant Plaintiffs”)1 respectfully submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support 

of their motion, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to intervene in the 

Action for the purpose of opposing the announced intention of putative class representative Public 

Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (“PERA”) to move for (i) dissolution of the 

Court’s order to stay the Action pending resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California titled In re PG&E Corporation, et 

al., No. 19-30088 (“Bankruptcy” or “Bankr.”), and/or (ii) preliminary approval to settle the Action. 

The Movants respectfully request the opportunity to be heard in the Action on a timely basis when 

such motion is filed, in order to protect their rights and prevent the prejudice that such motions 

will have on the ongoing Bankruptcy claims process. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Movants seek to disrupt a coordinated tactic by PERA, defendants PG&E Corporation 

and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (together, “PG&E”), and the PG&E director and officer 

defendants named in the Action (the “Individual Defendants” and, together with PG&E, the 

“Defendants”)2 to dispose of this Action without the participation of, or consent from, the Movants 

by performing an end-run around Court-ordered alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) 

procedures that were insisted upon by PG&E in the Bankruptcy, ordered by the Bankruptcy Court, 

and which this Court agreed are “in the interest of efficiency.” The Bankruptcy Court twice 

refused PERA’s requests to certify a class for the purpose of resolving claims in the Bankruptcy 

1

 The “Movant Plaintiffs” are listed in Appendix A to this Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities and referred to as the “RKS Movants” on the docket. 

2

 The Individual Defendants are: Anthony Earley, Geisha Williams, Nickolas Stavropoulos, Julie 

Kane, Christopher Johns, Patrick Hogan, Barbara Rambo, David Thomason, Dinyar Mistry, Lewis 

Chew, Fred Fowler, Maryellen Herringer, Richard Kelly, Roger Kimmel, Richard Meserve, 

Forrest Miller, Barry Lawson Williams, Rosendo Parra, Anne Shen Smith, and Eric Mullins. 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 8 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page 9

of 57
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 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

in lieu of the ADR procedures that would compel PG&E to address the plaintiffs’ claims on an 

individual basis, explaining that unlike a class action resolution, the ADR procedures would 

“assur[e] some claimants will have an opportunity to recover some of their losses quickly and 

inexpensively.” This Court then stayed the Action sua sponte to allow the ADR procedures to 

play out, and to avoid proceeding on “a piecemeal basis.” Hundreds (if not thousands) of Putative 

Class members relied on those court orders, and in good faith retained separate counsel of their 

choice, filed individual claims against PG&E’s estate, and pursued those claims in the Bankruptcy. 

But rather than engage in good-faith negotiations with those Putative Class members as mandated 

by the Bankruptcy Court, PG&E now apparently favors a backdoor deal with PERA that will 

completely upset the ongoing Bankruptcy claims process, impose significant delay, and complicate 

what would otherwise be a simple, one-track process for resolution of the Bankruptcy claims. 

Prejudice and confusion would result from even preliminary approval of a proposed 

settlement between PERA and the Individual Defendants that would grant a release of all claims 

against PG&E, including the proofs of claim filed in the Bankruptcy. Such a settlement would 

render the Bankruptcy claimants’ considerable efforts moot and would also necessarily create a 

two-track resolution process that would be extremely difficult and burdensome to administer, in 

which hundreds of overlapping claimants in the Bankruptcy and the class action would have to 

select one of the two settlement vehicles, and give rise to a risk of double recovery. Both this 

Court and the Bankruptcy Court have found that the ADR procedures are the superior and most 

efficient method of adjudicating these claims. A motion for preliminary approval of a settlement 

on a class basis would act as a de facto reconsideration motion of both Courts’ prior 

determinations, which should not be permitted and certainly should not serve as a justification for 

lifting the Court-imposed stay on the Action. 

Even if the Court were to consider a motion for preliminary approval, the Court should 

permit the Movants to submit a timely opposition prior to rendering any decision. A settlement 

that is the product of this apparent collusion between PERA and the Defendants is not entitled to 

a presumption of fairness or reasonableness, and the Movants’ claims in the Action are substantial, 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 9 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

10 of 57
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 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

totaling approximately $2.7 billion and accounting for over one quarter of all claims filed in the 

Bankruptcy against PG&E, representing an interest that is far larger than PERA’s in the Action. 

PERA has no authority to negotiate those claims away, and the proposed settlement will fail many 

if not all the requirements of Rule 23. 

 Unnamed Putative Class members such as the Movants are entitled to intervene in this 

context as a matter of right. The Movants seek to do so now—prior to a motion for preliminary 

approval—because PG&E has indicated that it is near a Putative Class settlement with PERA. 

Intervening prior to the filing of a preliminary approval motion will ensure that the Movants can 

timely oppose any proposed settlement before preliminary approval is granted. Moreover, the 

Movants seek to prevent PG&E from attempting to up-end the claims resolution process ongoing 

in the Bankruptcy Court. Only after the Bankruptcy process has run its course, and the individual 

proofs of claim have been resolved, should the stay be lifted here (precisely what this Court found 

previously). For similar reasons, even if the Court were to find that the Movants cannot intervene 

now as a matter of right, the Movants respectfully request that the Court grant them permission to 

be heard on this matter before considering whether preliminary approval is appropriate. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

This Action is a putative class action for securities fraud arising out of no fewer than 

nineteen knowing and/or reckless misstatements of fact made on behalf of PG&E between 2015 

and 2018 by—or with the approval of—the Individual Defendants. ECF No. 121 (“Third 

Amended Complaint” or “TAC”) ¶¶ 1, 52. The misstatements at issue relate to PG&E’s 

(i) vegetation management, (ii) compliance with applicable laws and regulations, (iii) equipment 

maintenance, and (iv) compliance with internal policies and protocols. TAC at 61-92. These 

misstatements misled investors to believe that PG&E was appropriately mitigating the risk that its 

practices and equipment would cause damaging wildfires, when in fact it was not. TAC at 93-94. 

PG&E’s delinquent safety practices and aging equipment were ultimately instrumental in causing 

a series of deadly wildfires in California, including effectively all of the October 2017 fires known 

as the “North Bay Fires” and the entirety of the November 2018 fire known as the “Camp Fire.” 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 10 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

11 of 57
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 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

TAC at 95-96. Over the course of several years following these fires, PG&E’s culpability for the 

fires, and accordingly the gravity of its false statements, has only become clearer. See e.g., TAC 

at 96-117. 

On September 10, 2018 (before the Camp Fire had even occurred), the Court appointed 

PERA as lead plaintiff in the Action based on PERA’s averments of its financial losses related to 

PG&E stock through mid-2018. ECF No. 62. On May 28, 2019, PERA and certain other plaintiffs 

filed the TAC, which remains the operative complaint in the Action, asserting claims against 

PG&E and the Individual Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 as promulgated by the SEC, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act 

of 1933. TAC at 1, 5. The Putative Class is defined in the TAC to include “all persons and entities 

who, during the period from April 29, 2015 through November 15, 2018, inclusive . . . purchased 

or otherwise publicly traded PG&E securities and were damaged thereby.” TAC ¶ 11. Each of 

the Movants purchased and/or traded PG&E securities during the Putative Class period and is, 

therefore, a Putative Class member.3

 

On January 29, 2019, PG&E commenced Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the 

United States Bankruptcy Code. Bankr. Dkt. No. 1. On December 9, 2019, PERA and others filed 

a Motion to Apply Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to Class Proofs of Claim, which sought permission to 

file a proof of claim on behalf of all members of the Putative Class. Bankr. Dkt. No. 5042 (the 

“First 7023 Motion”) § I.C.2. In a February 24, 2020 memorandum decision, the Bankruptcy 

Court found that “granting the [First 7023 Motion] may result in more chaos than certainty,” 

Bankr. Dkt. No. 5887 at 4, and, on February 27, 2020, denied the First 7023 Motion, Bankr. Dkt. 

No. 5943. PERA appealed the denial of the First 7023 Motion, but the District Court upheld the 

Bankruptcy Court’s decision, finding that aside from procedural deficiencies with the appeal, the 

decision was not “manifestly erroneous” such that it would justify granting leave to appeal an 

3

 The Movants also all filed or had filed on their behalf claim forms in the PG&E Bankruptcy, 

something not every Putative Class member chose to do. 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 11 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

12 of 57
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

5 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

interlocutory order. Pub. Employees Ret. Ass’n of N.M. v. PG&E Corp., No. 20-cv-01708-HSG, 

2021 WL 858418, at *5 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021). 

On June 20, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order confirming the Debtors’ and 

Shareholder Proponents’ Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated June 19, 2020 (as 

amended and/or modified, the “Bankruptcy Plan”). Bankr. Dkt. Nos. 8048, 8053. The Bankruptcy 

Plan designated three classes of subordinated securities claims, two of which were unimpaired and 

would afford claimants in both classes cash in an amount equal to their claims, and a third 

(including equity-based claims) which was impaired and would afford claimants shares of 

common stock in the company emerging from bankruptcy according to a formula based on the 

dates on which they purchased their shares of PG&E common stock. Bankr. Dkt. No. 8048 §§ 

1.109, 4.12, 4.14, 4.32. 

