Memorandum of Law — Motion for Lead Plaintiff (Kaintz) — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
KENT J. RODRIGUEZ, Individually and On Behalf 
of All Others Similarly Situated, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
DRAFTKINGS INC. f/k/a DIAMOND EAGLE 
ACQUISITION CORP., JASON D. ROBINS, 
JASON K. PARK, JEFF SAGASKY, and ELI 
BAKER, 
Defendants. 
Case No. 1:21-cv-005739-PAE 
 
CLASS ACTION  
 
 
 
 
MICHIEL TEN HOORN, Individually and On 
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
DRAFTKINGS INC. f/k/a DIAMOND EAGLE 
ACQUISITION CORP., JASON D. ROBINS, 
JASON K. PARK, JEFF SAGASKY, and ELI 
BAKER, 
Defendants. 
Case No. 1:21-cv-06497-PAE 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF 
RELATED ACTIONS, APPOINTMENT OF TIM KAINTZ AS LEAD PLAINTIFF,  
AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL 
 

 
i 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii 
I. 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 1 
II. 
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..................................................................... 2 
III. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 
IV. 
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4 
A. The Related Actions should be consolidated. ............................................................... 4 
B. The Court should appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff. .................................................... 5 
i. 
Movant filed a timely motion and is willing to serve as Lead Plaintiff. .............. 6 
ii. 
Movant has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class. ......... 6 
iii. Movant satisfies the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy............... 8 
a) 
Movant’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. ............................. 8 
b) 
Movant is an adequate representative for the Class. ................................... 9 
C. Nothing rebuts Movant’s presumptive lead status. ................................................... 10 
D. Movant’s choice of counsel should be approved. ..................................................... 11 
V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 13 
 
 
 
 
 

 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
Cases 
Basic, Inc. v. Levinson,  
485 U.S. 224 (1988) .................................................................................................................. 11 
Bo Young Cha v. Kinross Gold Corp.,  
No. 12 Civ. 1203 (PAE), 2012 WL 2025850 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2012)................................ 6, 7 
Chahal v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG,  
No. 18-cv-02268 (AT)(SN), 2018 WL 3093965 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018),  
objections overruled sub nom. Chahal v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, No. 18-cv-2268 (AT)(SN), 
2018 WL 6803377 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018) .......................................................................... 10 
Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo,  
544 U.S. 336 (2005) .................................................................................................................... 7 
Glauser v. EVCI Ctr. Colls. Holding Corp.,  
236 F.R.D. 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ................................................................................................ 9 
Hom v. Vale, S.A.,  
No. 1:15-cv-9539 (GHW), 2016 WL 880201 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016) .................................... 7 
In re Aratana Therapeutics Inc. Sec. Litig.,  
No. 17-cv-1446 (PAE), 2017 WL 2491494 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2017) ........................................ 9 
In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig.,  
No. 15-cv-5132 (PAE), 2015 WL 5244735 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015) ....................................... 4 
In re Gen. Elec. Sec. Litig.,  
No. 09-cv-1951 (DC), 2009 WL 2259502 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2009)......................................... 5 
In re Hebron Tech. Co., Ltd. Sec. Litig.,  
No. 20-cv-4420 (PAE), 2020 WL 5548856 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020) ............................... 8, 10 
In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig.,  
227 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y.2004),  
rev'd on other grounds, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 11 
In re Millennial Media, Inc. Sec. Litig.,  
87 F. Supp. 3d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)....................................................................................... 5, 7 
In re Petrobras Sec. Litig.,  
104 F. Supp. 3d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)......................................................................................... 9 
In re SLM Corp. Securities Litig.,  
No. 08-cv-1029 (WHP), 2012 WL 209095 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2012)...................................... 11 
Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp.  
No. 97 C 2715, 1997 WL 461036 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 1997) ........................................................ 7 
Logan v. QRx Pharma Ltd.,  
No. 15-cv-4868 (PAE), 2015 WL 5334024 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2015) ................................... 11 

 
iii
Perez v. HEXO Corp.,  
No. 19 CIV. 10965 (NRB), 2020 WL 905753 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020),  
reconsideration denied sub nom. In re HEXO Corp. Securities Litig., 19 CIV. 10965 (NRB), 
2020 WL 5503634 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2020) ............................................................................ 9 
Prefontaine v. Research in Motion Ltd.,  
No. 11-cv-4068 (RJS), 2012 WL 104770 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2012) .......................................... 11 
Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma Plc,  
No. 16 Civ. 1763 (JMF), 2016 WL 3566238 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2016) .................................. 10 
Sgalambo v. McKenzie,  
268 F.R.D. 170 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ................................................................................................ 8 
Woburn Ret. System v. Salix Pharm., Ltd.,  
No. 14-cv-8925 (KMW), 2015 WL 1311073 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2015) ................................. 11 
Other Authorities 
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A) ......................................................................................................... 4, 6 
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B) .................................................................................................... passim 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ................................................................................................................... 8 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) ............................................................................................................... 1, 2, 4 
 
