EXHIBIT C 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 3408
2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 2 of 25 Pg ID 3409
2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 3 of 25 Pg ID 3410
EXHIBIT A

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 4 of 25 Pg ID 3411
Page 1

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

New York Office

122 EAST 42ND STREET

SUITE 2920

NEW YORK, NY 10168

TELEPHONE (212) 682-5340

FACSIMILE (212) 884-0988

1925 CENTURY PARK EAST

SUITE 2100

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

TELEPHONE (310) 201-9150

FACSIMILE (310) 201-9160

info@glancylaw.com

SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE

ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER

SUITE 760

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

TELEPHONE (415) 972-8160

FACSIMILE (415) 972-8166

FIRM RESUME

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (the “Firm”) has represented investors, consumers and 

employees for nearly 25 years. Based in Los Angeles with offices in New York City and San 

Francisco, the Firm has successfully prosecuted class action cases and complex litigation in 

federal and state courts throughout the country. As Lead Counsel or as a member of Plaintiffs' 

Counsel Executive Committees, the Firm has recovered billions of dollars for parties wronged by 

corporate fraud and malfeasance. Indeed, the Institutional Shareholder Services unit of 

RiskMetrics Group has recognized the Firm as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the United 

States in its Securities Class Action Services report for every year since the inception of the 

report in 2003. The Firm's efforts have been publicized in major newspapers such as the Wall 

Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg’s commitment to high quality and excellent personalized services 

has boosted its national reputation, and we are now recognized as one of the premier plaintiffs’ 

firms in the country. The Firm works tenaciously on behalf of clients to produce significant 

results and generate lasting corporate reform.

The Firm’s integrity and success originate from our attorneys, who are among the brightest and 

most experienced in the field. Our distinguished litigators have an unparalleled track record of 

investigating and prosecuting corporate wrongdoing. The Firm is respected for both the zealous 

advocacy with which we represent our clients’ interests as well as the highly-professional and 

ethical manner by which we achieve results. We are ideally positioned to interpret securities 

litigation, consumer litigation, antitrust litigation, and derivative and corporate takeover 

litigation. The Firm’s outstanding accomplishments are the direct result of the exceptional talents 

of our attorneys and employees.

Appointed as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel by judges throughout the United States, Glancy Binkow 

& Goldberg has achieved significant recoveries for class members, including:

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 5 of 25 Pg ID 3412
Page 2

In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of 

California, Case No. 05-3395, in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel 

and achieved a settlement valued at over $117 million.

In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation, USDC Central District of California, 

Case No. 98-7035 DDP, in which the Firm served as local counsel and plaintiffs achieved a $184 

million jury verdict after a complex six week trial in Los Angeles, California and later settled the 

case for $83 million.

In re Lumenis, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No.02-

CV-1989, in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a 

settlement valued at over $20 million.

In re Heritage Bond Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 02-ML-1475-DT, 

where as Co-Lead Counsel, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg recovered in excess of $28 million for 

defrauded investors and continues to pursue additional defendants.

In re ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 01-

913-A, in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as sole Lead Counsel and recovered almost 

$22 million for defrauded ECI investors. 

Jenson v. First Trust Corporation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 05-cv-3124-

ABC, in which the Firm was appointed sole lead counsel and achieved an $8.5 million settlement 

in a very difficult case involving a trustee’s potential liability for losses incurred by investors in a 

Ponzi scheme. Kevin Ruf of the Firm also successfully defended in the 9th Circuit Court of 

Appeals the trial court’s granting of class certification in this case.

Yaldo v. Airtouch Communications, State of Michigan, Wayne County, Case No. 99-909694-

CP, in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a settlement 

valued at over $32 million for defrauded consumers.

In re Infonet Services Corporation Securities Litigation, USDC Central District of California, 

Case No. CV 01-10456 NM, in which as Co-Lead Counsel, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 

achieved a settlement of $18 million.

In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 00-

02018, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg was sole Lead 

Counsel for the Class and recovered in excess of $13 million. 

In re ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, 

Case No. 98 Civ. 7530, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 

served as sole Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $17 

million.

In re Lason, Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 99 76079, 

in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg was Co-Lead Counsel and recovered almost $13 million 

for defrauded Lason stockholders.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 6 of 25 Pg ID 3413
Page 3

In re Inso Corp. Securities Litigation, USDC District of Massachusetts, Case No. 99 10193, a 

securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for 

the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $12 million.

In re National TechTeam Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 

97-74587, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as CoLead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $11 million.

In re Ramp Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 

C-00-3645 JCS, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as 

Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of nearly $7 million.

In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of New York, 

Case No. 02-1510 CPS, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 

served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $20 million.

Taft v. Ackermans (KPNQwest Securities Litigation), USDC Southern District of New York, 

Case No. 02-CV-07951, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 

served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement worth $11 million.

Ree v. Procom Technologies, Inc., USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 02CV7613, 

a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel 

for the Class and achieved a settlement of $2.7 million.

Capri v. Comerica, Inc., USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 02CV60211 MOB, a 

securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for 

the Class and achieved a settlement of $6.0 million.

Tatz v. Nanophase Technologies Corp., USDC Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 01C8440, 

a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel 

for the Class and achieved a settlement of $2.5 million.

In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 99 Civ 

9425, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead 

Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $27 million.

Plumbing Solutions Inc. v. Plug Power, Inc., USDC Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV 

00 5553 (ERK) (RML), a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 

served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $5 million.

Schleicher v. Wendt ,(Conseco Securities Litigation), USDC Southern District of Indiana, Case 

No. 02-1332 SEB, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as 

Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $41 million.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 7 of 25 Pg ID 3414
Page 4

Lapin v. Goldman Sachs, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 03-0850-KJD, a 

securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for 

the Class and achieved a settlement of $29 million.