On September 1, 2020, PG&E (as debtors) filed a Motion to Approve Securities ADR and 

Related Procedures For Resolving Subordinated Securities Claims (the “ADR Procedures 

Motion”). Bankr. Dkt. No. 8964. Among other things, the ADR Procedures Motion sought entry 

of an order that would establish efficient procedures for resolving the subordinated securities 

claims by requiring claimants to submit information regarding their securities trading to PG&E, 

which would then exchange settlement offers with the claimants and/or enter into mandatory nonbinding mediation with them. Id. at 2. PG&E represented to the Bankruptcy Court in the ADR 

Procedures Motion that the “the Securities ADR Procedures are designed to facilitate prompt 

settlements with individual claimants as opposed to resolution of these claims on the merits.” Id.

at 3-4 (emphasis added). PERA opposed implementation of these procedures as an alternative to 

a class vehicle, and, on September 28, 2020, again sought to introduce a class action procedure to 

resolve the claims, filing (again) a Motion to Apply Bankruptcy Rule 7023 and Certify a Limited 

Class. Bankr. Dkt. No. 9152 (the “Second 7023 Motion”). PERA argued that a class mechanism 

was “the only way that final resolution of all claims can be negotiated on a fair and collective 

basis,” and requested to certify a mandatory class under either FRCP 23(b)(1)(A) or 23(b)(1)(B). 

Id. at 2, § II.B. 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 12 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

13 of 57
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

6 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

On December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an oral ruling granting the ADR 

Procedures Motion and denying the Second 7023 Motion. Bankr. Dkt. No. 9752. The Bankruptcy 

Court expressly pointed to the anticipated promptness and efficiency of the proposed ADR 

procedures in resolving claims as a basis for its decision, noting: 

[T]he acts complained of by some of the securities claimants 

happened almost five years ago. The bankruptcy was filed nearly 

two years ago. Thus, there are prospective claimants, both large and 

small, who didn’t trade their claims and who have waited a very long 

time. The ADR procedures suggested by the reorganized debtors 

have the appeal of assuring some claimants will have an opportunity 

to recover some of their losses quickly and inexpensively. 

Bankr. Dkt. No. 13164-9 at 6:21-7:4. 

On January 25, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order adopting PG&E’s proposed 

claims and ADR procedures, including “(i) procedures to allow [PG&E] and the Subordinated 

Securities Claimants to exchange settlement offers, and (ii) procedures for both standard and 

abbreviated mandatory non-binding mediation of Subordinated Securities Claims ...” Bankr. Dkt. 

No. 10015 at 1. The procedures dictated that “[f]ollowing the timely return of a Trading 

Information Request Form” by claimants, PG&E could “(i) make a settlement offer to a 

Subordinated Securities Claimant; (ii) designate the Subordinated Securities Claim(s) for 

mandatory mediation; or (iii) both.” Bankr. Dkt. No. 10015-1 at 10. Securities claims filed by 

PERA were explicitly excluded from the ADR procedures. Id. at 5. 

 On April 29, 2021, in deference to the Bankruptcy Court’s prior order requiring the 

implementation of ADR procedures, this Court indicated its intent to stay the Action sua sponte

pending completion of those procedures. ECF No. 198. The Court noted that as of April 9, 2021, 

“over 7,100 securities claims ha[d] been filed in the Bankruptcy Court, listing claim amounts 

totaling in the billions of dollars.” Id. at 2. Pointing to PERA’s acknowledgment that the 

Bankruptcy proceeding would “necessarily involve addressing identical issues this Court may be 

called on to consider, including whether the 19 asserted false and misleading statements made over 

three-and-a-half years are actionable,” as well as all parties’ expectations that the Bankruptcy 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 13 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

14 of 57
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

7 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

proceeding would “affect, among other things, the size and potential damage claims of the putative 

classes in this action,” the Court concluded that staying the case until the completion of the ADR 

procedures in the Bankruptcy would “promote judicial efficiency and economy, as well as avoid 

the potential for inconsistent judgments.” Id. 

 On May 28, 2021, PERA filed an objection to the Court’s notice of intent to stay the Action, 

arguing that the stay should not be imposed because, among other reasons, it would cause undue 

delay and limit insurance available to compensate the Putative Class. ECF No. 203. Both PG&E 

and the Individual Defendants filed responses in support of imposing a stay. PG&E maintained 

that failure to impose a stay would violate the “injunction against interference with the 

[Bankruptcy] Plan, including the claims resolution process,” and argued that PERA was attempting 

to “re-litigate Judge Montali’s rulings” denying class treatment of the claims. ECF No. 206 at 1-

2. PG&E implored the Court not to “revise or in any way interfere with the ADR process approved 

and supervised by Judge Montali, which sets out three separate mechanisms for the potential 

settlement of the Claimants’ asserted claims without the need for expensive and protracted 

litigation.” Id. at 2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Individual Defendants 

similarly supported the stay, stating that “[i]t is consistent with PG&E’s interests to settle claims 

in the bankruptcy on terms that release all claims related to that claimant’s investments in PG&E, 

including the purported claims against [the Individual Defendants] in this action,” and that 

preventing PG&E from doing so by forcing the Individual Defendants to litigate in the Action 

would “merely constrain and interfere with Judge Montali’s efforts to effectuate the plan of 

reorganization of PG&E.” ECF No. 207 at 3-4 (emphasis added). 

The Court agreed with PG&E and the Individual Defendants, and on September 30, 2022, 

issued an order staying the entire case pending resolution of the Bankruptcy proceedings “because 

of the overlap between the bankruptcy proceedings and the instant securities fraud action.” ECF 

No. 217. The Court noted that “[a] stay of the entire action is in the interest of efficiency and 

would avoid proceeding on a piecemeal basis.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 14 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

15 of 57
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

8 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

On October 25, 2022, PG&E filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking a 270-day 

extension to object to claims, including securities claims filed by the Movants. Bankr. Dkt. No 

13122 at 1-2. In that motion, PG&E revealed for the first time that the Court-ordered ADR 

Procedures “w[ere] paused after [PG&E] began discussions regarding a more global resolution of 

the Securities Claims.” Id. at 10. Thus, contrary to the position PG&E had taken for years before 

both this Court and the Bankruptcy Court that the ADR procedures were the appropriate method 

of claim adjudication over class treatment, PG&E sought an extension “to allow [it] the 

opportunity to resolve the Securities Claims” “without the need to litigate the claims on an 

individual-claim basis . . . .” Id. at 10-11. The Movants have since learned that the “more global 

resolution” is an attempted Putative Class settlement of the filed proofs of claim with the 

disapproved Putative Class representative, PERA. On January 13, 2023, PERA and the 

Defendants jointly requested that Ninth Circuit place an appeal of the stay in this Action in 

abeyance for six months on the grounds that the parties “are in the process of negotiating terms of 

a settlement to resolve the claims underlying th[e] appeal.” In re PG&E Corporation, et al., No. 

21-16507 (9thCir. Jan. 13, 2023), Dkt. No. 66. 

Certain of the Movants objected to PG&E’s extension request in the Bankruptcy, see, e.g., 

Bankr. Dkt. No. 13163, but withdrew their objections after PG&E agreed to participate in 

mediation as required by the Bankruptcy Court. That mediation, which took place on January 19, 

2023, failed because the Movants believe PG&E did not mediate in good faith. See Bankr. Dkt. 

No. 13493 ¶¶ 6-7. PG&E now appears entirely committed to an abandonment of the ADR 

procedures (which it originally proposed, and which both this Court and the Bankruptcy Court 

adopted) in favor of a collusive effort with the Individual Defendants and PERA to reach a Putative 

Class settlement that has been twice rejected by the Bankruptcy Court and has no legal or judicial 

support. 

The Movants now bring this motion to intervene for the purposes of protecting their rights 

in the Bankruptcy to complete the ADR procedures ordered by the Bankruptcy Court, and to ensure 

that no actions will be taken in this Court to undermine the claims process. 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 15 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

16 of 57
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

9 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

ARGUMENT 

A. The Movants are Entitled to Intervention as of Right 

Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “the [C]ourt must

permit anyone to intervene” if that person “(1) timely file[d] an application, (2) show[ed] an 

interest in the action, (3) demonstrate[d] that the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the 

action, and (4) show[ed] that the interest is not protected adequately by the parties to the action.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (emphasis added); In re Grupo Unidos Por El Canal S.A., No. 14-mc-80277-

JST (DMR), 2015 WL 1815251, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) (citing Wilderness Soc. V. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011)). These requirements “are broadly interpreted 

in favor of intervention.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006)). “A liberal policy in 

favor of intervention serves both efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to the courts” 

and often serves to “prevent or simplify future litigation involving related issues.” United States 

v. City of L.A., 288 F.3d 391, 397–98 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Am. Rivers v. Wheeler, No. C 20-

04636 WHA, 2020 WL 5993229, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) (the intervention analysis “turns 

on practical considerations, not technical distinctions.” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)). 

