Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/94595460/California-Complaint-against-Facebook-TECHREPUBLIC
Timestamp: 2016-08-26 17:42:55
Document Index: 737053856

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§16', '§ 77', '§77']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1 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 28LIONEL Z. GLANCY (#134180) MICHAEL GOLDBERG (#188669) ROBERT V. PRONGAY (#270796) CASEY E. SADLER (#274241) GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Darryl Lazar SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO DARRYL LAZAR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, Case No.
FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC.,
E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.c., Defendants.
Plaintiff Darryl Lazar ("Plaintiff'), upon information
by and through his attorneys, alleges the followin
and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Plaintiff, which ar Plaintiff's information and belief is based upon, amon
alleged upon personal knowledge. other things, his counsel's
which includes without limitation: (a) review an
analysis of regulatory filings made by Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook" or the "Company") with th United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (b) review and analysis of press releases and media reports issued by and disseminated by Facebook; and (c) review of othe publicly available information concerning Facebook. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT - 1Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Offering. In the IPO, th
This is a class action on behalf of persons andlor entities who purchased
otherwise acquired the common stock of Facebook pursuant andlor traceable to the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). 2. 3. Facebook operates as a social networking company worldwide. The claims in this action arise from the materially false andlor misleadin
Company offered for sale 421,233,615 shares of common stock at a price of $38.00 per share,
which 180,000,000 shares of Class A common were offered by the Company and 241,233,615 shares of Class A common stock were offered by existing stockholders. Company, Facebook expects to receive net proceeds of approximately selling stockholders expect to receive $9,066,041,719 According to th $6,764,760,000 an
underwriting discounts, commissions and offering related transaction costs. 4. As detailed below, the Registration Statement and Prospectus
materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.c. §§ 77k an 770. JURISDICTION 5. AND VENUE
The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of th
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 770). This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter 0 this action pursuant to Section 22 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v, which explicitly states that "[e]xcept as provided in section 16(c), no case arising under this title and brought in any
State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court in the United States.'
Section 16(c) of the Securities Act refers to "covered class actions," which are defined as lawsuits brought as class actions or brought on behalf of more than 50 persons asserting claims
under state or common law. This is an action asserting federal law claims. Thus, it does not fal
within the definition of a "covered class action" under §16c) and therefore is not removable t federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. 6. Each Defendant has sufficient contacts with California, or otherwise purposefull
avails itself of benefits from California or has property in California so as to render the exercis of jurisdiction over each by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair pla and substantial justice. 7. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, an
the total amount of damages sought exceeds $25,000.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 22 of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. § 77v. Defendant Facebook's principal executive offices are located within this County, the individual defendants conduct business in this County, and many of the acts and transactions alleged herein, including the preparation and dissemination of materially false and/or misleadin
information, occurred in substantial part in this County. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Darryl Lazar purchased Facebook securities pursuant andlor traceable t
the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO and has been damage thereby.
Defendant Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. 11. Defendant Mark Zuckerberg ("Zuckerberg") was, at all relevant times, Chairma
and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of th Company's Registration Statement filed with the SEC. 12. Defendant David A. Ebersman ("Ebersman") was, at all relevant times Chie
Financial Officer ("CFO") of Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registration Statement filed with the SEC. 13. Defendant David M. Spillane ("Spillane") was, at all relevant times, Director
Accounting for Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registratio Statement filed with the SEC. 14. Defendant Marc L. Andreessen ("Andreessen") was, at all relevant times, Registratio
director of Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Statement filed with the SEC. 15.