Senn v. Sealed Air Corporation, USDC New Jersey, Case No. 03-cv4372, a securities fraud class 

action, in which the Firm acted as co-lead counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $20 

million.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg filed the initial landmark antitrust lawsuit against all of the major 

NASDAQ market makers and served on Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Executive Committee in In re 

Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 94 

C 3996 (RWS), MDL Docket No. 1023, which recovered $900 million for investors in numerous 

heavily traded Nasdaq issues.

The Firm has also previously acted as Class Counsel in obtaining substantial benefits for 

shareholders in a number of actions, including:

In re F & M Distributors Securities Litigation,

Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 95 CV 71778 DT (Executive Committee Member) 

($20.25 million settlement)

James F. Schofield v. McNeil Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation,

California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 133799

Resources High Equity Securities Litigation,

California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 080254

The Firm has served and currently serves as Class Counsel in a number of antitrust class actions, 

including:

In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation,

USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 94 C 3996 (RWS), MDL Docket No. 1023

In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation,

USDC Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 94 C 897

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has been responsible for obtaining favorable appellate opinions 

which have broken new ground in the class action or securities fields, or which have promoted 

shareholder rights in prosecuting these actions. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg successfully argued 

the appeals in a number of cases.

In Smith v. L’Oreal, 39 Cal.4th 77 (2006), Firm partner Kevin Ruf established ground-breaking 

law when the California Supreme Court agreed with the Firm’s position that waiting penalties 

under the California Labor Code are available to any employee after termination of employment, 

regardless of the reason for that termination. 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 8 of 25 Pg ID 3415
Page 5

Other notable Firm cases are: Silber v. Mabon I, 957 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992) and Silber v. 

Mabon II, 18 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994), which are the leading decisions in the Ninth Circuit 

regarding the rights of opt-outs in class action settlements. In Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 

(2d Cir. 2000), Glancy Binkow & Goldberg won a seminal victory for investors before the 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which adopted a more favorable pleading standard for 

investors in reversing the District Court’s dismissal of the investors’ complaint. After this 

successful appeal, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg then recovered millions of dollars for defrauded 

investors of the GT Interactive Corporation. The Firm also argued Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 

309 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended, 320 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2003) and favorably obtained 

the substantial reversal of a lower court’s dismissal of a cutting edge, complex class action 

initiated to seek redress for a group of employees whose stock options were improperly forfeited 

by a giant corporation in the course of its sale of the subsidiary at which they worked. The 

revived action is currently proceeding in the California state court system.

The Firm is also involved in the representation of individual investors in court proceedings 

throughout the United States and in arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, 

National Association of Securities Dealers, New York Stock Exchange, and Pacific Stock 

Exchange. Mr. Glancy has successfully represented litigants in proceedings against such major 

securities firms and insurance companies as A.G. Edwards & Sons, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch 

& Co., Morgan Stanley, PaineWebber, Prudential, and Shearson Lehman Brothers.

One of the Firm’s unique skills is the use of “group litigation” - the representation of groups of 

individuals who have been collectively victimized or defrauded by large institutions. This type 

of litigation brought on behalf of individuals who have been similarly damaged often provides an 

efficient and effective economic remedy that frequently has advantages over the class action or 

individual action devices. The Firm has successfully achieved results for groups of individuals 

in cases against major corporations such as Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and 

Occidental Petroleum Corporation.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP currently consists of the following attorneys:

PARTNERS

LIONEL Z. GLANCY, a graduate of University of Michigan Law School, is the founding 

partner of the Firm. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Judge Howard 

McKibben, he began his career as an associate at a New York law firm concentrating in 

securities litigation. Thereafter, he started a boutique law firm specializing in securities 

litigation, and other complex litigation, from the Plaintiff’s perspective. Mr. Glancy has 

established a distinguished career in the field of securities litigation over the last fifteen years, 

having appeared and been appointed lead counsel on behalf of aggrieved investors in securities 

class action cases throughout the country. He has appeared and argued before dozen of district 

courts and a number of appellate courts. His efforts have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of 

millions of dollars in settlement proceeds for huge classes of shareholders. Well known in 

securities law, he has lectured on its developments and practice, including having lectured before 

Continuing Legal Education seminars and law schools.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 9 of 25 Pg ID 3416
Page 6

Mr. Glancy was born in Windsor, Canada, on April 4, 1962. Mr. Glancy earned his 

undergraduate degree in political science in 1984 and his Juris Doctor degree in 1986, both from 

the University of Michigan. He was admitted to practice in California in 1988, and in Nevada 

and before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in 1989.

PETER A. BINKOW, a partner with the Firm, has prosecuted lawsuits on behalf of consumers 

and investors in state and federal courts throughout the United States. He served as Lead or CoLead Counsel in many class action cases, including: In re Mercury Interactive Securities 

Litigation ($117.5 million recovery); Schleicher v Wendt (Conseco Securities litigation - $41.5 

million recovery); Lapin v Goldman Sachs ($29 million recovery); In re Heritage Bond 

Litigation ($28 million recovery); In re National Techteam Securities Litigation ($11 million 

recovery for investors); In re Lason Inc. Securities Litigation ($12.68 million recovery), In re 

ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation ($17 million recovery); and many others. In 

Schleicher v Wendt, Mr. Binkow successfully argued the seminal Seventh Circuit case on class 

certification, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. He has argued and/or 

prepared appeals before the Ninth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Sixth Circuit and Second Circuit 

Courts of Appeals.

Mr. Binkow joined the Firm in 1994 and became a partner in 2002. He was born on August 16, 

1965 in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Binkow obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University 

of Michigan in 1988 and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Southern California in 

1994.

MICHAEL M. GOLDBERG specializes in federal securities, federal and state antitrust, and 

consumer fraud class action lawsuits. He has successfully litigated numerous cases which 

resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for investors, consumers and businesses.