 

 
1
Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange 
Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 
1995 (“PSLRA”), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 42(a), movant Tim Kaintz 
(“Movant”) respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of his motion for an Order: 
(1) consolidating the above-captioned related securities class actions; (2) appointing Movant as 
Lead Plaintiff on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise 
acquired securities of DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. (“DEAC”, 
“DraftKings” or the “Company”) between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the 
“Class Period”); and (3) approving Movant’s selection of Roche Freedman LLP (“Roche 
Freedman”) as Lead Counsel for the Class. 
I. 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
There are two securities class actions pending before this Court against DraftKings alleging 
that DraftKings, Jason D. Robins, Jason K. Park, Jeff Sagansky and Eli Baker (collectively, 
“Defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (the “Related 
Actions”).1 Under the PSLRA, the Court must decide whether to consolidate the Related Actions 
before selecting a movant to lead this litigation. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii).2 As discussed 
below, consolidation is appropriate under Rule 42 because the Related Actions involve common 
legal and factual questions.  
 
1 The Related Actions are: (1) Kent J. Rodriguez v. DraftKings Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-05739 (“Rodriguez”), filed on 
July 2, 2021, on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings securities between December 
23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive; and (2) Michiel Ten Hoorn v. DraftKings Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-06497, 
(“Hoorn”), filed on July 30, 2021, on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aterian securities 
between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive. For the purposes of this motion, references to ¶ are to the 
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws filed in Rodriguez, ECF No. 1. 
2 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis has been added and internal citations have been omitted. 

 
2
After deciding consolidation, the Court must appoint the movant it “determines to be most 
capable of adequately representing the interests of class members” as Lead Plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)-(B)(iii). In making that determination, the PSLRA creates a presumption that 
“the most adequate plaintiff” is the person with “the largest financial interest” and who “otherwise 
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 . . .” Id.  
Movant believes he has the largest financial interest in the outcome of this litigation 
because, during the Class Period, he (1) purchased 3,006,838 shares of DraftKings common stock 
(“Stock”) and 14,589 DraftKings common stock options (“Options”); (2) retained 100,001 net 
Stock; (3) expended $175,002,301 net funds on Stock and $20,998 on Options; and (4) lost 
approximately $2,242,155 due to the alleged fraud. See Declaration of Velvel (Devin) Freedman 
(“Freedman Decl.”), Exes. A-B. Moreover, Movant satisfies the Rule 23 requirements because his 
claims are typical of the Class’s claims, and he will fairly and adequately represent the Class’s 
interests. See id. at Exes. A-C. In addition, Movant’s selection of Roche Freedman to serve as Lead 
Counsel should be approved because the Firm possesses extensive experience and expertise in 
securities fraud and other class actions. See id. at Ex. D. Accordingly, Movant respectfully requests 
that the Court: (1) consolidate the Related Actions; (2) appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff; and (3) 
approve Roche Freedman as Lead Counsel for the Class.  
II. 
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 
1. 
Whether the Related Actions should be consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a);  
2. 
Whether the Court should appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B); and 
3. 
Whether the Court should approve Movant’s selection of Roche Freedman as Lead 
Counsel for the proposed Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). 

 
3
III. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
DraftKings, a digital sports entertainment and gaming company in the U.S., operates 
through two segments, Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business. ¶2. The Business-to-
Consumer segment provides users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming opportunities 
while the Business-to-Business segment is involved in the design, development, and licensing of 
sports betting and casino gaming software for online and retail sportsbook and casino gaming 
businesses. Id. The Company distributes its product offerings through various channels, including 
traditional websites, direct app downloads, and direct-to-consumer digital platforms. Id. 
On April 23, 2020, DEAC (a special purpose acquisition company, “SPAC”) consummated 
transactions whereby (i) DEAC merged into the Company, the Company survived the merger and 
became the successor issuer to DEAC, (ii) the Company changed its name to “DraftKings Inc.,” 
(iii) the Company acquired DraftKings Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Old DK”), and (iv) the 
Company acquired all of the issued and outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited 
(“SBTech”). Id. Upon consummation of the preceding transactions, Old DK and SBTech became 
wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company. Id. 
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements 
regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. ¶4. Specifically, 
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SBTech had 
a history of unlawful operations; (ii) as a result, DraftKings’ merger with SBTech exposed the 
Company to dealings in black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing merger increased the Company’s 
regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, 
the Company’s revenues were, in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) 