Defendant Erskine B. Bowles ("Bowles") was, at all relevant times, a director
Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registration Statement file with the SEC. 16. Defendant James W. Breyer ("Breyer") was, at all relevant times, a director
Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registration Statement file with the SEC. 17. Defendant Donald E. Graham ("Graham") was, at all relevant times, a director o
Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registration Statement file with the SEC. 18. Defendant Reed Hastings ("Hastings") was, at all relevant times, a director
Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registration Statement file with the SEC. 19. Defendant Peter A. Thiel ("Thiel") was, at all relevant times, a director
Facebook and signed or authorized the signing of the Company's Registration Statement file with the SEC. 20. Graham, Defendants Zuckerberg, Ebersman, Spillane, Andreessen, Bowles, Breyer,
and Thiel, are collectively
as the "Individua
Defendants. " 21. Defendant Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC ("Morgan
Stanley")
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 22. Defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("J.P. Morgan") served as an underwrite
to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 23. Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 24. Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"
served as an underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 25. Defendant Barc1ays Capital Inc. ("Barc1ays") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering.
LLC ("Allen")
served as an underwriter
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 27. Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Citi") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 28. Defendant Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC ("Credit Suisse") served as a
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 29. Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche") served as an underwrite
to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 30. Defendant RBC Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 31. Defendant Blaylock Robert Van LLC ("Blaylock") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 32. Defendant BMO Capital Markets Corp. ("BMO") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 33. Defendant C.L. King & Associates, Inc. ("C.L. King") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 34. Defendant Cabrera Capital Markets, LLC ("Cabrera") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 35. Defendant CastleOak Securities, L.P. ("CastleOak") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 36. Defendant Cowen and Company, LLC. ("Cowen") served as an underwriter t
Defendant E*TRADE Securities LLC ("E*TRADE") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 38. Defendant Itaii BBA USA Securities, Inc. ("ltau") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 39. Defendant Lazard Capital Markets LLC ("Lazard") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 40. Defendant Lebenthal & Co., LLC ("Lebenthal") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 41. Defendant Loop Capital Markets LLC ("Loop") served as an underwriter t
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 44. Defendant Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc. ("Muriel") served as an underwriter t Facebook in connection with the Offering. 42. Defendant M.R. Beal & Company ("M.R. Beal") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 43. Defendant Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. ("Macquarie") served as an underwrite
to Facebook in connection with the Offering.
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 45. Defendant Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. ("Oppenheimer") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 46. Defendant Pacific Crest Securities LLC ("Pacific Crest") served as an underwrite
to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 47. Defendant Piper Jaffray & Co. ("Piper Jaffray") served as an underwriter t
Facebook in connection with the Offering. 48. Defendant Raymond James & Associates, Inc. ("Raymond James") served as a
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 49. Defendant Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc. ("Ramirez") served as
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 50. Defendant Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated ("Stifel") served as a
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 51. Defendant The Williams Capital Group, L.P. ("Williams") served as a
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 52. Defendant William Blair & Company, L.L.C. ("William Blair") served as a
underwriter to Facebook in connection with the Offering. 53. Defendants Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch,
Barclays, Allen, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche, RBC, Blaylock, BMO, C.L. King, Cabrera, CastleOak, Cowen, E*Trade, Itati, Lazard, Lebenthal, Loop, M.R. Beal, Macquarie, Muriel, Oppenheimer, Pacific Crest, Piper Jaffray, Raymond James, Ramirez, Stifel, Williams, an
William Blair, are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Underwriter Defendants." CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 54. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civi
Procedure Section 382 on behalf of a Class, consisting of all persons and/or entities wh purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Facebook pursuant and/or traceable to th Company's false and/or misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connectio with the Company's IPO, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Excluded from th
Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and an entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
COMPLAINT -7 -
55. impracticable.
The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is During the relevant period, Facebook's securities were actively traded on th
NASDAQ Stock Exchange (the "NASDAQ").
While the exact number of Class members is
unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed Class. Th
Company offered more than 420 million shares of common stock in the IPO. Moreover, recor owners and other members of the Class may be identified from records maintained by Faceboo or its transfer agent and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form notice similar to that customarily used in securities class actions. 56. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as al wrongful conduct in violation
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 connection herein; (b) whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public i 58. Common questions of law and fact exist as to .all members of the Class
members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants' federal law that is complained of herein. 57.