“[I]ntervention is the preferred method for an absent class member to join a case as a named 

plaintiff, even prior to certification.” Ubaldi v. SLM Corp., No. C-11-01320 EDL, 2014 WL 

12639952, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (citations omitted); see also Munoz v. PHH Corp., No. 

1:08-cv-0759-AWI-BAM, 2013 WL 3935054, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) (“[T]he weight of 

existing authority indicates a motion to intervene is the proper procedure to follow for a class 

member who wishes to join a lawsuit as a representative plaintiff.” (citations omitted)). Thus, the 

Advisory Committee notes to the 1966 amendment to Rule 24 state that where a motion 

to intervene is timely, a putative class member “should have the right to intervene in a class action 

if he can show the inadequacy of the representation of his interest by the representative parties 

before the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, Advisory Committee Note (1966); see also Diaz v. Trust 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 16 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

17 of 57
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

10 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Territory of the Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1405 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989).4 In the same vein, the 

Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged that class members like the Movants “have a right to 

intervene if their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties.” See Standard Fire 

Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 594 (2013) (quoting 5 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, 

Newberg on Class Actions § 16:7 (4th ed. 2002)). 

1. The Motion is Timely 

The Movants’ motion is timely. The timeliness of a motion to intervene depends upon the 

consideration of three factors: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to 

intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the length of the delay.” United 

States v. Carpenter, 298 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). 

First, intervention at the present stage of litigation will cause no disruption to the case. Per 

the Court’s Order, the Action is currently stayed pending resolution of the ADR procedures in the 

Bankruptcy. Motions to dismiss are pending, no discovery has been taken, and no trial date has 

been set. See, e.g., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. V. Panasonic Corp., No. 10-cv-03098-JSW, 

2016 WL 11781870, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) (“[E]arly stage” of litigation favored 

intervention where motion to dismiss was pending and discovery had not yet commenced); 

Winston v. United States, No. 14-cv-05417-MEJ, 2015 WL 9474284, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 

2015) (“As discovery has yet to commence and no significant substantive rulings have been made, 

the case remains in the early stage of litigation. Thus, the proceedings have not advanced to the 

point where intervention is inappropriate.”); Low v. Altus Fin. S.A., 44 Fed. App’x 282, 284 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (finding intervention timely three years after the complaint was filed because “the 

4 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, Advisory Committee Note (1966) (“A class member who claims that 

his ‘representative’ does not adequately represent [the class member] and is able to establish that 

proposition with sufficient probability, should not be put to the risk of having a judgment entered 

in the action which by its terms extends to [him or her], and be obliged to test the validity of the 

judgment as applied to his interest by a later collateral attack. Rather [the class member] should, 

as a general rule, be entitled to intervene in the action.”).

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 17 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

18 of 57
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

11 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

district court ha[d] made no factual findings, there ha[d] been no summary judgment proceedings, 

discovery [wa]s in its early stages with no set cut-off date, and there [wa]s no trial date.”). 

Second, intervention will not prejudice any parties. Quite the opposite, Putative Class 

members who filed claims in the Bankruptcy will benefit from hearing argument from the Movants 

concerning the advantages of keeping the stay in place and having their claims adjudicated in 

accordance with the Court-ordered ADR procedures that both the Bankruptcy Court and this Court 

determined would be most efficient in resolving the securities claims. See In re Lendingclub Secs. 

Litig., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1177-78 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (finding intervention motion timely where 

“absent class members w[ould] be best served” by hearing argument from intervenor). The 

Defendants in the Action previously advocated for imposition of the stay in briefing before this 

Court and advised the Court not to interfere in the ADR procedures being supervised by Judge 

Montali, a position which this Court adopted. The Defendants cannot now take the opposite 

position. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (“‘[W]here a party assumes a 

certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not 

thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it 

be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.’” 

(quoting Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895)). And as for PERA, its position would be 

no different now than had the Movants intervened months or even years ago (which they had no 

reason to do); in either case, PERA would have had to seek relief from the Court to lift the stay 

and approve a Putative Class settlement over the objections of the Movants. As such, PERA cannot 

establish prejudice “because of the passage of time,” which it must do to sustain an objection to 

intervention on the basis of timeliness. Apple, Inc. v Iancu, No. 5:20-cv-06128-EJD, 2021 WL 

411157, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2021) (quoting United States v. Oregon, 745 F.2d 550, 553 (9th 

Cir. 1984)). 

Third, the Movants filed this motion promptly upon discovering that PERA intended to 

seek approval of a settlement that would adversely affect the Movants’ interests. PG&E first stated 

publicly that it had secretly abandoned the ADR procedures to negotiate a “global settlement” in 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 18 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

19 of 57
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

12 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

October 2022, and the Movants then mediated with PG&E (as contemplated by the ADR 

procedures) in an attempt to resolve their claims without having to seek relief in this Court. Supra 

at 8. The Movants filed this motion less than weeks after their attempt to mediate with PG&E 

failed and it thus became clear that a settlement of this Action would negatively impact their 

claims. See United States v. Carpenter, 298 F.3d at 1125 (holding motion to intervene was timely 

when filed eighteen months after complaint because “the intervenors acted as soon as they had 

notice that Proposed settlement was contrary to their interests”); Lubocki v. ZipRealty, Inc., No. 

CV 07-02959 SJO (JCx), 2009 WL 10670958, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009) (motion to intervene 

is timely even at a “late stage of the proceeding” where intervenors previously had “no reason to 

know that their interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of th[e] litigation”). Before 

that time, the Movants had no reason to intervene because a stay of the Action had been put in 

place, until October 2022 there was no indication that PG&E had paused the ADR procedures that 

the Bankruptcy Court had ordered, and until late January 2023 the Movants believed their claims 

could be resolved expeditiously through good-faith mediation with PG&E. See Abdurahman v. 

Alltran Fin., LP, 330 F.R.D. 276, 280 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (finding case had “not progressed so far as 

to make intervention burdensome” due in part to “deadline extensions, mediation, and agreement 

to stay proceedings”). 

2. The Movants Have Substantial Interests in the Subject Matter of the Action 

The Movants “possess a significantly protectable interest by virtue of being members of 

the [putative] class” in the Action. Gomes v. Eventbrite, Inc., No. 5:19-cv-02019-EJD, 2020 WL 

6381343, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) (citation omitted). The TAC defines the Putative Class 

to include “all persons and entities who, during the period from April 29, 2015 through November 

15, 2018, inclusive . . . purchased or otherwise publicly traded PG&E securities and were damaged 

thereby.” TAC ¶ 11. The Movants traded PG&E securities during the Putative Class period and 

suffered significant damages as a result of the Defendants’ securities fraud, and thus they clearly 

have an interest in the claims that PERA is negotiating to settle with the Defendants. See Munoz, 

2013 WL 3935054, at *12 (“Ms. Villalon has significant protectable interest at issue. Plaintiffs’ 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 19 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

20 of 57
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

13 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

FAC alleges claims that span a class period encompassing Ms. Villalon’s claims. These claims 

provide a significant protectable interest relating to the subject of the instant action.” (citation 

omitted)); see also In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liability 

Litig., MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2016 WL 4376623, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016) (member 

of settlement class has a “significant protectable interest” in class action); Cohorst v. BRE Props., 

Inc., No. 3:10-CV-2666-JM-BGS, 2011 WL 3489781, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2011) (finding “no 

dispute” that class member challenging preliminary approval order had sufficient interest in 

litigation to intervene). 

The Movants’ interest in the matter is notably much larger than PERA’s, which did not 

suffer damages nearly as extensive as Movants’ damages. The Movants’ substantial independent 

claims—totaling approximately $2.7 billion—have been filed in the Bankruptcy and would plainly 

be affected by any attempt of PERA and the Defendants to settle this Action. 

3. The Movants’ Ability to Protect Their Interests Will Be Impaired 

Intervention is appropriate when disposition of the pending action may “as a practical 

matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); 

S.E.C. v. Navin, 166 F.R.D. 435, 440 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In evaluating this factor, the Ninth Circuit 

“follows the guidance of the Rule 24 advisory committee notes that state that “[i]f an absentee 

would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an action, he 

should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 

F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 24). Absent members of a putative class, 

“by their very nature,” meet this test. Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. C-06-4068 MMC, 2007 

WL 474936, at *3 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2007) (citing Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1045 n.1); see also In re 

Cmty. Bank of N. Virginia, 418 F.3d 277, 314 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[I]n the class action context, the 

second and third prongs of the Rule 24(a)(2) inquiry are satisfied by the very nature of Rule 23 

representative litigation.”). In particular, here, the Movants’ interests will be impaired if the Court 

lifts the stay and approves a class-wide settlement because the Movants will be forced to decide 

whether to opt out of the class and continue to pursue their claims in the Bankruptcy without 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 20 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

21 of 57
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

14 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

knowing whether PG&E will continue to abide by the Court-ordered ADR procedures and, if so, 

the extent to which such procedures will result in satisfaction of their filed claims.5 

This Court’s recent decision in Gomes v. Eventbrite is directly on point. There, plaintiffs 

in a securities class action in California state court sought to intervene in a related, federal 

securities class action to request a continuance of the fairness hearing on a motion for preliminary 

approval of a settlement in the federal class action that would have released the state claims as 

well. Gomes, 2020 WL 6381343, at *1. The Court stated that the “primary dispute” on the 

intervention motion related to the impairment prong and was ultimately persuaded by the 

plaintiffs’ argument that their interests would be impaired by approval of the settlement before a 

demurrer in the state court action could be decided. Id. at *3. As the Court explained: 

[I]t is reasonable to await the outcome of the State Court's ruling on 

any demurrer to the State Court Plaintiffs’ second amended 

complaint so that all class members have more information to 

evaluate the proposed settlement. If instead preliminary approval is 

granted now, notice to the class will be sent without any mention of 

the State Court Action or the claims and damages being asserted, 

and class members will likely have to submit a claim, object, or optout before the State Court rules on the anticipated demurrers. 