Mr. Goldberg was born in New York on April 27, 1966. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree 

in 1989 from Pitzer College of The Claremont Colleges, and his Juris Doctor degree in 1996 

from Thomas M. Cooley Law School. After graduating from law school, Mr. Goldberg joined 

the Firm and became a partner in 2003. He was admitted to both the California and Florida bars 

in 1997 and is admitted to practice in numerous courts.

SUSAN G. KUPFER is the founding partner of the Firm's San Francisco office and head of the 

Firm’s Antitrust Practice Group. Ms Kupfer joined the Firm in 2003. She is a native of New 

York City, and received her A.B. degree from Mount Holyoke College in 1969 and her Juris 

Doctor degree from Boston University School of Law in 1973. She did graduate work at 

Harvard Law School and, in 1977, was named Assistant Dean and Director of Clinical Programs 

at Harvard, supervising and teaching in that program of legal practice and related academic 

components.

For much of her legal career, Ms. Kupfer has been a professor of law. Her areas of academic 

expertise are Civil Procedure, Federal Courts, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Legal 

Ethics, and Jurisprudence. She has taught at Harvard Law School, Hastings College of the Law, 

Boston University School of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, and Northeastern 

University School of Law. From 1991 through 2002, she was a lecturer on law at the University 

of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall, teaching Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws. Her 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 10 of 25 Pg ID 3417
Page 7

publications include articles on federal civil rights litigation, legal ethics, and jurisprudence. She 

has also taught various aspects of practical legal and ethical training, including trial advocacy, 

negotiation and legal ethics, to both law students and practicing attorneys.

Ms. Kupfer previously served as corporate counsel to The Architects Collaborative in Cambridge 

and San Francisco, and was the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial 

Conduct. She returned to the practice of law in San Francisco with Morgenstein & Jubelirer and 

Berman DeValerio LLP before joining the Firm.

Ms. Kupfer’s practice is concentrated in complex antitrust litigation. She currently serves, or has 

served, as Co-Lead Counsel in several multidistrict antitrust cases: In re Photochromic Lens 

Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2173, M.D. Fla. 2010); In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig. 

(D. ID. 2011); In re Korean Air Lines Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 1891, C.D. Cal. 2007); In re 

Urethane Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1616, D. Kan. 2004); In re Western States Wholesale 

Natural Gas Litigation (MDL 1566, D. Nev. 2005); and Sullivan et al v. DB Investments et al (D. 

N.J. 2004). She has been a member of the lead counsel teams that achieved significant 

settlements in: In re Sorbates Antitrust Litigation ($96.5 million settlement); In re Pillar Point 

Partners Antitrust Litigation ($50 million settlement); and In re Critical Path Securities 

Litigation ($17.5 million settlement).

Ms. Kupfer is a member of the bar of Massachusetts and California, and is admitted to practice 

before the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts 

of California, the District of Massachusetts, the Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth 

Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

KEVIN F. RUF graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1984 with a 

Bachelor of Arts in Economics and earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of 

Michigan in 1987. Mr. Ruf was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1988. Mr. Ruf was an 

associate at the Los Angeles firm Manatt Phelps and Phillips from 1988 until 1992, where he 

specialized in commercial litigation and was a leading trial lawyer among the associates there.

In 1993, he joined the firm Corbin & Fitzgerald in order to gain experience in criminal law.

There, he specialized in white collar criminal defense work, including matters related to National 

Medical Enterprises, Cynergy Film Productions and the Estate of Doris Duke. Mr. Ruf joined 

the Firm in 2001 and has taken a lead trial lawyer role in many of the Firm's cases. In 2006, Mr. 

Ruf argued before the California Supreme Court in the case Smith v. L'Oreal and achieved a 

unanimous reversal of the lower court rulings; the case established a fundamental right of all 

California workers to immediate payment of all earnings at the conclusion of employment. In 

2007, Mr. Ruf took an important case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, convincing the 

Court to affirm the lower court's certification of a class action in a fraud case (fraud cases have 

traditionally faced difficulty as class actions because of the requirement of individual reliance).

Mr. Ruf has extensive trial experience, including jury trials, and considers his courtroom and oral 

advocacy skills to be his strongest asset as a litigator. Mr. Ruf currently acts as the Head of the 

Firm's Labor and Consumer Practice, and has extensive experience in securities cases as well. 

Mr. Ruf also has experience in real estate law and has been a Licensed California Real Estate 

Broker since 1999.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 11 of 25 Pg ID 3418
Page 8

MARC L. GODINO has extensive experience successfully litigating complex, class action 

lawsuits as a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Mr. Godino has played a primary role in cases resulting in 

settlements of more than $100 million. He has prosecuted securities, derivative, merger & 

acquisition, and consumer cases throughout the country in both state and federal court, as well as 

represented defrauded investors at FINRA arbitrations. Mr. Godino manages the Firm’s 

consumer class action department.

While an associate with Stull Stull & Brody, Mr. Godino was one of the two primary attorneys 

involved in Small v. Fritz Co., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (April 7, 2003), in which the California Supreme 

Court created new law in the State of California for shareholders that held shares in detrimental 

reliance on false statements made by corporate officers. The decision was widely covered by 

national media including The National Law Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the New York 

Times, and the New York Law Journal, among others, and was heralded as a significant victory 

for shareholders.

Recent successes with the Firm include: In re Magma Design Automation, Inc. Securities 

Litigation, Case No. 05-2394 (N.D. Cal.) ($13,500,000.00 cash settlement for shareholders); In 

re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-0099 (D.N.J.) 