 
4
accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a result, the 
Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Id. 
On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) published a report alleging that 
the Company’s merger with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming. ¶4. 
Citing “conversations with multiple former employees, a review of SEC and international filings, 
and inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international gaming websites,” Hindenburg 
alleged that “SBTech has a long and ongoing record of operating in black markets,” estimating 
that 50% of SBTech’s revenue is from markets where gambling is banned.” Id. Following 
publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings’ stock price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to 
close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 2021. ¶6. 
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the 
market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered 
significant losses and damages. ¶7. 
IV. 
ARGUMENT 
A. 
The Related Actions should be consolidated.  
The PSLRA contemplates consolidation where “more than on action on behalf of a class 
asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this chapter has been filed.” 15 
U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii). Under Rule 42(a), consolidation of related cases is proper where, as 
here, the actions “involve a common question of law or fact,” such that consolidation would avoid 
unnecessary cost, delay, and overlap in adjudication. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. 
Litig., No. 15-cv-5132 (PAE), 2015 WL 5244735, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015).  
“Differences in causes of action, defendants, or the class period do not render consolidation 
inappropriate if the cases present sufficiently common questions of fact and law and the differences 

 
5
do not outweigh the interest of judicial economy served by consolidation.” In re Gen. Elec. Sec. 
Litig., No. 09-cv-1951 (DC), 2009 WL 2259502, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2009). In deciding 
whether to consolidate related cases, “[a] judge must balance the gains in judicial efficiency with 
any threats of prejudice and confusion.” Id. 
The Related Actions at issue here present nearly identical factual and legal issues, allege 
identical claims in an identical class period, and name identical defendants. See generally Tate, 
ECF No. 1 and Coon, ECF No. 1. Thus, consolidation will prevent needless duplication and 
possible confusion, as well as potentially inconsistent jury verdicts. There is also little to no risk 
of prejudice to the parties from consolidation. Accordingly, the Related Actions should be 
consolidated.  
B. 
The Court should appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff. 
Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel in putative class 
actions brought under the securities laws are governed by the PSLRA. In re Millennial Media, Inc. 
Sec. Litig., 87 F. Supp. 3d 563, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Engelmayer, J.). 
The PSLRA directs the Court to appoint as lead plaintiff the party or parties “most capable 
of adequately representing the interests of class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Under 
the PSLRA, there is a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person that: 
(1) has “made a motion in response to a notice”; (2) has the “largest financial interest in the relief 
sought by the class”; and (3) “satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.” Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)–(cc). 
 
The presumption may be rebutted only upon “proof” that the presumptive most adequate 
plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique 
defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 

 
6
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). As set forth below, Movant has (1) timely filed a motion to be appointed 
lead plaintiff, (2) has suffered a $2,242,155 loss which constitutes largest financial interest in the 
litigation, and (3) satisfies the “pertinent” factors of Rule 23’s class certification requirements: 
“adequacy and typicality.” Bo Young Cha v. Kinross Gold Corp., No. 12 Civ. 1203 (PAE), 2012 
WL 2025850, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2012) (Englemayer, J.). Movant is therefore entitled to the 
PSLRA’s presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff to represent the class. Moreover, there 
are no unique defenses Defendants could raise against him that would rebut the PSLRA’s 
presumption. Thus, Movant should be appointed Lead Plaintiff in the Consolidated Action.  
i. Movant filed a timely motion and is willing to serve as Lead Plaintiff. 
Within 20 days of the first-filed Rodriguez complaint (i.e. on July 2, 2021), Plaintiff 
Rodriguez published the required notice through Globe Newswire, a widely circulated national 
business-oriented wire service. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). See Freedman Decl., Ex. E. Movant 
timely filed his motion within the next 60 days (i.e., by August 31, 2021). 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
4(a)(3)(A)(i). Movant has filed herewith a PSLRA certification and declaration attesting that he is 
willing to serve as Lead Plaintiff of the Class and remains willing to provide testimony at 
deposition and trial, if necessary. See Freedman Decl. Exes. A, C. Accordingly, Movant has 
satisfied the first requirement to serve as Lead Plaintiff of the Class.  
ii. Movant has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class. 
As demonstrated herein, Movant has suffered a $2,242,155 loss which constitutes the 
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class. He is therefore entitled to the PSLRA’s 
“rebuttable presumption” that he is “the most adequate” to serve as Lead Plaintiff.  
To determine who has the largest financial stake in the litigation, courts in this Circuit 
typically apply the four-factor test set forth in Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp. No. 97 C 
2715, 1997 WL 461036, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 1997). See e.g., In re Millennial Media, Inc. Sec. Litig., 