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of th
Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.
predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. questions of law and fact common to the Class are: (a) whether the Securities Act was violated by Defendants' acts as allege
IPO omitted and/or misrepresented
material facts about th
business, operations, and prospects of Facebook; and
COMPLAINT -8 -
to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and th
proper measure of damages. 59. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficien Furthermore, as
adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable.
the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense an burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individuall redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
60. 61. Facebook operates as a social networking company worldwide. On or about February 1, 2012, Facebook filed a registration statement with th
SEC on Form S-1. Thereafter, the Company repeatedly amended the Form S-l, including on
about May 16, 2012, when Facebook filed with the SEC the final Form S-l/A (collectively, th "Registration Statement") for the lPO. 62. On or around May 18, 2012, the Company filed with the SEC its lPO Prospectus
(the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the "Registration Statement" that was declared effectiv on May 17, 2018. 63. In the lPO, the Company offered for sale 421,233,615 shares of common stock a
a price of $38.00 per share, of which 180,000,000 shares of Class A common were offered by th Company and 241,233,615 shares of Class A common stock were offered by existin
According to the Company, it expected to receive net proceeds of approximatel
$6.8 billion from its lPO after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, and offerin expenses.
1 2 3 4 5 64.
FALSE AND/OR MISLEADING REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS Statement was
Under applicable SEC rules and regulations, the Registration
required to disclose known trends, events or uncertainties that were having, and were reasonabl likely to have, an impact on the Company's continuing operations. 65. roadshow, However, the Registration the lead underwriters, Statement failed to disclose that during the IP
including, Defendants Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, an
Goldman Sachs, all cut their earnings forecasts and that news of the estimate cut was passed only to a handful of large investor clients, not to the public.
Therefore, the Registratio
Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. 66. On May 19, 2012, Henry Blodget published an article entitled, "If This Reall
Happened During The Facebook IPO, Buyers Should Be Mad As Hell.i." Therein, the article, i relevant part, stated: Part way through the Facebook IPO roadshow, scattered reports appeared that Facebook had reduced the earnings guidance it was giving research analysts. This seemed bizarre on a number of levels. First, I was unaware that Facebook had ever issued any earnings guidance--to research analysts or anyone else. Earnings guidance is highly material information (meaning that any investor considering an investment decision would want to know it). It represents a future forecast made by the company. Any time any company gives any sort of forecast, stocks move=because the forecast offers a very well informed view of the future by those who have the most up-to-date information about a company's business. So if Facebook had issued any sort of guidance, even quietly, this should have been made very public by the company and its bankers=especially because millions of individual investors were thinking of buying the stock.
COMPLAINT - 10-·
Second, if Facebook really had "reduced guidance" mid-way through a series of meetings designed for the sole purpose of selling the stock this would have been even more highly material information. Why? Because such a late change in guidance would mean that Facebook's business was deteriorating rapidly--between the start of the roadshow and the middle of the roadshow. Any time a business outlook deteriorates that rapidly, alarm bells start going off on Wall Street, and stocks plunge. So the report that Facebook had "reduced earnings guidance" during the roadshow just seemed like a typical misunderstanding between Wall Street and the public-something lost in translation between what a reporter was hearing from sources and what actually made it into print. But now Reuters has just reported the same thing again. Here's a sentence from a story Reuters just published on the IPO: Facebook also altered its guidance for research earnings last week, during the road show, a rare and disruptive move. Hmmm. If this really happened, anyone who placed an order for Facebook who was unaware that 1) Facebook had issued any sort of earnings guidance, and 2) reduced that guidance during the roadshow, has every right to be furious. Because this would have been highly material information that some investors had and others didn't--the exact sort of unfair asymmetry that securities laws are designed to prevent. This seems so obvious that I'm still very skeptical of the report. I'll now look into it. In the meantime, if anyone knows what Facebook did and didn't tell analysts, I'd be grateful for your help. 67. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $4.20 per share, or 10.99%
to close on May 21, 2012, at $34.03 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. 68. On May 22, 2012, Henry Blodget published an article entitled, "Faceboo Therein, th
Bankers Secretly Cut Facebook's Revenue Estimates in Middle of IPO Roadshow."