Id.

It is similarly reasonable for this Court to maintain the stay of this Action and withhold a 

decision on preliminary approval of any proposed class settlement until the ADR procedures are 

completed in the Bankruptcy. By lifting the stay and granting preliminary approval, the Court 

would facilitate a simultaneous, two-track approach to resolution of these claims that would cause 

needless confusion and complexity for Putative Class members, which this Court explicitly sought 

to avoid by ordering the stay in the first place. ECF No. 217 at 1-2 (“A stay of the entire action . . . 

would avoid proceeding on a piecemeal basis.”). To that end, the Court should permit Movants to 

intervene and be heard on this matter before considering any preliminary approval motion. See 

Gomes, 2020 WL 6381343, at *4 (allowing intervention prior to preliminary approval to ensure 

5

 Upon grant of their motion to intervene, the Movants will formally oppose any motion to lift the 

stay and will provide more fulsome briefing as to why the stay should remain in place. 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 21 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

22 of 57
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

15 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

intervenors and other putative class members are “better informed” concerning the proposed 

settlement). 

4. The Movants’ Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by PERA 

The Movants’ interests are not being adequately represented by PERA. PERA’s proposed 

settlement will undermine the Movants’ ability to recover in the Bankruptcy and potentially delay 

resolution of the Movants’ claims for years. It is therefore in the Movants’ best interest to pursue 

their claims in the Bankruptcy in accordance with the ADR procedures that the Bankruptcy Court 

believed to be the best means of “assuring some claimants will have an opportunity to recover 

some of their losses quickly and inexpensively,” Bankr. Dkt. No. 13164-9 at 6:21-7:4, and which 

this Court held would “promote judicial efficiency and economy, as well as avoid the potential for 

inconsistent judgments,” ECF No. 198. In doing so, the Movants can first exhaust their remedies 

and collect the maximum amount from PG&E’s estate before seeking any additional contribution, 

if appropriate, from the Individual Defendants in this Action. 

“[T]he burden of showing inadequacy is ‘minimal,’ and the applicant need only show that 

representation of its interests by existing parties ‘may be’ inadequate.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological 

Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823 (citation omitted); see also Gomes, 2020 WL 6381343, at *4. To 

determine whether the existing parties would adequately represent the intervenor’s interests, courts 

in this Circuit consider three factors: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will 

undoubtedly make all the intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and 

willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether the would-be intervenor would offer any 

necessary elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological 

Diversity, 268 F.3d at 822. Each of these factors cuts in favor of intervention here. 

PERA’s and the Movants’ interests are not aligned. If permitted to intervene, the Movants 

will argue that the Court should uphold the stay and reject any effort by PERA to certify a 

settlement class until the ADR procedures conclude—the same position that both PG&E and the 

Individual Defendants originally (and successfully) argued for in connection with the stay of this 

Action and the adoption of the ADR procedures in the Bankruptcy Court. See ECF Nos. 206-07; 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 22 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

23 of 57
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

16 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Bankr. Dkt. No. 8964. PERA, on the other hand, has no interest in enforcing the ADR procedures 

because its claims are expressly carved out from the process. Bankr. Dkt. No. 10015-1 at 5. In 

fact, PERA has not engaged in the Bankruptcy Proceedings at all since the Bankruptcy Court 

denied its second attempt to certify a class. Therefore, PERA cannot be relied upon to “make all 

the [Movants’] arguments;” on the contrary, it will undoubtedly oppose the Movants’ arguments, 

consistent with its objection to this Court’s imposition of the stay, ECF No. 203, and seek 

settlement approval. See Munoz, 2013 WL 3935054, at *13 (“[B]inding these absent Class 

members to an outcome in which none of the named representatives have a personal stake would 

be patently unfair.”); Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding class 

representation inadequate when group within a larger class possessed claims that were not shared 

by the class representative).6

 The Movants are capable and willing to litigate these issues once 

PERA moves to lift the stay and seeks preliminary approval of a Putative Class settlement. And 

because the Movants—by opposing removal of the stay for any proposed settlement—will protect 

the interests of all Putative Class members who filed claims in the Bankruptcy that are awaiting 

resolution (not to mention other creditors in the Bankruptcy whose interests are subordinate to 

those of the securities claimants), the Movants “offer[] a necessary element to the proceedings that 

other parties would neglect.” Munoz, 2013 WL 3935054, at *13; see also ECF No. 207 at 3-4 

(Individual Defendants stating that lifting the stay would “constrain and interfere with Judge 

Montali’s efforts to effectuate the plan of reorganization of PG&E”).

Furthermore, concerns of inadequacy are heightened where there are indications of 

collusion between the class representative and defendants with respect to a proposed settlement. 

See, e.g., Arena v. Intuit Inc., No. .19-cv-02546-CRB, 2021 WL 834253, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 

2021) (“Courts have ‘long recognized’ that class action settlements ‘present unique due process 

concerns for absent class members.’” (quoting In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 654 

6

 The misalignment of interests between PERA and the Movants raises concerns under both the 

Due Process Clause and Rule 23 that the Movants will elucidate in opposition to a motion for 

preliminary approval of a settlement should the Court grant their motion to intervene. 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 23 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

24 of 57
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

17 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011))); Briseno v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2021) 

(holding that “courts must scrutinize settlement agreements . . . for potentially unfair collusion”). 

The procedural history here is suggestive of such collusive behavior between PERA and the 

Defendants that should prompt the Court to give enhanced scrutiny to the adequacy of PERA’s 

representation of the Putative Class. The combination of (i) PERA’s noticeable absence from the 

recent Bankruptcy proceedings, (ii) PG&E’s failure to abide by the ADR procedures followed by 

its total about-face regarding the most optimal procedure for resolving the securities claims, and 

(iii) PERA’s and the Defendants’ joint filing to remove PERA’s appeal of the stay in this Action 

from the Ninth Circuit’s calendar points to a concerted effort between the parties to delay 

resolution of the securities claims and ensure PERA’s ability to reach a Class settlement at the 

expense of the Bankruptcy claims. While the Court will be unable to assess the fairness of the 

terms of a proposed settlement until it is filed, the Court should allow the Movants to intervene 

now to ensure they will ultimately be heard on this matter given these unique concerns. 

B. In the Alternative, the Movants Are Entitled to Permissive Intervention 

While the Movants vigorously maintain that they have a right to intervene in this action, 

should this Court not grant the right to intervene under Rule 24(a), the Movants are entitled to 

permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). This Rule provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court 

may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a 

common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). An applicant for permissive intervention 

typically “need only show that (1) independent grounds for jurisdiction exist; (2) the motion is 

timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the 

main action.” In re Lendingclub Secs. Litig., 282 F. Supp. 3d at 1177. However, an independent 

jurisdictional basis is not required where, as here, “intervenors do not seek to litigate a claim on 

the merits.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992). In addition, 

“the existence of a ‘common question’ is liberally construed.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 

09-2292 VRW, 2010 WL 1469749, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010) (citation omitted). 

“Discretionary factors” that courts may consider for permissive intervention include “the nature 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 24 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

25 of 57
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

18 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

and extent of the applicant’s interest, whether the applicant’s interests are adequately represented 

by other parties and whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation.” Id. at *6 

(citation omitted). 

The Movants’ claims against the Defendants share at least some common issues of fact and 

law with those of PERA, as they arise from the same fraudulent statements at issue in the Action. 

By intervening, the Movants will provide additional protection to the Putative Class by ensuring 

that the Court can make an informed decision as to the fairness of any proposed class settlement, 

and that Putative Class members who have filed claims in the Bankruptcy will be better informed 

regarding the status of those claims prior to making decisions concerning class membership. See 

Gomes, 2020 WL 6381343, at *4. Moreover, as discussed above, supra at Section A, the motion 

is timely, there is no prejudice to any parties, and the Movants have a significant interest in the 

litigation that is not being adequately represented by putative representative PERA, which has a 

substantially smaller (and different) interest. The Movants’ intervention request comes prior to 

any motion by PERA for preliminary approval and seeks merely to maintain the status quo wherein 

the Action is stayed pending resolution of the Bankruptcy proceedings. Intervention will therefore 

cause no undue delay in the litigation, which can only proceed should the Court grant such motions 

over the Movants’ objections in any event. 

 CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Movants respectfully request that the Court grant their 

motion to intervene.7

7 The Movants do not attach a pleading to their Motion as typically required by Rule 24(c) due to 

the procedural posture of this intervention. That is no reason to deny the Motion where the other 

requirements for intervention are satisfied. See, e.g., Beckman Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d at 474 

(“Courts, including this one, have approved intervention motions without a pleading where the 

court was otherwise apprised of the grounds for the motion.”); Su v. Siemens Indus., Inc., No. 12-

cv-03743-JST, 2013 WL 3477202, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2013) (permitting intervention without 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 25 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

26 of 57
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

19 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Dated: February 15, 2023 THE LONG LAW FIRM, PLLC 

By: /s/ James A. Long

 James A. Long 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

Lawrence M. Rolnick (pro hac vice 

application pending) 

Marc B. Kramer (pro hac vice application 

pending) 

Michael J. Hampson (pro hac vice 

application pending) 

Jeffrey A. Ritholtz (pro hac vice application 

pending) 

Frank T.M. Catalina (pro hac vice 

application pending) 

Attorneys for the Movant Plaintiffs 

pleading where intervenor “described his interest in th[e] case sufficiently to provide notice to the 

Court and the parties”); Dixon v. Cost Plus, No. 12-CV-02721-LHK, 2012 WL 2499931, at *6 

(N.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (same).

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 26 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

27 of 57
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

1 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

APPENDIX A 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

2013-10 US Corporate Bond Fund, a Series Trust of Global Cayman Investment 

Trust-CORPPI 

683 Capital Partners L.P. 

Advanced Series Trust: AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio (12/31): 

Advanced Series Trust: AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio (12/31): 

Advanced Series Trust: AST AllianceBernstein Core Value Portfolio (12/31): 

Advanced Series Trust: AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio (12/31): 

AIG Asset Management 

Allan Gray Australia Balanced Fund 

Altair Advisers, LLC 

Alyeska Master Fund, LP 

American Balanced Fund 

American Fund Short-Term Tax-Exempt Bond Fund 

American Funds Corporate Bond Fund 

American Funds Global Balanced Fund 

American Funds Insurance Series -- Asset Allcoation Fund 

American Funds Insurance Series - Bond Fund 

American Funds Insurance Series -- Capital Income Builder 

American Funds Insurance Series -- Global Balanced Fund 

American Funds Insurance Series -- Global Bond Fund 

American Funds Strategic Bond Fund 

American High-Income Municipal Bond Fund 

Annuity Plan of the Electrical Industry 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 27 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

28 of 57
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 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Annuity Plan of the Electrical Industry - JIBINT2 

Apollon Wealth Management 

AQR Capital Management 

Aspiring Ventures LLC dba Brillant Advice 

Associated Trust Company 

AST ADVANCED STRAT TROWE PD13 

AST AQR LARGE CAP PORTFOLIO 

AST ASAAP - MORGAN STANLEY 

AST BLACKROCK LOW DUR BND PORT 

AST BLRK GLBL STRAT CORE ACTIV 

AST BLRK GLBL STRAT LARGE CAP 

AST BLRK/LOOMIS SAYLES BLRK 

AST BOND PORTFOLIO 2025 

AST BOND PORTFOLIO 2026 

AST BR GLOBAL THEMATIC EQUITY 

AST FI PYR QUAN AS ALL-VALUE 

AST FI PYRAMIS QA (GLB EQUITY) 

AST FI PYRAMIS QA (LARGE CAP) 

AST FI PYRAMIS QA (LONG DUR) 

AST GOLDMAN SACHS GLOBAL INC 

AST GOLDMAN SACHS LRG CAP VALU 

AST GOLDMAN SACHS MA PORT-BOND 

AST GOLDMAN SACHS MA PORT-EQTY 

AST GOLDMAN SACHS MSP QIS GLB 

AST HERNDON LRG CAP VALUE 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 28 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

29 of 57
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 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

AST INVEST. GRADE BD PORT 

AST JENNISON GLOBAL INFRASTR PDMN 

AST JPM STRAT OPP (MKT NEUTRAL) 

AST JPM STRAT OPP(CAPITAL PRE) 

AST JPM STRAT OPP(COMBINED) 

AST JPM THEMATIC (COMBINED) 

AST JPM THEMATIC (GLOBAL ALL) 

AST LORD ABBETT FIXED INC PORT 

AST MID CAP VALUE - WEDGE 

AST MORGAN STANLEY MULTI-ASSET 

AST MULTI-SECTOR FIXED INCOME 

AST ND PORT-(C.S MCKEE) 

AST ND PORT-(SGI/RYDEX) 

AST NEUBERGER BERMAN LONG/SHOR 

AST PGA PT TRANSITION QMA EQTY 

AST PRU CORE BOND 

AST T Rowe Price Asset All CMB 

AST T.PRICE GROWTH-COMBINED 

AST T.ROWE PRICE DIVERSIFIED 

AST WEDGE CAPITAL MID-CAP VAL 

AST WELLINGTON MGMNT GL BND PF 

AST WELLINGTON MGMT HEDGED FD 

AST WELLINGTON MGMT REAL T.R. 

Atlantic Union Bank 

Avalon Capital Management 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 29 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

30 of 57
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 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

AXA 

Axiom Capital Management, Inc. 

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico 

Bank of the West 

Bartlett & Co Wealth Management, LLC 

Beacon Pointe Advisors, LLC 

Blue Mountain Credit Alternatives Master Fund L.P. 

BlueBay Asset Management LLP 

BlueMountain Foinaven Master Fund L.P 

BlueMountain Fursan Fund L.P. 

BlueMountain Guadalupe Peak Fund L.P. 

BlueMountain Kicking Horse Fund L.P 

BlueMountain Logan Opportunities Master Fund L.P 

BOKF, N.A. 

Boston Financial Management, LLC 

Brett Forrest 

BRIDGE BUILDER TRUST 

Bridgewater Advisors Inc. 

Busey Bank 

Cadence Bank 

Callan Associates Inc. 

Capital Bank and Trust Company, Private Client Services 

Capital E Advisors 

Capital Group Capital Income Builder 

Capital Group Capital Income Builder (Canada) 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 30 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

31 of 57
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

5 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Capital Group Corporate Bond Fund (LUX) 

Capital Group Global Absolute Income Grower 

Capital Group Global Allocation Fund (LUX) 

Capital Group Global Balanced Fund (Canada) 

Capital Group Global Bond Fund (LUX) 

Capital Group Global Corporate Bond Fund (LUX) 

Capital Group Global Intermediate Bond Fund (LUX) 

Capital Group Long Duration Credit Trust (US) 

Capital Group Private Client Services Fund - California Core Municipal Fund 

Capital Group Private Client Services Funds -- Capital Group California Short-Term 

Municipal Bond Fund 

Capital Group Private Client Services Funds -- Capital Group Core Bond Fund 

Capital Group Private Client Services Funds -- Capital Group Core Municipal Fund 

Capital Group World Bond Fund (Canada) 

Capital Income Builder 

Capital World Bond Fund 

Carlton Financial LLC 

Cascade Investment Group, Inc. 

Central Trust Company 

Chang Family Trust for Emily Bennett 

Chang Family Trust for Neil Tang 

Charles Schwab Investment Management 

Chevy Chase Trust 

Citigroup Pension Plan 

City National Rochdale 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 31 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

32 of 57
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

6 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

City of Edgewater Firefighters' Pension Fund 

City of North Port Firefighters' Pension - Local Option Trust Fund 

City of Ocoee Municipal General Employees' Retirement Trust Fund 

City of Plant City Safety Employees' Retirement System 

City of St. Pete Beach Firefighters' Retirement System 

City of St. Pete Beach Police Officers' Retirement System 

Cobb, Robert H. 

Cobb, Rosemary 

Coldstream Capital Management, Inc. 

College Retirement Equities Fund - CREF Bond Market Account 

College Retirement Equities Fund - CREF Equity Index 

College Retirement Equities Fund - CREF Global Equities 

College Retirement Equities Fund - CREF Stock Account 

Colonial First State Investments Limited 

Controlled Risk Insurance Company of Vermont 

Con-way Retirement Master Trust 

Core Plus Bond Fund of the Prudential Trust Company Institutional Business Trust - 

Institutional Bus 

Country Trust Bank 

Countybank Trust Services 

CS SEG AST JPM SO MN 

Dana Investment Advisors, Inc. 

Deferred Salary Fund of the Electrical Industry - JIBINT 

Deferred Salary Plan of the Electrical Industry 

Delbert E Snoberger IRA 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 32 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

33 of 57
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

7 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Dowling & Yahnke, LLC 

Dryden Arizona Reinsurance Term Company - Tax Liabilities Account-DARTTAX 

Dryden Index Series Fund: Dryden Stock Index Fund (9/30): 

Dryden Short-Term Bond Fund, Inc.: Dryden Short-Term Corporate Bond Fund 

(12/31): 

Dryden Tax-Managed Funds: Dryden Large Cap Core Equity Fund (10/31): 

Dumont & Blake Investment Advisors, LLC 

Electrical Employers Self Insurance Safety Plan 

Employees Security Fund of the Electrical Products Industries Health & Welfare 

Empyrean Capital Overseas Fund Ltd 

Essex Savings Bank 

Evergreen Capital Management LLC 

Exencial Wealth Advisors 

Fairview Capital 

Fiduciary Trust Company 

FIOH Global Asset Management & Strategies, LLC 

First American Bank 

First Interstate Bank 

First Midwest Bank 

First National Trust Co. 