($4,000,000.00 cash settlement for shareholders); In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities 

Litigation, Case No. 09-5416 (C.D. Cal.) ($3,000,000.00 cash settlement for shareholders); In re 

Youbet.com, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. BC426144 (L.A. Sup. Ct.) (settlement 

provided supplemental disclosures to shareholders in this merger action); Burth v. MSC Software 

Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2009-00282743 (Orange Cty. Sup. Ct.) (settlement provided 

supplemental disclosures to shareholders in this merger action); Kelly v. Phiten USA, Inc., Case 

No. 11-67 (S.D. Iowa) ($3.2 million dollar cash settlement in addition to injunctive relief); (Shin 

et al., v. BMW of North America, 2009 WL 2163509 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2009) (after defeating a 

motion to dismiss, the case settled on very favorable terms for class members including free 

replacement of cracked wheels); Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. MIVA, Inc., Case No. 06-1923 

(S.D.N.Y.) ($3,936,812 cash settlement for class members); Villefranche v. HSBC Bank Nevada, 

N.A., Case No. 09-3693 (C.D.Cal.) (after defeating a motion to dismiss, the case resulted in 

100% recovery to class members); Esslinger, et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Case No. 10-

03213 (E.D. Pa.) ($23.5 million settlement pending final approval); In re Discover Payment 

Protection Plan Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 10-06994 ($10.5 million 

settlement pending final approval).

Other published decisions include: In re 2TheMart.com Securities Litigation, 114 F. Supp. 2d 

955 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (motion to dismiss denied); In re Irvine Sensors Securities Litigation, 2003 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (motion to dismiss denied); Shin v. BMW of North 

America, 2009 WL 2163509 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2009) (motion to dismiss denied); In re Toyota 

Motor Corp. Hybrid Brake Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2011 

WL 6189467 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011) (motion to compel arbitration denied).

The following represent just a few of the more than two dozen cases Mr. Godino is currently 

litigating in a leadership position: In re Toyota Motor Corp. Hybrid Brake Marketing, Sales 

Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 02172 (C.D. Cal.), Co-Lead Counsel; In re 

Stec, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 10-00667 (C.D. Cal.), Co-Lead Counsel; Thompson v. 

Brett Bros. Sports Intl., Inc., Case No. 12-55 (S.D. Iowa), Co-Lead Counsel.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 12 of 25 Pg ID 3419
Page 9

Mr. Godino received his undergraduate degree from Susquehanna University with a Bachelor of 

Science degree in Business Management. He received his Juris Doctor degree from Whittier Law 

School in 1995.

Mr. Godino is admitted to practice before the State of California, the United States District 

Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California, the District of Colorado, 

and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

BRIAN MURRAY, a partner, was admitted to the bars of Connecticut in 1990, New York and 

the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 1991, the 

Second Circuit in 1997, the First and Fifth Circuits in 2000, the Ninth Circuit in 2002, and the 

Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas in 2011. He received Bachelor of Arts and Master of 

Arts degrees from the University of Notre Dame in 1983 and 1986, respectively. He received a 

Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from St. John’s University School of Law in 1990. At St. 

John’s, he was the Articles Editor of the ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW. Mr. Murray co-wrote: 

Jurisdição Estrangeira Tem Papel Relevante Na De Fiesa De Investidores Brasileiros, ESPAÇA 

JURÍDICO BOVESPA (August 2008); The Proportionate Trading Model: Real Science or Junk 

Science?, 52 CLEVELAND ST. L. REV. 391 (2004-05); The Accident of Efficiency: Foreign 

Exchanges, American Depository Receipts, and Space Arbitrage, 51 BUFFALO L. REV. 383 

(2003); You Shouldn’t Be Required To Plead More Than You Have To Prove, 53 BAYLOR L. 

REV. 783 (2001); He Lies, You Die: Criminal Trials, Truth, Perjury, and Fairness, 27 NEW 

ENGLAND J. ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONFINEMENT 1 (2001); Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction Under the Federal Securities Laws: The State of Affairs After Itoba, 20 

MARYLAND J. OF INT’L L. AND TRADE 235 (1996); Determining Excessive Trading in 

Option Accounts: A Synthetic Valuation Approach, 23 U. DAYTON L. REV. 316 (1997); Loss 

Causation Pleading Standard, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Feb. 25, 2005); The PSLRA 

‘Automatic Stay’ of Discovery, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (March 3, 2003); and Inherent 

Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Aug. 26, 2004). 

He also authored Protecting The Rights of International Clients in U.S. Securities Class Action 

Litigation, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION NEWS (Sept. 2007); Lifting the PSLRA 

“Automatic Stay” of Discovery, 80 N. DAK. L. REV. 405 (2004); Aftermarket Purchaser 

Standing Under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 73 ST. JOHN’S L. REV.633 (1999); Recent 

Rulings Allow Section 11 Suits By Aftermarket Securities Purchasers, NEW YORK LAW 

JOURNAL (Sept. 24, 1998); and Comment, Weissmann v. Freeman: The Second Circuit Errs in 

its Analysis of Derivative Copy-rights by Joint Authors, 63 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 771 (1989).

Mr. Murray was on the trial team that prosecuted a securities fraud case under Section 10(b) of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Microdyne Corporation in the Eastern District of 

Virginia and he was also on the trial team that presented a claim under Section 14 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Artek Systems Corporation and Dynatach Group which 

settled midway through the trial.

Mr. Murray’s major cases include In re Eagle Bldg. Tech. Sec. Litig., 221 F.R.D. 582 (S.D. Fla. 

2004), 319 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (complaint against auditor sustained due to 

magnitude and nature of fraud; no allegations of a “tip-off” were necessary); In re Turkcell 

Iletisim A.S. Sec. Litig., 209 F.R.D. 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (defining standards by which 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 13 of 25 Pg ID 3420
Page 10

investment advisors have standing to sue); In re Turkcell Iletisim A.S. Sec. Litig., 202 F. Supp. 2d 

8 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (liability found for false statements in prospectus concerning churn rates); 

Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 1998) (qualified independent 

underwriters held liable for pricing of offering); Malone v. Microdyne Corp., 26 F.3d 471 (4th 

Cir. 1994) (reversal of directed verdict for defendants); and Adair v. Bristol Tech. Systems, Inc., 

179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (aftermarket purchasers have standing under section 11 of the 

Securities Act of 1933). Mr. Murray also prevailed on an issue of first impression in the 

Superior Court of Massachusetts, in Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, in 

which the court applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations 

purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts. 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. 