COMPLAINT - 11-
article, in relevant part, stated: And now comes some news about the Facebook (FB) IPO that buyers deserve to be outraged about. Reuters' Alistair Barr is reporting that Facebook's lead underwriters, Morgan Stanley (MS), JP Morgan (JPM), and Goldman Sachs (GS) all cut their earnings forecasts for the company in the middle of the IPO roadshow. This by itself is highly unusual (I've never seen it during 20 years in and around the tech IPO business). But, just as important, news of the estimate cut was passed on only to a handful of big investor clients, not everyone else who was considering an investment in Facebook. This is a huge problem, for one big reason: • Selective dissemination. Earnings forecasts are material information, especially when they are prepared by analysts who have had privileged access to company management. As lead underwriters on the IPO, these analysts would have had much better information about the company than anyone else. So the fact that these analysts suddenly all cut their earnings forecasts at the same time, during the roadshow, and then this information was not passed on to the broader public, is a huge problem. Any investor considering an investment in Facebook would consider an estimate cut from the underwriters' analysts "material information." What's more, it's likely that news of these estimate cuts dampened interest in the IPO among those who heard about them. (Reuters reported exactly this--that some institutions were "freaked out" by the estimate cuts, as anyone would have been.) In other words, during the marketing of the Facebook IPO, investors who did not hear about these underwriter estimate cuts were placed at a meaningful and unfair information disadvantage. They did not know what a lot of other investors knew, and they suffered for it. Selective dissemination of this sort could be a direct violation of securities laws. Irrespective of its legality, it is also grossly unfair. The SEC should investigate this immediately. We first heard rumblings about this last week, and we were so startled that we assumed the reports were wrong. Then, over the weekend, when Reuters reported the basic story again, we said that if it was true, Facebook IPO buyers deserved to COMPLAINT - 12-
be "mad as hell" about it. And now Reuters has the details, and they sound as bad as we had feared. There are a couple of possibilities for what happened. The first one is bad news for Morgan Stanley and the other lead underwriters on the deal. The second is also bad news for Facebook. According to Reuters, the underwriter analysts cut their estimates after Facebook issued an amended IPO prospectus in which the company mentioned, vaguely, that recent trends in which users were growing faster than revenue had continued into the second quarter. To those unnerving, Facebook's had hoped hour?) experienced in reading financial because its mere existence could revenue in the second quarter wasn't (why else would the language have statements, this language was have been taken to mean that coming in as strong as Facebook suddenly been added at the 11th
To those who aren't experienced at reading filings, however, the real meaning of this language could easily have been missed. Facebook's users have been growing faster than revenue for a while, so why would it be news that this was continuing? In response to the amendment, meanwhile, all three lead underwriter analysts suddenly cut their estimates. Now, regardless of why the analysts cut their estimates (and this will be important), estimate cuts of any sort are material information, so if this news was given to some institutional clients, it also obviously should have been given to everyone. That's the first problem. The second potential question and problem is whether Facebook told the underwriters to cut their estimates--either by directly telling them to, or, more likely, by "suggesting" that the analysts might want to revisit their estimates in light of the new disclosures in the prospectus. If there was any communication at all between Facebook and its underwriters regarding the analysts' estimates, Facebook will likely be on the hook for this, too. Speaking as a former analyst, it seems highly unlikely to me that the vague language in the final IPO amendment would prompt all three underwriter analysts to immediately cut estimates without some sort of nod and wink from someone who knew how Facebook's second quarter was progressing. (To get this message from the language, you really have to read between the lines). But even if this is COMPLAINT - 13 -
what happened, it is still unfair that news of the estimate cut wasn't disseminated quickly and clearly to everyone considering buying Facebook's lPO. The bottom line is that, even if dissemination laws were followed to the letter (which frankly seems unlikely), the selective disclosure here was grossly unfair. The SEC needs to look into this. And as it does, the SEC should also revisit the practice that allows underwriter analysts to develop estimates that are used to market lPOs to 'institutional clients but are not shared with the public. In Europe, research analysts publish full reports on companies BEFORE they go public. This is a much better system, and the U.S. should switch to it. But at the very least, the SEC should mandate that any information given to some clients (e.g., earnings estimates and changes in earnings estimates) be given to all clients. 69. On this news, shares of the Company's stock again declined precipitously, tradin
as low as $30.98 per share. FIRST CLAIM Violation of Section 11 of The Securities Act (Against All Defendants) 70. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above, excep
any allegation of fraud, recklessness or intentional misconduct.