First Premier Bank 

First Republic Investment Management 

First State Superannuation 

Fondation de Prévoyance Suisse en faveur des fonctionnaires de l' Association du 

Transport Aérien International (IATA) 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 33 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

34 of 57
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

8 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Ford U.S. Pension Fund Master Trust 

Fox Run Management 

Franklin Street Advisors, Inc. 

Gelber Group, LLC 

General Motors Hourly Employees Pension Trust 

Gibraltar Universal Life Reinsurance Co PLAZ Trust 1-GULREAZTR1 

Gibraltar Universal Life Reinsurance Co. AG 48 Trust-GULRETR1 

Gibraltar Universal Life Reinsurance Co. RBC Trust-GULRESN 

Glenmede Fund, Inc. -- High Yield Municipal Portfolio 

Global Trust Company 

Green Square Capital Advisors 

Hallador Investment Advisors Inc. 

HAP Trading, LLC 

Haywood Securities Inc. 

Hexavest ACWI Equity Fund 

Hexavest US Fund 

Hexavest World Equity Fund 

Hilltop Bank 

Horizon Healthcare of New Jersey, Inc. - HBC2 

Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. - HBC 

Hutchinson Capital Management 

IFIT Core Fixed Income Fund of Invesco Fixed Income Trust 

IFIT Core Fixed Income of Fund of Invesco Fixed Income Trust 

IGT Invesco A or Better Core Fixed Income Fund of Intermediate Government Trust 

IGT Invesco Short Term Bond of Institutional Retirement Trust 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 34 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

35 of 57
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

9 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

IGT JENN A OR BETTER INTERM FD 

IGT LOOMIS SAYLES A OR BET CR FI FD 

IGT LOOMIS SAYLES CR FI FD 

IGT Voya Intermediate Fund 

IKYF KY PIMCO PL STRATEGY 

IMA Wealth Inc. 

Institutional Long Duration Gov/Credit Conservative Bond Fd of the Prudential Trust 

Co. Master Commingled Inv. Fd. For Tax Exempt Trusts - PTLGCNQ 

Intermediate Bond Fund of America 

International Monetary Fund 

INTRUST Bank 

Invesco Active Multi - Sector Credit Fund of Invesco Asset Management limited 

Invesco Advantage International Fund of AIM International Mutual Funds (Invesco 

International Mutual Funds) 

Invesco Advantage Municipal Income Trust II (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco Bond Fund (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco California Tax-Free Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco 

Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco California Tax-Free Income Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco 

Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco California Value Municipal Income Trust (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco Comstock Fund of AIM Sector Funds (Invesco Sector Funds) 

Invesco Comstock Select Fund of AIM Sector Funds (Invesco Sector Funds) 

Invesco Conservative Income Fund of Invesco Management Trust 

Invesco Core Plus Bond Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco Counselor 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 35 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

36 of 57
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

10 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Series Trust) 

Invesco Core Plus Fixed Income Trust of Institutional Retirement Trust 

Invesco Corporate Bond of AIM Investment Securities Funds (Invesco Investment 

Securities Funds) 

Invesco Energy Infrastructure Mother Fund of Invesco Asset Management Ltd. 

Invesco Equally Weighted S&P 500 Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco 

Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco Equity & Income Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco Counselor 

Series Trust) 

Invesco Global Bond Fund of Invesco Canada Ltd 

Invesco Global Infrastructure Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco Investment 

Funds) 

Invesco Global Investment Grade Credit Fund, Ltd. of Invesco Advisers, Inc. 

Invesco Growth and Income Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco 

Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco Growth and Income Trust of Institutional Retirement Trust 

INVESCO GRP TST JENNISON INT FD 

INVESCO GRP TST PIMCO A CORE FUND 

INVESCO GRP TST PIMCO CORE BOND FD 

Invesco High Yield Municipal Fund of AIM Tax-Exempt Funds (Invesco TaxExempt Funds) 

Invesco Intermediate Bond Factor Fund of AIM Investment Securities Funds 

(Invesco Investment Securities Funds) 

Invesco Intermediate Bond Trust of Institutional Retirement Trust 

Invesco Intermediate Term Municipal Income Fund of AIM Tax-Exempt Funds 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 36 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

37 of 57
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

11 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

(Invesco Tax-Exempt Funds) 

Invesco Limited Term Municipal Income Fund of AIM Tax-Exempt Funds (Invesco 

Tax-Exempt Funds) 

Invesco Liquid Assets Portfolio of Short-Term Investments Trust 

Invesco Low Volatility Equity Yield of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco 

Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco Multi-Asset Income Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco Investment 

Funds) 

Invesco Municipal Income Fund of AIM Tax-Exempt Funds (Invesco Tax-Exempt 

Funds) 

Invesco Municipal Income Opportunities Trust (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco Municipal Opportunity Trust (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco Municipal Trust (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust 

(Invesco Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Capital Income Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco 

Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Fundamental Alternatives Fund of AIM Investment Funds 

(Invesco Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Global Allocation Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco 

Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Global Infrastructure Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco 

Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Global Multi-Asset Income Fund of AIM Investment Funds 

(Invesco Investment Funds 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 37 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

38 of 57
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

12 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Invesco Oppenheimer Global Strategic Income Fund of AIM Investment Funds 

(Invesco Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Limited-Term Bond Fund of AIM Investment Securities Funds 

(Invesco Investment Securities Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street All Cap Fund of AIM Equity Funds (Invesco 

Equity Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street Fund of AIM Equity Funds (Invesco Equity 

Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Main Street Mid Cap Fund of AIM Growth Series (Invesco 

Growth Series) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends Fund of AIM Equity Funds (Invesco Equity 

Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Rochester Limited Term California Municipal Fund of AIM 

Tax-Exempt Funds (Invesco Tax-Exempt Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Total Return Bond Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco 

Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer Total Return Bond Fund of AIM Investments Funds ( Invesco 

Investment Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer V.I. Conservative Balanced Fund of AIM Variable Insurance 

Funds (Invesco Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer V.I. Global Strategic Income Fund of AIM Variable Insurance 

Funds (Invesco Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer V.I. Main Street Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds 

(Invesco Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco Oppenheimer V.I. Total Return Bond Fund of AIM Variable Insurance 

Funds (Invesco Variable Insurance Funds) 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 38 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

39 of 57
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

13 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Invesco Opprnheimer V.I. Capital Appreciation Fund of AIM Variable Insurance 

Funds (Invesco Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco Pooled North America Fund of Invesco Asset Management Ltd. 

Invesco Premier Portfolio of AIM Treasurer's Series Trust (Invesco Treasurer's Series 

Trust) 

Invesco Premier Tax-Exempt Portfolio of AIM Treasurer's Series Trust (Invesco 

Treasurer's Series Trust) 

Invesco Quality Municipal Income Trust (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco S&P 500 Index Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust (Invesco Counselor 

Series Trust) 

Invesco Short Duration High Yield Municipal Fund of AIM Counselor Series Trust 

(Invesco Counselor Series Trust) 

Invesco Tax-Free Cash Reserve Portfolio of Short-Term Investments Trust 

Invesco Tax-Free Cash Reserve Portfolio of Short-Term Investments Trust 

(Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco Trust for Investment Grade Municipals (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Invesco U.S. Managed Volatility Fund of AIM Investment Funds (Invesco 

Investment Funds) 

Invesco U.S. Quantitative Core Trust of Institutional Retirement Trust 

Invesco US Enhanced Index Fund of Invesco Asset Management Ltd 

Invesco US Equity Flexible Fund of Invesco Asset Management LTD 

Invesco US Structured Equity Fund of Invesco Asset Management Ltd. 

Invesco V.I. Comstock Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco Variable 

Insurance Funds) 

Invesco V.I. Core Plus Bond Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco 

Variable Insurance Funds) 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 39 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

40 of 57
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

14 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Invesco V.I. Equally-Weighted S&P 500 Fund of AIM Insurance Funds (Invesco 

Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco V.I. Equity & Income Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco 

Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco V.I. Growth & Income Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco 

Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco V.I. Managed Volatility Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco 

Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco V.I. S&P 500 Index Fund of AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco 

Variable Insurance Funds) 

Invesco Value Municipal Income Trust (Delaware Statutory Trust) 

Janus Capital Management LLC 

Jennison 20/20 Focus Fund (1/31): 

Jennison Blend Fund, Inc. (8/31): 

JennisonDryden Opportunity Funds: Dryden Strategic Value Fund (2/28): 

JennisonDryden Portfolios, Inc.: Jennison Value Fund (8/31): 

JennisonDryden Sector Funds, Inc.: Jennison Utility Fund (11/30): 

JNL/Capital Guardian Global Balanced Fund 

JZ Partners 

Kingfishers L.P. 

Kingstown Partners II L.P. 

Kingstown Partners Master Ltd. 