Jan. 28, 1997). In addition, in Adair v. Microfield Graphics, Inc. (D. Or.), Mr. Murray settled the 

case for 47% of estimated damages. In the Qiao Xing Universal Telephone case, claimants 

received 120% of their recognized losses.

Among his current cases, Mr. Murray represents the West Virginia Investments Management 

Board in a major litigation against ResidentialAccredit Loans, Deustche Bank, and Credit Suisse. 

Mr. Murray is also currently co-lead counsel in Avenarius, et al., v. Eaton Corp., et al. (D. Del.), 

an antitrust class action against the world’s largest commercial truck and transmission 

manufactures.

Mr. Murray served as a Trustee of the Incorporated Village of Garden City (2000-2002); 

Commissioner of Police for Garden City (2000-2001); Co-Chairman, Derivative Suits 

Subcommittee, American Bar Association Class Action and Derivative Suits Committee, (2007-

Present); Member, Sports Law Committee, Association of the Bar for the City of New York, 

1994-1997; Member, Litigation Committee, Association of the Bar for the City of New York, 

2003-2007; Member, New York State Bar Association Committee on Federal Constitution and 

Legislation, 2005-2008; Member, Federal Bar Council, Second Circuit Committee, 2007-present.

Mr. Murray has been a panelist at CLEs sponsored by the Federal Bar Council and the Institute 

for Law and Economic Policy, at the German-American Lawyers Association Annual Meeting in 

Frankfurt, Germany, and is a frequent lecturer before institutional investors in Europe and South 

America on the topic of class actions.

ROBIN BRONZAFT HOWALD, a native of Brooklyn, New York, returned home in 2001, 

after practicing for 18 years in Los Angeles, to open the Firm’s New York City office. 

Prior to joining the Firm in 2000, Mrs. Howald’s diverse civil litigation practice included 

commercial disputes, professional malpractice, wrongful termination, bankruptcy, patent, public 

contract and construction matters. As outside counsel for the City of Torrance, California, she 

also handled a number of civil rights and land use matters, as well as a ground-breaking 

environmental action concerning Mobil Oil’s Torrance refinery. She co-authored “Potential Tort 

Liability in Business Takeovers” (California Lawyer, September 1986), was a speaker and 

contributing author at the Eighth Annual Current Environmental and Natural Resources Issues 

Seminar at the University of Kentucky College of Law (April 1991), and served as a Judge Pro 

Tem for the Los Angeles County Small Claims Court (1996-1997).

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 14 of 25 Pg ID 3421
Page 11

Mrs. Howald became a partner in the Firm in 2004 and has prosecuted both class action and 

individual cases which have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for injured investors and 

consumers, including:

Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al. (Conseco), Case No. 02-cv-1332 (S.D. Ind.) ($41.5 million 

settlement); 

Lapin v. Goldman Sachs, Case No. 03-850 (S.D.N.Y.) ($29 million settlement); 

In Re: Mannkind Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 11-929 (C.D. Cal) 

(approximately $22 million settlement - $16 million in cash plus stock);

In re ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-913 (E.D. Va.) ($21.75 million 

settlement); 

In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd., Case No. 02-1510 (E.D.N.Y.) ($20 million settlement); 

In re Infonet Services Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-10456 (C.D. Cal.) ($18 

million settlement);

HCL Partners Limited Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc. , et al., Case 

No. 07-2245 (S.D. Cal.) ($13.75 million settlement); 

In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-2018 (C.D. Cal.) ($13 million 

settlement); 

Taft v. Ackermans (KPNQuest), Case No. 02-7951 (S.D.N.Y.) ($11 million settlement); 

Jenson v. First Trust Corporation, Case No. 05-3124 (C.D. Cal.) ($8.5 million settlement); 

In re Ramp Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-3645 (N.D. Cal) ($6.9 million 

settlement); 

Childs, et al., v. Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-80468 (S.D. Fla.) ($5.6 

million settlement); 

In re TTI Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-4305 (D.N.J.) ($4.3 million settlement); 

In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-0099 (D.N.J.) ($4 

million settlement); 

Yanek, et al. v. STAAR Surgical Company, et al., Case No. 04-8007 (C.D. Cal.) ($3.7 million 

settlement); 

Wayne Szymborski, et al. v. Ormat Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-132 (D. Nev.) 

($3.1 million settlement); 

Steve Crotteau, et al. v. Addus HomeCare Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-1937 (N.D. Ill) 

($3 million settlement); 

Ree, et al v. Pinckert, et al (Cholestech), Case No. 99-562 (N.D. Cal.) ($3 million 

settlement); 

In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-5416 (C.D. Cal.) ($3 

million settlement); 

In re Atricure, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-867 (S.D. Ohio) ($2.75 million 

settlement); 

Ree v. Procom Technologies, Inc., Case No. 02-7613 (S.D.N.Y.) ($2.7 million settlement);

Tatz v. Nanophase Technologies Corp., Case No. 01-8440 (N.D. Ill.) ($2.5 million 

settlement); 

In re Focus Enhancements, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-12344 (D. Mass.) ($1.4 

million settlement); and

In Re Allot Communications Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-03455 (S.D.N.Y.) ($1.3 

million settlement).

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 15 of 25 Pg ID 3422
Page 12

Married in 1985, Mrs. Howald and her husband have two sons. An avid distance runner since 

1999, Mrs. Howald has run the Boston Marathon four times and completed 27 additional 

marathons.

LEE ALBERT, a partner in the Firm's New York office, was admitted to the bars of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, and the United States District Courts 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey in 1986. He received his 

B.S. and M.S. degrees from Temple University and Arcadia University in 1975 and 1980, 

respectively, and received his J.D. degree from Widener University School of Law in 1986.

Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Albert spent several years working as a civil litigator in 

Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Albert has extensive litigation and appellate practice experience having 

argued before the Supreme and Superior Courts of Pennsylvania and has over fifteen years of 

trial experience in both jury and non-jury cases and arbitrations. Mr. Albert has represented a 

national health care provider at trial obtaining injunctive relief in federal court to enforce a fiveyear contract not to compete on behalf of a national health care provider and injunctive relief on 

behalf of an undergraduate university.

Currently, Mr. Albert represents clients in all types of complex litigation including matters 

concerning violations of federal and state antitrust and securities laws, mass tort/product liability 

and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Some of Mr. Albert’s current major cases include In Re 

Automotive Wire Harness Systems Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Mich.); In Re Heater Control 

Panels Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Mich.); Kleen Products, et al. v. Packaging Corp. of America

(N.D. Ill.); and In re Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D. Del.).

Previously, Mr. Albert had a significant role in Marine Products Antitrust Litigation (C.D. Cal.); 

Baby Products Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.); In re ATM Fee Litigation (N.D. Cal.); In re 

Canadian Car Antitrust Litigation (D. Me.); In re Broadcom Securities Litigation (C.D. Cal.); 

and has worked on In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

(E.D. Pa.); In re Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch Litigation (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex County); 

In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities 

Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); and In re Microsoft Corporation Massachusetts Consumer Protection 

Litigation (Mass. Super. Ct.).

EX KANO S. SAMS II earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the 

University of California Los Angeles. Mr. Sams earned his Juris Doctor degree from the 

University of California Los Angeles School of Law, where he served as a member of the UCLA 

Law Review. After law school, Mr. Sams practiced class action civil rights litigation on behalf of 

plaintiffs. Subsequently, Mr. Sams was a partner at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 

LLP (currently Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP) – the largest plaintiffs’ class action firm 

in the country – where his practice focused on securities and consumer class actions on behalf of 

investors and consumers. 

Mr. Sams has served as lead counsel in dozens of securities class actions, shareholder derivative 

actions, and complex litigation cases throughout the United States. In conjunction with the 

efforts of co-counsel, Mr. Sams briefed and successfully obtained the reversal in the Ninth 

Circuit of an order dismissing class action claims brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the 

Securities Act of 1933. Hemmer Group v. SouthWest Water Co., No 11-56154, 2013 WL 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 16 of 25 Pg ID 3423
Page 13

2460197 (9th Cir. June 7, 2013). In another securities case that he actively litigated, Mr. Sams 

assisted in a successful appeal before a Fifth Circuit panel that included former United States 

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sitting by designation, in which the court 

unanimously vacated the lower court’s denial of class certification, reversed the lower court’s 

grant of summary judgment, and issued an important decision on the issue of loss causation in 

securities litigation: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corp., 572 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 

2009). The case settled for $55 million.

Mr. Sams has also obtained other significant results. Notable examples include: Forbush v. 

Goodale, No. 33538/2011, 2013 WL 582255 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 4, 2013) (denying motions to 

dismiss in a shareholder derivative action); Curry v. Hansen Med., Inc., No. C 09-5094 CW, 

2012 WL 3242447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (upholding securities fraud complaint; case settled 

for $8.5 million); Wilkof v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 280 F.R.D. 332 (E.D. Mich. 2012) 

(granting class certification); Puskala v. Koss Corp., 799 F. Supp. 2d 941 (E.D. Wis. 2011) 

(upholding securities fraud complaint); Mishkin v. Zynex Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-

REB-KLM, 2011 WL 1158715 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss 

securities fraud complaint); Wilkof v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., No. 09-12830, 2010 WL 

4184465 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2010) (upholding securities fraud complaint and cited favorably 

by the Eighth Circuit in Public Pension Fund Grp. v. KV Pharm. Co., 679 F.3d 972, 981-82 (8th 

Cir. 2012)); and Tsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp., No. CV-07-02204-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 

2151838 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2009) (granting class certification; case settled for $10 million).

Additionally, Mr. Sams has successfully represented consumers in class action litigation. Mr. 

Sams worked on nationwide litigation and a trial against major tobacco companies, and in 

statewide tobacco litigation that resulted in a $12.5 billion recovery for California cities and 

counties in a landmark settlement. He also was a principal attorney in a consumer class action 

against one of the largest banks in the country that resulted in a substantial recovery and a 

change in the company’s business practices. Mr. Sams also participated in settlement 

negotiations on behalf of environmental organizations along with the United States Department 

of Justice and the Ohio Attorney General’s Office that resulted in a consent decree requiring a 

company to perform remediation measures to address the effects of air and water pollution.

Mr. Sams is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the John M. Langston Bar 

Association, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, 

and Public Justice. Mr. Sams regularly volunteers at the Brookins Legal Clinic at Brookins 

Community A.M.E. Church to provide pro bono legal services to low-income and 

underrepresented individuals in South Central Los Angeles. Mr. Sams also serves as a mentor to 

law students through the John M. Langston Bar Association.

ROBERT V. PRONGAY is a partner in the Firm’s Los Angeles office where he focuses on the 

investigation, initiation, and prosecution of complex securities cases on behalf of institutional 

and individual investors. Mr. Prongay’s practice concentrates on actions to recover investment 

losses resulting from violations of the federal securities laws and various actions to vindicate 

shareholder rights in response to corporate and fiduciary misconduct. 

Mr. Prongay has extensive experience litigating complex cases in state and federal courts 

nationwide. Since joining the Firm, Mr. Prongay has successfully recovered millions of dollars 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 17 of 25 Pg ID 3424
Page 14

for investors victimized by securities fraud and has negotiated the implementation of significant 

corporate governance reforms aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of corporate wrongdoing.