 
7
87 F. Supp. 3d at 569. The “Lax” factors are:  
(1) the number of shares purchased during the class period;  
(2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period;  
(3) the total net funds expended during the class period; and  
(4) the approximate losses suffered.3  
Id. “Of these factors, courts have consistently held that the fourth, the magnitude of the loss 
suffered, is most significant.” Id. at 569-70 (collecting cases). While courts in this district can 
employ either FIFO or LIFO when calculating losses, “[t]he overwhelming trend in both this 
district and nationwide has been to use LIFO to calculate such losses.” Bo Young Cha, 2012 WL 
2025850, at *3 (collecting cases). 
Applying the Lax factors to Movant, he: (1) purchased 3,006,838 shares of DraftKings 
Stock and 14,589 Options during the Class Period; (2) retained 100,001 net shares that he 
purchased during the class period; (3) expended total net funds of $175,002,301 on Stock and 
$20,998 on Options during the class period; and (4) suffered approximately $2,242,155 in losses 
due to Defendants’ fraud. See Freedman Decl., Exes. A-B.4 Movant, therefore, has a very 
significant financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. To Movant’s knowledge, moreover, 
there are no other applicants who have sought, or are seeking, appointment as lead plaintiff that 
have a larger financial interest than him.  
 
3 “The PSLRA does not specify a method for calculating which plaintiff has the ‘largest financial interest,’ and neither 
the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has provided instruction on the appropriate method.” Hom v. Vale, S.A., 
No. 1:15-cv-9539 (GHW), 2016 WL 880201, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016).  
4 To the extent the Court chooses to consider losses pursuant to Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, Movant has included 
it in his loss chart. 544 U.S. 336 (2005); See Freedman Decl. Ex. B; see also,  

 
8
iii. Movant satisfies the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy. 
The PSLRA’s final requirement is that the Movant “satisfy Rule 23’s requirements for 
class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.” In re Hebron Tech. Co., 
Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-4420 (PAE), 2020 WL 5548856, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020).   “At 
this early stage of litigation, however, only the last two factors—typicality and adequacy—are 
pertinent.” Id. As detailed below, Movant satisfies both the typicality and adequacy requirements 
of Rule 23. 
a) Movant’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 
A proposed lead plaintiffs’ claims are typical when “each class member’s claim arises from 
the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the 
defendant’s liability.” Sgalambo v. McKenzie, 268 F.R.D. 170, 173-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “The 
claims of a plaintiff are typical of the class when their claims and injuries arise from the same 
conduct from which the other class members’ claims and injuries arise.” In re Hebron, 2020 WL 
5548856, at *5 (citing In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 49–50 (S.D.N.Y. 
1998)). 
Movant’s claims are typical of the claims of the class he proposes to represent. His claims 
arise from the same alleged conduct by defendants, and he will make the same legal arguments in 
support of Defendants’ liability that other class members would. Further, he purchased all his 
Shares during the class period and sold them at a multi-million dollar loss. With more specificity, 
Movant, like the other members of the Class, acquired DraftKings securities during the Class 
Period at prices artificially inflated by Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements and 
was damaged thereby when the truth was revealed. Movant suffered losses similar to those of other 
Class members, and his losses resulted from Defendants’ common course of wrongful conduct. 