Knightsbridge Asset Management, LLC 

KOKUWORLDX 

Kraft Heinz Company Retiree Health & Welfare Benefits Trust III 

Lake Avenue Funding EC VII LLC 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 40 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

41 of 57
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

15 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Lake Avenue Funding EC XI LLC 

Lake Street Advisors Group, LLC 

Legal Services Plan of the Electrical Industry 

Leisure Capital Management, Inc. 

Lighthouse Investment Partners, LLC 

Limited Term Tax-Exempt Bond Fund of America 

Lockheed Martin 

Lodestar Private Asset Management 

Lucent Technologies Inc. Master Pension Trust- PORTL 

Marathon Trading Fund LP 

Massachusetts S&P 500 Pooled Index Fund 

McGowanGroup Asset Management, Inc. 

Mechanics Bank 

Mediolanum International Funds Limited 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 

Miami Shores Police Officers' Retirement System 

Miami Shores Village General Employees Pension Fund 

MidAmerica National Bank 

Millennium Management LLC 

Moneta Group 

Montana Board of Investments 

Narus Financial Partners 

National Securities Corporation 

New South Wales Treasury Corp 

Northern Trust Fiduciary Services (Guernsey) Limited as Trustee of the Saudi 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 41 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

42 of 57
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

16 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Aramco Severance, Retiree Medical and Retirement Benefits Fund Trust 

Northwestern Mutual Investment Management Company 

Nuveen Core Equity Alpha Fund 

Nuveen Equity Market Neutral Fund 

Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund 

Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund, a sub-fund of Nuveen Global Investors Fund 

PLC, established under UCITS 

Nuveen Large Cap Value Fund 

Nuveen Santa Barbara Dividend Growth Fund (fka Nuveen Large Cap Core Fund) 

Nuveen/SEI Trust Company Investment Trust – Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund 

Ohio School Employees Retirement System 

Old National Bank 

OnePath Funds Management Limited 

Orbis Capital Limited 

Orbis Global Balanced Fund (Australia Registered) 

Orbis Global Equity Fund (Australia Registered) 

Orbis Global Equity Fund LE (Australia Registered) 

Orbis Global Equity Fund Limited 

Orbis Institutional Global Equity (OFO) Fund 

Orbis Institutional Global Equity Fund 

Orbis Institutional Global Equity L.P. 

Orbis Institutional U.S. Equity L.P. 

Orbis OEIC Global Balanced Fund 

Orbis OEIC Global Equity Fund 

Orbis Optimal Global Fund LP 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 42 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

43 of 57
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

17 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Orbis Optimal SA Fund Limited 

Orbis SICAV Global Balanced Fund 

Orbis SICAV Global Equity Fund 

Osborne Partners Capital Management, LLC 

P EMP Ltd 

Palm Tran, Inc. / Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Fund 

Paragon Capital Management 

Parallel Advisors, LLC 

Patton Fund Management, Inc. 

Pekin Hardy Strauss, Inc. 

PGIM BALANCED BOND 

PGIM Core Conservative Bond Fund 

PGIM CORE SHORT-TERM BOND 

PGIM Corporate Bond Fund 

PGIM Funds Plc - PGIM Global Corporate Bond Fund - UGBLESG 

PGIM Funds Plc - PGIM Intermediate Duration US Corporate Bond Fund - 

UCINTESG 

PGIM Funds Plc - PGIM US Corporate Bond Fund - UCORPESG 

PGIM Global Absolute Return Bond Fund 

PGIM Global Core Bond Fund Ex-Japan, a sub-trust of PGIM Cayman Unit TrustCYTGCORE 

PGIM GLOBAL TOTAL RETURN 

PGIM Japan Co., Ltd - PR US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Mother FundCORPPIM 

PGIM Jennison Equity Income Fund 

PGIM Jennison Global Infrastructure Fund 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 43 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

44 of 57
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

18 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

PGIM Jennison Rising Dividend Fund 

PGIM QMA Defensive Equity Fund 

PGIM QMA Strategic Alpha Large-Cap Core ETF 

PGIM QMA US Broad Market Index Fund 

PGIM Qualifying Investor Funds plc - PGIM QIF Global Corporate Bond Fund - 

QIFGBLCORP 

PGIM Qualifying Investor Funds plc -PGIM QIF US Corporate Bond Fund - 

QIFCORP 

PGIM TIPS Fund 

PGIM TOTAL RETURN BOND 

PGIM ULTRA SHORT BOND 

PGIM US Real Estate Fund 

PHYLLIS S PRANGE TRUST 

Plante Moran Financial Advisors 

PLICQCLCSP5 

POC for Gibraltar Universal Life Reinsurance Co. Custody (Investment)-GULRE 

Point72 Asset Management 

PRDX500 

PRIDEXW5 

PRIFORMR1V 

Private Capital Management 

ProShares Trust 

PRU Credit Income Fund 2017, a Series Trust of Multi Manager Global Investment 

Trust-CORPMATPB7 

PRU Gibraltar Financial Insurance Company-PGFFC1 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 44 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

45 of 57
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

19 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

PRU INCOME BUILDER JEN EQ INC PDKD 

Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey - PLNJ 

PRUDENTIA -Lebensversicherungs-AG 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Captive Company - PLAZ Trust 1-PLAZTR1 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Captive Company - PLNJ Reg 114 Trust 1-

PLNJTR1 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Captive Company- Custody-PARCC 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Term Company- PAR Term Ind Life Custody Inv 

Seg-PARTCUST 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Term Company- PART Ind Life PLNJ Trust-Fixed 

Income-PARTNJ1 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Universal Company - PARU HarfordLife & Annuity 

Comfort Trust - HARTPARUA 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Universal Company - PLNJ Trust 1-PARUNJTR1 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Universal Company -Non-Trust-Hrt Life-Inv SegHARTPARFDG 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Universal Company -PAR U Hartford Life Insurance 

Comfort Trust - HARTPARUL 

Prudential Arizona Reinsurance Universal Company-PARU 

Prudential Day One 2035 Fund 

Prudential Day One 2045 Fund 

Prudential Financial Inc. - Hirikata LLC - HIRAKATA 

Prudential Investment Management Japan Co., Ltd. - US Investment Grade Corporate 

Bond Fund 2016-CORPPI2 

Prudential Legacy Insurance Company of New Jersey-PLIC Securities Lending 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 45 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

46 of 57
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

20 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Portfolio-PIACLCB 

Prudential Legacy Insurance Company of NJ - Core Public Bonds-PLIC 

Prudential Legacy Insurance Company of NJ - General Account Global Corporate 

Portfolio - WWCORP 

Prudential Life Insurance Company of Taiwan Inc. - Pru Taiwan TW GAPOTTWGA 

Prudential LIfe Insurance Company of Taiwan Inc. - Pru Taiwan USD GAPOTUSGA 

Prudential Life Insurance Company of Taiwan Inc. - Pru Taiwan USD IS-POTUSBY 

Prudential Long Duration Credit Fund of the Prudential Trust Company Collective 

Trust-PTLCRED 

Prudential Merged Retirement Plan - Long Duration Account-PPTRAD 

Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Company-Corporate-PRIACCORP 

Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Company-Defined Benefits Non TrustPRIACDBNT 

Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Company-MMIP-Non TrustPRIACMMNT 

Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company - New York Carpenters - 

SACAR 

Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company- Def Contributions - Non 

Trust A-PRIACDCNT 

Prudential Term Reinsurance Company - Custody - TERMCUST 

Prudential Term Reinsurance Company - Economic Reserves Portfolio - 

TERMPLNJ1 

Prudential Term Reinsurance Company - PLNJ Trust - TERMPLNJ 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 46 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

47 of 57
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

21 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Prudential Trust Company - Institutional Business Trust Core Conservative Bond 

Fund - IBTCC 

Prudential Trust Company - Prudential Core Intermediate Bond Fund of the 

Collective Trust-PTINT 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust - Prudential Core Plus Bond FundPTCRPLUS 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust - Prudential U.S. Corporate Bond FundPTCORP 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust- Prudential Core Conservative 

Intermediate Bond Fund-PTICC 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust- Prudential Long Duration 

Government/Credit Bond Fund -PTLGOVC 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust- Prudential U.S. Long Duration 

Corporate Bond Fund - PTLON 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust-Pru Core Conservative 

Intermediate(Vanguard) Bond Fund-FLAGSHIP 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust-Prudential Core Bond Fund - INSTCFI 

Prudential Trust Company Collective Trust-Prudential U.S. Long Duration Corporate 

Bond (JPM) Fund-PT 

Prudential Trust Company CollectiveTrust- Prudential Core Conservative Bond Fund 

- INSTEI 

Prudential Trust Company -Institutional Business Trust-Long Duration 

Government/Credit Conservative Bond Fund - IBTGCC 

Prudential Trust Company Institutional Business Trust-PGIM Core Bond Fund - 

IBTCORE 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 47 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

48 of 57
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

22 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Prudential Trust Company Master Commingled Investment Fund for Tax Exempt 