Some recent cases in which the Firm was appointed as lead counsel that Mr. Prongay has worked 

on include:

Representation of the lead plaintiffs in Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al., a putative 

securities class action on behalf of investors alleging violations of the Securities Act of 

1933 in connection with the company’s $189 million initial public offering. The lawsuit 

relates to misrepresentations and omissions about the company’s business practices and 

involvement in illegal stranger-originated life insurance transactions. This matter is 

ongoing; 

Representation of the lead plaintiffs in Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., a putative 

securities class action on behalf investors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934. The case relates to the company’s restatement of several quarters of 

financial statements as a result of, among others, improper revenue recognition and 

accounting irregularities. The court recently upheld the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ 

allegations. This matter is ongoing;

Representation of the lead plaintiffs in Ho v. Duoyuan Global Water, Inc., et al., a 

putative securities class action on behalf of investors alleging violations of the Securities 

Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case relates to 

misrepresentations and omissions about the financial condition and operations of a 

Chinese company publicly traded in the United States. The court recently upheld the 

sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations. This matter is ongoing;

Representation of the lead plaintiff in Crotteau v. Addus Homecare Corporation, et al., a 

securities class action on behalf of investors alleging violations of the Securities Act of 

1933 in connection with the company’s initial public offering. The case settled for $3 

million;

Representation of the lead plaintiff in Murdeshwar v. Search Media Holdings Ltd., et al., 

a securities class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the course of the litigation, the court found that the lead plaintiff had adequately 

alleged that the proxy materials provided to the investors of the special-purpose 

acquisition company contained misstatements and omissions about the company being 

acquired. The case settled for $2.75 million;

Representation of the lead plaintiffs in Mishkin v. Zynex Inc., et al., a securities class 

action on behalf of investors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case related to the company’s restatement of its financial results and involved 

allegations that the company had engaged in a systematic scheme to over-bill insurance 

companies from which the company had routinely sought payment for the sale and rental 

of its products. After the court found the lead plaintiffs had adequately alleged violations 

of the federal securities laws, the case settled for $2.5 million; and

Representation of the plaintiff in Binder v. Shacknai, et al., a shareholder derivative 

action alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty under state law by the board of 

directors of a publicly traded company in connection with the company’s restatement of 

its historical financial results. The settlement of the action conferred substantial benefits 

on the corporation through the adoption of corporate governance reforms designed to 

protect the company and its shareholders against future instances of wrongdoing and 

broadly improve the corporate governance of the company.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 18 of 25 Pg ID 3425
Page 15

Several of Mr. Prongay’s cases have received national and regional press coverage. Mr. Prongay 

has been interviewed by journalists and writers for national and industry publications, ranging 

from The Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Mr. Prongay recently appeared 

as a guest on Bloomberg Television where he was interviewed about the securities litigation 

stemming from the high-profile initial public offering of Facebook, Inc.

Mr. Prongay received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the University of Southern 

California and his Juris Doctor degree from Seton Hall University School of Law. Mr. Prongay 

is also an alumnus of the Lawrenceville School.

SENIOR COUNSEL

JOSEPH M. BARTON has represented plaintiffs in securities, antitrust, and consumer class 

action litigation since 1997. Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Barton practiced at Gold Bennett Cera 

& Sidener LLP in San Francisco.

During his career, Mr. Barton has successfully litigated many notable class actions throughout 

the United States while serving on the Lead or Co-Lead counsel team, including: HPL 

Technologies Securities Litigation, ($25.5 million settlement); CBT Group PLC Securities 

Litigation ($32 million settlement); Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, ($320 million 

settlement); EPDM Antitrust Litigation ($106 million settlement); Carbon Black Antitrust 

Litigation ($20 million settlement); Organic Peroxides Antitrust Litigation, ($37 million 

settlement); CR Antitrust Litigation ($62 million settlement); MCAA Antitrust Litigation, ($15.6 

million settlement); Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation ($30.4 million partial settlement); 

Laminates Antitrust Litigation ($40.5 million settlement); NBR Antitrust Litigation ($35 million 

settlement); Methionine Antitrust Litigation ($107 million settlement); and Polyester Staple 

Antitrust Litigation ($63.5 million settlement).

Mr. Barton earned his undergraduate degree in political science from the California Polytechnic 

State University, San Luis Obispo, in 1984 and his Juris Doctor from Golden Gate University 

School of Law in San Francisco in 1996. He was admitted to practice law in California in 1997. 

He is admitted to practice before the Courts for the State of California, the United States District 

Courts for the Central, Northern, and Eastern Districts of California and the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals.

JOSHUA L. CROWELL concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities cases on 

behalf of investors. Currently, he is pursuing federal securities class actions against Hansen 

Medical, Inc., and Green Dot Corp.

Prior to joining Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Joshua was an Associate at Labaton Sucharow 

LLP in New York, where he helped secure large federal securities class settlements in In re 

Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation ($624 million) and the Oppenheimer 

Champion and Core Bond fund cases ($100 million combined). He began his legal career as an 

Associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in New York, primarily representing clients 

in the financial industry in commercial litigation.

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 19 of 25 Pg ID 3426
Page 16

Prior to attending law school, Joshua was a Senior Economics Consultant at Ernst & Young 

LLP, where he priced intercompany transactions and calculated the value of intellectual property. 

Joshua received a J.D., cum laude, from The George Washington University Law School. During 

law school, he was an Associate of The George Washington Law Review and a member of the 

Mock Trial Board. He was also a law intern for Chief Judge Edward J. Damich of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims. Joshua earned a B.A. in International Relations from Carleton 

College.

KARA M. WOLKE's practice spans consumer, labor, securities, and other complex class action 

prosecution. She has extensive experience in written appellate advocacy in both State and 

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and has successfully argued before the Court of Appeal for 

the State of California.