 
9
Accordingly, Movant satisfies the typicality requirement. See In re Aratana Therapeutics Inc. Sec. 
Litig., No. 17-cv-1446 (PAE), 2017 WL 2491494, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2017). 
b) Movant is an adequate representative for the Class. 
A lead plaintiff is adequate when they do “not have interests that are antagonistic to the 
class that [they] seek[] to represent and ha[ve] retained counsel that is capable and qualified to 
vigorously represent the interests of the class that [they] seek[] to represent.” Glauser v. EVCI Ctr. 
Colls. Holding Corp., 236 F.R.D. 184, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Perez v. HEXO Corp., No. 
19 CIV. 10965 (NRB), 2020 WL 905753, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020), reconsideration denied 
sub nom. In re HEXO Corp. Securities Litig., 19 CIV. 10965 (NRB), 2020 WL 5503634 (S.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 11, 2020). 
Movant has met the requirements under Rule 23(a)(4). See Freedman Decl., Exes. A-D. He 
has no interests that are “antagonistic” to the class. Glauser, 236 F.R.D. at 189. He has a “sufficient 
interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy on behalf of the class” indeed he’s lost 
millions of dollars due to Defendants’ fraud.  In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., 104 F. Supp. 3d 618, 624 
(S.D.N.Y. 2015). And he’s retained Roche Freedman LLP, experienced and qualified lead counsel 
to represent the class. Freedman Decl., at Ex. D. 
Movant is 53 years old, residing in the state of Washington, and is currently working as a 
real estate developer. Id. at Ex. C. Movant has been investing for more than 25 years. Id. In 
addition, as demonstrated supra, Movant has significant financial interest in the outcome of the 
litigation and has no reason to believe that his interests are adverse to those of the other Class 
members. Movant also understands the responsibilities of a Lead Plaintiff, including his selection 
of lead counsel, and the overseeing and monitoring of this litigation; and he takes those 
responsibilities seriously, as demonstrated by his negotiation of a cap on attorneys’ fees of less 

 
10
than the standard 33.3%. See id. at Ex. C. In sum, Movant is an adequate representative for the 
Class. See Chahal v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, No. 18-cv-02268 (AT)(SN), 2018 WL 3093965, at 
*4 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018), objections overruled sub nom. Chahal v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, No. 
18-cv-2268 (AT)(SN), 2018 WL 6803377 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018). 
Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, Movant has met all requirements for 
entitlement to the PSLRA’s rebuttable presumption. Movant has timely filed his motion, has (as 
far as he’s aware) sustained the largest loss from Defendants’ wrongdoing, and has made the 
preliminary showing necessary to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. 
Thus, Movant is entitled to a presumption that he is “the most adequate plaintiff.” See 15 U.S.C. 
§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)-(II). 
C. 
Nothing rebuts Movant’s presumptive lead status. 
Because Movant “has the largest financial interest in the case and satisfies the PSLRA’s 
preliminary Rule 23 analysis, he’s entitled to presumptive lead status.” In re Hebron, 2020 WL 
5548856, at *6. That presumption sticks unless it is rebutted. Specifically, “to rebut the 
presumption in favor of the movant with the greatest financial loss, there must be ‘proof’ of a non-
speculative risk that the movant will not be adequate.” Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma Plc, No. 16 
Civ. 1763 (JMF), 2016 WL 3566238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2016). 
No such circumstances exist with regard to Movant. While he purchased and sold 
significant amounts of the Stock and traded some options during the Class Period, he has 
specifically sworn that his purchases were made “based on my analysis of the stock.” Freedman 
Decl., Ex. C, ¶2. Moreover, speculation about the presumptive most adequate plaintiff’s 
investment strategy or patterns are not sufficient proof to rebut the PSLRA’s presumption. See, 
e.g., In re SLM Corp. Securities Litig., No. 08-cv-1029 (WHP), 2012 WL 209095, at *10 