Trusts, Institutional Core Bond Fund - INUSCNQ 

Prudential Universal Reinsurance Company - Captive Trust Portfolio 1 - PURCTR1 

Prudential Universal Reinsurance Company - Captive Trust Portfolio 2 - PURCSN 

Prudential Universal Reinsurance Company - Inv Seg Indiviual Life - PURC 

Prudential Universal Reinsurance Company- Prudential Term Reinsurance Company 

- Captive Trust Portfolio 

PS DIV BOND PORT 

PSF EQUITY PORT JENNISON PDQ1 

PTNQSP500 

QSuper 

Quinn Opportunity Partners 

Ramon L Prange IRA 

Raymond James Trust NA 

Raytheon Benefit Trusts 

RhumbLine Equal Weighted Large Cap Trust 

RhumbLine Russell 1000 Pooled Index Trust 

RhumbLine Russell 1000 Value Index Pooled Trust 

RhumbLine S&P Index Pooled Trust 

RI HIGHER EDU SVGS TST 529 VOYA INT 

RMB Capital 

Robert Lewis Allbritton 1996 Trust 

Roche U.S. Retirement Plans Master Trust 

Sacramento County Employees Retirement System 

Sageworth Trust Company 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 48 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

49 of 57
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

23 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Samsung Long Term US Bond Securities Master Investment Trust [Bond] - Liability 

Focused Portfolio 

Samsung Short to Intermediate Term US Bond Securities Master Investment Trust 

[Bond] Moderate Absolute Risk 

San Diego County Employees Retirement Association 

Sandy Spring Bank 

SAS Trustee Corp Pooled Fund - Defined Contributions 

SAS Trustee Corp Pooled Fund- Definded Benefits 

SBLI USA Mutual Life Insurance Company 

SCA BNP PLEDGEE AST ASAA JPM MKT NEUTRL 

Schonfeld Strategic Advisors 

Security Federal Savings Bank 

Serengeti Asset Management 

Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC 

Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC 

Simmons Bank 

Singer, Susan 

SouthPoint Capital 

SPC Financial, Inc. 

STANLIB Multi-Manager Global Fund 

State Street Global Advisors 

Stifel Trust Company, N.A. 

SunAmerica Asset Management 

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America 

Teachers Retirement System of the State of IL 

Team Hewins 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 49 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

50 of 57
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

24 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Tellone Management Group 

The Bond Fund of America 

The Gibraltar Life Insurance Company, Ltd. - USD Annuity AFS4-GIBAFS4 

The Gibraltar Life Insurance Company, Ltd. - USD Insurance AFS-GIBAFS1 

The Gibraltar Life Insurance Company, Ltd. - USD Insurance HFR-GIBHFR1 

The Gibraltar Life Insurance Company, Ltd. US Annuity- HFR4-GIBHFR4 

The Glenmede Trust Company, N.A. 

The Glenview Trust Company 

The Government of State of Kuwait Acting Through Kuwait Investment Authority - 

GSQ Global Agg 

The Hialeah Police Pension Fund 

The Huntington National Bank 

The Income Fund of America 

The Private Trust Company, N.A. 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - General Pension Segment A-GPSA 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Group Alliance Core Public BondsGRPALL 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Guaranteed Separate Account 

MMIP Fund-GSAGEN 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Hartford Life & Annuity Comfort 

Trust-HARTANN 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Individual Life Long Term Core 

Public Bonds - ILLONG 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - International Paper PICA Single 

Client Buy-Out SAGAR 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 50 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

51 of 57
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

25 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - International Reinsurance Gibraltar 

- IREGIB 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - JC Penny Buy Out - Public Bonds - 

JCPSA 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Lending General Collateral 

Financial Services Business 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Long Duration Government/Credit 

Bond Account - TOLILGC 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - PICA/POJ IRELP Trust - IRELPTR 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Portfolio Protected Product Group 

Annuity-PPBO 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- Congo PICA Single Client Buy-Out 

SA-GAR PRD-CONGA 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- Core Investment Grade Credit Bond 

Fund - TOLICRED 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- Hartford PICA Single Client BuyOut SA-GAR PRD - HIGSA 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- Long Duration Corporate Bond 

Account- TOLILDC 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America on behalf of VCA-GA-8217-SBA - 

SBA8217 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America on behalf of VCA-GI-3-20 (TOLI 

20) - TOLI20 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America on behalf Variable Contract Account 

GA-8217-EBIA-WEBIA 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- Strategic Bond Account - SBA 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 51 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

52 of 57
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

26 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- TOLI Protective Life Fixed Income 

Bond Fund - TOLIPRLF 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- WCT 82/84 ANNUITY ACCOUNT 

- WCT8284 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America- Westrock PICA Single Client BuyOut SA-GAR PRD -WRKSA 

The Prudential Investment Portfolios, Inc.: Jennison Equity Opportunity Fund (9/30) 

The Prudential Life Insurance Company, Ltd - GA USD BOND AFS (OFU1) - 

JPOJUAFS1 

The Prudential Merged Retirement Plan - Pru Plan Asset Liability Portfolio-PPALP 

The Prudential Merged Retirement Plan - Pruplan Asset & Liability Portfolio 2-

PPALP2 

The Prudential Series Fund: Conservative Balanced Portfolio (12/31) 

The Prudential Series Fund: Global Portfolio (12/31): 

The Prudential Series Fund: Jennison 20/20 Focus Portfolio (12/31): 

The Prudential Series Fund: Stock Index Portfolio (12/31): 

The Prudential Series Fund: Value Portfolio (12/31): 

The Tax-Exempt Bond Fund of America 

The Tax-Exempt Fund of California 

The Weld Trust 

Thrivent Financial Defined Benefit Plan Trust 

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans 

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Foundation 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Aggressive Allocation Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Balanced Income Plus Fund 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 52 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

53 of 57
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

27 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Diversified Income Plus Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Global Stock Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Growth & Income Plus Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Income Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Large Cap Value Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Mid Cap Stock Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Moderate Allocation Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Moderately Aggressive Allocation Fund 

Thrivent Mutual Funds - Thrivent Moderately Conservative Allocation Fund 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Aggressive Allocation Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Balanced Income Plus Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Diversified Income Plus Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Global Stock Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Growth & Income Plus Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Income Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Large Cap Index Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Large Cap Value Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Mid Cap Stock Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Moderate Allocation Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Moderately Aggressive Allocation Portfolio 

Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. - Thrivent Moderately Conservative Allocation Portfolio 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAAA-CREF Bond Plus Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Bond Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Bond Index Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Bond Plus Fund 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 53 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

54 of 57
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

28 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Enhanced Large-Cap Value 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Equity Index Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Growth & Income Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Large-Cap Value Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Large-Cap Value Index Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF S&P 500 Index Fund 

TIAA-CREF Funds - TIAA-CREF Short-Term Bond Index Fund 

TIAA-CREF Life Funds - TIAA-CREF Life Bond Fund 

TIAA-CREF Life Funds - TIAA-CREF Life Growth & Income Fund 

TIAA-CREF Life Funds - TIAA-CREF Life Large-Cap Value Fund 

TIAA-CREF Life Funds - TIAA-CREF Life Stock Index Fund 

TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company 

TIAA-CREF Separate Account Variable Annuity-1 - TIAA Stock Index Account 

Tocqueville Asset Management 

TPSF - EQP (JENN) 

Trust Company of the Ozarks 

Trust Company of Vermont 

Trust Sourcing Solutions, LLC 

UBISICAVGLOBALMSCI 

UBISICAVUSCORE 

United Southern Bank 

Universities Superannuation Scheme 

US IG Corporate Bond (JPY Hedged) Fund, a Series Trust of Cayman World Invest 

Trust - SHINCORP 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 54 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

55 of 57
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

29 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

US IG Intermediate Corporate Bond (JPY Hedged) Fund, a Series Trust of Cayman 

World Invest Trust - SHININT 

Vantage Casualty Insurance Company - VANTAGE 

Vantage Consulting Group Inc. (fka Locus Analytics) 

Vassar Investors, LLC 

Verizon Transition Account - VZTRANS 

Versicherungskammer Bayern - BayernInvest Alternative Loan-Fonds 

VGE III Portfolio Ltd 

Viking Global Equities II LP 

Viking Global Equities LP 

Viking Global Opportunities Liquid Portfolio Sub-Master LP 

Viking Long Fund Master Ltd. 

VIRGINIA529 VS ING CUSTODY MV 

Voya General Accounts 

Voya Third Party 

Waukesha State Bank Wealth Management 

Wealthspire Advisors LLC 

Wellington Management Company 

Wells Fargo & Company Master Pension Trust 

West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund 

Westwood Trust 

Williams Jones Wealth Management, LLC 

Wipfli Financial Advisors, LLC 

Woodley Farra Manion Portfolio Management, Inc. 

Woodstock Corporation 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 55 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

56 of 57
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

30 

ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 

1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10020 

Movant Plaintiff Name 

XT USA Fund of Invesco Asset Management LTD 

Yarbrough Capital, LLC 

Zabia Colovos Gift Trust 

Zeke Capital Advisors, LLC 

ZWJ Investment Counsel 

Case 5:18-cv-03509-EJD Document 229 Filed 02/15/23 Page 56 of 56

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13748-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:24:06 Page

57 of 57