This Count is brought pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
§77k, on behalf of the Class, against all J..?efendants. 72. The Registration Statement for the lPO was inaccurate and misleading, containe
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. 73. Facebook is the registrant for the lPO. The Defendants named herein wer
responsible for the contents and dissemination of the Registration Statement. 74. As issuer of the shares, Facebook is strictly liable to Plaintiff and the Class for th
misstatements and omissions. 75. None of the Defendants named herein made a reasonable COMPLAINT - 14investigation
possessed reasonable grounds for the belief that the statements contained in. the Registratio Statement were true and without omissions of any material facts and were not misleading. 76. By reasons of the conduct herein alleged, each Defendant violated,
controlled a person who violated Section 11 of the Securities Act. 77. Plaintiff acquired Facebook shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Registratio
Statement for the IPO. 78. Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages. The value of Facebook commo
stock has declined substantially subsequent to and due to Defendants' violations.
12 13 14 15 16 17 79.
SECOND CLAIM Violation of Section 15 of The Securities Act (Against the Individual Defendants)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above, excep
any allegation of fraud, recklessness or intentional misconduct. 80. This count is asserted against the Individual Defendants and is based upon Sectio
15 of the Securities Act. 81. Individual Defendants, by virtue of their offices, directorship and specific acts
were, at the time of the wrongs alleged herein and as set forth herein, controlling persons
Facebook within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Individual Defendants had the power and influence and exercised the same to cause Facebook to engage in the acts described herein. 82. Individual Defendants' positions made them privy to and provided them wit
actual knowledge of the material facts concealed from Plaintiff and the Class. 83. By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, the Individual Defendants are liable fo
the aforesaid wrongful conduct and are liable to Plaintiff and the Class for damages suffered.
COMPLAINT - 15 -
that this action is a proper class action under California Code
Civil Procedure Section 382;
damages in favor of Plaintiff
members against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result Defendants'
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred i
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees;
Awarding rescission or a rescissory measure of damages; and Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. Dated: May 22, 2012 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
LioneliGl~"" Michael Goldberg , Robert V. Prongay Casey E. Sadler 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Attorneys for Plaintiff Darryl Lazar
COMPLAINT - 16-
California Complaint against Facebook (TECHREPUBLIC) by Gina Smith1.3K viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Related District Attorney/California Complaintby prosper4less8220Sample Car Dealer Fraud & Elder Abuse Complaint Californiaby Steve VondranKPMG California Complaintby Isaac GradmanComplaint - California Brewing v. 3 Daughters Breweryby Darius C. GambinoComplaintby Carlo TalatalaD.E. 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract, And Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against ACE American Insurance Company, Et Alby ACELitigationWatchHow to Plead Abuse of Process - Arguments by johngaultLaw Offices of Mark Anchor Albert files Complaint for Insurance Bad Faith against Twin City Fire Ins. Co. and The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. www.maalawoffices.comby Mark Anchor AlbertSimilar to California Complaint against Facebook (TECHREPUBLIC) District Attorney/California ComplaintSample Car Dealer Fraud & Elder Abuse Complaint CaliforniaKPMG California ComplaintComplaint - California Brewing v. 3 Daughters BreweryComplaintD.E. 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract, And Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against ACE American Insurance Company, Et AlHow to Plead Abuse of Process - Arguments Law Offices of Mark Anchor Albert files Complaint for Insurance Bad Faith against Twin City Fire Ins. Co. and The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. www.maalawoffices.comCalifornia - Superior Court Complaint - Example Format