 
11
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2012) (“Investors who traded in both options and common stock have 
repeatedly been found to be typical and adequate representatives of common stock purchasers.”); 
Prefontaine v. Research in Motion Ltd., No. 11-cv-4068 (RJS), 2012 WL 104770, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 
Jan. 5, 2012) (“[T]he prevailing view in this Circuit is that ‘day and momentum traders have the 
same incentives to prove defendants’ liability as all other class members, and their presence in a 
securities class does not create intra-class conflicts.’”) (quoting In re Initial Public Offering Sec. 
Litig., 227 F.R.D. 65, 108 (S.D.N.Y.2004), rev’d on other grounds, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006)); 
Woburn Ret. System v. Salix Pharm., Ltd., No. 14-cv-8925 (KMW), 2015 WL 1311073, at *7 
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2015) (“Investment strategies intended to mitigate risk do not render a movant 
atypical or inadequate.”); see also Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 246–47, 108 S. Ct. 978, 
99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988) (“[I]t has been noted that it is hard to imagine that there ever is a buyer or 
seller who does not rely on market integrity. Who would knowingly roll the dice in a crooked craps 
game?”). Consequently, Movant should be appointed Lead Plaintiff.  
D. 
Movant’s choice of counsel should be approved. 
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), the Lead Plaintiff may select and retain counsel 
to represent the class, subject to the Court’s approval. “There is a strong presumption in favor of 
approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff’s decisions as to counsel selection.” Logan v. QRx 
Pharma Ltd., No. 15-cv-4868 (PAE), 2015 WL 5334024, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2015). 
The record confirms Movant’s selection of counsel should be approved. Roche Freedman 
is qualified, experienced, and capable of effectively prosecuting this Action on behalf of Movant 
and the Class. See Freedman Decl., Ex. D; see also Opinion & Order, In re Qutoutiao Inc. 
Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-06707 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2020), ECF No. 22 (in 
appointing Roche Freedman to serve as sole lead counsel in the securities class action, the Court 

 
12
found “its attorneys appear appropriately ‘qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct 
the litigation.’”).   
In addition to its appointment as Lead Counsel in In re Qutoutiao Inc. Securities Litigation, 
Roche Freedman was appointed, and is serving, as Lead Counsel in the following securities fraud 
class actions: Carl D. Cachia v. Bellus Health Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-02278 (S.D.N.Y.); In re 
Renewable Energy Grp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-cv-01832 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Qiwi Plc Securities 
Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-06054 (E.D.N.Y.); Chapman v. Fennec Pharma Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-
812 (M.D.N.C.); Garcia v. J2 Global, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-06096 (C.D. Cal.); In re Sona 
Nanotech, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:20-cv-11405 (C.D. Cal.); and D’Arcy v. Sequential 
Brands Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-02305 (C.D. Cal.). Roche Freedman has also been 
appointed, and is serving, as Co-Lead Counsel in the following securities fraud class action cases: 
Clifford et al. v. Tron Found. et al., No. 1:20-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y.); Lee et al. v. Binance et al., No. 
1:20-cv-02803 (S.D.N.Y.); Williams v. KuCoin et al., No. 1:20-cv-02806 (S.D.N.Y.); Lowry v. 
RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-01939 (N.D. Ill.); and Hartel v. Geo Group, Inc. et 
al., No. 9:20-cv-81063 (S.D. Fla.).  
Moreover, Roche Freedman’s attorneys have decades of experience in complex litigation, 
including securities litigation and class actions on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants. See 
Freedman Decl., Ex. D. The Firm’s attorneys have previously been appointed in lead counsel 
positions in securities class actions and/or have clerked for federal judges sitting in the Southern 
District of New York, Northern District of California, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Eastern 
District of Louisiana, Southern District of Florida, District of Connecticut, Second Circuit, Fourth 
Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and United State Supreme Court. See id. Movant respectfully 

 
13
submits that this wealth of experience and qualifications demonstrates Roche Freedman’s ability 
to provide the highest caliber of representation to the Class. 
V. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court: (1) consolidate the 
Related Actions; (2) appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff; (3) approve Movant’s selection of Roche 
Freedman as Lead Counsel for the putative Class; and (4) grant such other relief as the Court may 
deem just and proper.  
DATED: August 31, 2021 
 
        
Respectfully Submitted,  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP  
/s/ Velvel (Devin) Freedman    
 
 
Velvel (Devin) Freedman  
Constantine P. Economides 
 Ivy T. Ngo (pro hac vice forthcoming) 
 200 South Biscayne Boulevard  
 Miami, Florida 33131 
 Telephone: (305) 971-5943 
 Emails: vel@rcfllp.com  
  
 ceconomides@rcfllp.com 
  
 ingo@rcfllp.com  
 
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant Tim Kaintz and 
Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class  
 
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 
Brian Schall (pro hac vice forthcoming) 
1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (424) 303-1964 
Email: brian@schallfirm.com  
 
Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant  
Tim Kaintz 
 

 
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on August 31, 2021, I authorized the 
electronic filing of the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will 
send notification of such filing to counsel of record.  
/s/ Velvel (Devin) Freedman    
 
 
Velvel (Devin) Freedman

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.562830.23.0.pdf

Size

406,245 bytes

SHA-256

ef7832f263aae6910d8c08f06b21cc6da32f44c9165144d52d974bb3e9f8aaf1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.562830.23.0.pdf

Original

archive.org