Ms. Wolke graduated summa cum laude with a B.S.B.A. in Economics from The Ohio State 

University in 2001, and subsequently earned her J.D. (with honors) from Ohio State, where she 

was active in Moot Court and received the Dean’s Award for Excellence during each of her three 

years. In 2005, she was a finalist in a national writing competition co-sponsored by the American 

Bar Association and the Grammy® Foundation. (published at 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 411). 

Ms. Wolke is admitted to the State Bar of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well 

as the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts of 

California.

ASSOCIATES

DALE MacDIARMID is a native of Los Angeles, California. He holds a Bachelor of Arts 

degree in Journalism (with Distinction) from the University of Hawaii, and a Juris Doctor degree 

from Southwestern University School of Law, where he was a member of the Board of 

Governors of the Trial Advocacy Honors Program. He is admitted to practice in California, 

before the United States District Courts for the Southern, Central and Northern Districts of 

California and the District of Colorado. Mr. MacDiarmid is a member of Kappa Tau Alpha, the 

national journalism honor society, and before joining the Firm he was a writer and editor for 

newspapers and magazines in Honolulu and Los Angeles.

LOUIS BOYARSKY is an associate in the Firm's Los Angeles office. Mr. Boyarsky supervises 

the Firm’s Mergers & Acquisitions Practice and has served as lead, co-lead, and liaison counsel 

in corporate takeover actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Cases in which 

Mr. Boyarsky has participated have achieved additional consideration for shareholders, 

substantive changes to merger agreements, and critical disclosures regarding proposed 

transactions. Mr. Boyarsky has also successfully prosecuted securities and derivative actions and 

has provided commentary to national media outlets on high-profile cases.

Mr. Boyarsky’s recent litigation successes include In Rae Systems, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 

where his efforts as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee helped lead to an increase 

of approximately $13.1 million in merger consideration received by Rae Systems shareholders. 

As co-lead counsel in In re HQ Sustainable Maritime Indus., Inc., Derivative Litigation, Mr. 

Boyarsky achieved a $2.75 million settlement on behalf of HQ’s shareholders arising out of 

claims that HQ’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company’s 

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 20 of 25 Pg ID 3427
Page 17

shareholders by failing to maintain adequate internal controls. This settlement is currently 

pending court approval.

Mr. Boyarsky received his JD/MBA from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and Loyola 

Marymount University’s Graduate School of Business. While in law school, Mr. Boyarsky 

published his article Stealth Celebrity Testimonials of Prescription Drugs: Placing the Consumer 

in Harm’s Way and How the FDA has Dropped the Ball. Additionally, while in law school Mr. 

Boyarsky externed for the Honorable Suzanne H. Segal, magistrate judge for the Central District 

of California. Mr. Boyarsky is a member of the St. Thomas More Legal Honor Society, the 

Alpha Sigma Nu National Jesuit Honor Society and the Beta Gamma Sigma Business Honor 

Society. Mr. Boyarsky is admitted to the State Bar of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts 

of California.

In his free time, Mr. Boyarsky is active in his community and is currently a member of the AntiDefamation League’s Glass Leadership Institute.

CASEY E. SADLER is a native of New York, New York. After graduating from the University 

of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Mr. Sadler joined the Firm in 2010. While 

attending law school, Mr. Sadler externed for the Enforcement Division of the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, spent a summer working for P.H. Parekh & Co. -- one of the leading 

appellate law firms in New Delhi, India -- and was a member of USC's Hale Moot Court Honors 

Program.

Mr. Sadler is an associate in the Firm's Los Angeles office and he specializes in securities and 

consumer litigation. Mr. Sadler is admitted to the State Bar of California, and the United States 

District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts of California.

GREGORY B. LINKH is an associate that works out of the New York office, where he 

specializes in securities, shareholder derivative, antitrust, and consumer litigation. Greg 

graduated from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1996 and from the 

University of Michigan Law School in 1999. While in law school, Greg externed with United 

States District Judge Gerald E. Rosen of the Eastern District of Michigan. Greg was previously 

associated with the law firms Dewey Ballantine LLP, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & 

Gross LLP, and Murray Frank LLP.

Greg is the co-author of Inherent Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK 

LAW JOURNAL (Aug. 26, 2004); Staying Derivative Action Pursuant to PSLRA and SLUSA, 

NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, P. 4, COL. 4 (Oct. 21, 2005) and the SECURITIES REFORM 

ACT LITIGATION REPORTER, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Dec. 2005).

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 21 of 25 Pg ID 3428
EXHIBIT B

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 22 of 25 Pg ID 3429
IN RE COMERICA LODESTAR REPORT

Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT B

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

IN RE COMERICA LITIGATION

FIRM LODESTAR

FROM INCEPTION THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2013

Attorneys Hours Rate Amount

Peter A. Binkow 364.00 $ 725.00 $ 263,900.00

Andy Sohrn 91.50 $ 475.00 $ 43,462.50

Kara Wolke 20.70 $ 475.00 $ 9,832.50

Casey Sadler 115.35 $ 395.00 $ 45,563.25

David Liu 323.75 $ 350.00 $ 113,312.50

Total Attorney 915.30 $ 476,070.75

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 23 of 25 Pg ID 3430
EXHIBIT C

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 24 of 25 Pg ID 3431
IN RE COMERICA LITIGATION EXPENSES

OPERATIVE TABLE OF EXPENSES.1112201332.wpd Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT C

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

IN RE COMERICA LITIGATION 

EXPENSES

FROM INCEPTION THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2013

ITEM AMOUNT

PRESS RELEASES $ 260.00

EXPERTS $ 6,415.00

RESEARCH (WESTLAW, LEXIS, PACER) $ 3,338.78

TELEPHONE CONFERENCING $ 71.43

TRAVEL - AIRFARE $ 3,194.60

TRAVEL - AUTO $ 729.00

MEALS $ 436.12

PARKING $ 184.87

TOTAL $ 14,629.80

2:09-cv-13201-SJM-MJH Doc # 135-4 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 25 of 25 Pg ID 3432