Exhibit 4 (Dkt. 366-5, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
Exhibit 4 (Document 366-5) in Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA, entered on the FLSD docket July 27, 2021, is a 54-page biography of The Rosen Law Firm P.A. with attorney profiles and representative cases. It opens with managing partner Laurence Rosen, a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law who clerked for Senior United States District Judge Stanley S. Brotman and founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent investors exclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation, followed by partner Phillip Kim, a 2002 graduate of Villanova University School of Law. The representative cases end with Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-5828-CRB, in which the firm states it serves as sole Lead Counsel in a class action on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Date
- 2021-07-27
Cite this document
“Exhibit 4 (Dkt. 366-5).”
Original at archive.org, dated 2021-07-27. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-07-27-covid-era-misc-aaf27b77-1/
, SHA-256 aaf27b772d33a13a29dc2cf128c70edfdda217b1657df512415b501b56a0bcce.Full text
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 1 of 54
EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 2 of 54
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
BIOGRAPHY
I. ATTORNEYS
LAURENCE ROSEN - MANAGING PARTNER
Laurence Rosen is a 1988 graduate of New York University School of Law. He earned
an M.B.A. in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
and a B.A. in Economics from Emory University. Mr. Rosen served as a law clerk to the
Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New
Jersey. Mr. Rosen entered private practice as an associate at the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom in New York City where he participated in a number of complex securities
class action and derivative litigation matters. He later served as an associate at McCarter &
English in Newark, New Jersey where he specialized in securities and business litigation.
After practicing general securities and commercial litigation in New York City with
Solton Rosen & Balakhovsky LLP, Mr. Rosen founded The Rosen Law Firm to represent
investors exclusively in securities class actions and derivative litigation. Mr. Rosen is admitted
to practice law in New York, California, Florida, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. Mr.
Rosen is also admitted to practice before numerous United States District Courts throughout the
country and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits.
In 2019 and 2020 Lawdragon named Mr. Rosen as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff
Financial Lawyers. Mr. Rosen was also named by law360 as Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar for 2020.
PHILLIP KIM – PARTNER
Mr. Kim graduated from Villanova University School of Law in 2002. He received a
B.A. in Economics from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in 1999. Prior to
joining The Rosen Law Firm, Mr. Kim served as Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 1
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 3 of 54
New York in the Special Federal Litigation Division. In that position, Mr. Kim defended a
number of class action lawsuits, litigated numerous individual actions, and participated in more
than seven trials. Mr. Kim focuses his practice on securities class actions and shareholder
derivative litigation. Mr. Kim is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to
practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern
District of New York, the Northern District of New York, the Western District of New York, and
the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In 2019 and 2020 Lawdragon named Mr. Kim as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff
Financial Lawyers.
JACOB A. GOLDBERG – PARTNER
Mr. Goldberg is a 1988 graduate of Columbia University. Mr. Goldberg received his
J.D., cum laude, from the Temple University School of Law in 1992. For over 23 years, Mr.
Goldberg has litigated complex cases at the highest levels, championing the rights of investors,
employees and consumers. Mr. Goldberg has recovered over $200 million for investors in
securities class actions. In addition to serving in leadership roles in securities class actions, Mr.
Goldberg has litigated many cases under state corporations laws, against faithless boards of
directors both on behalf of shareholders, in the mergers and acquisitions context, and,
derivatively, on behalf of corporations, to remedy harm to the corporation itself. Mr. Goldberg is
admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, New York, the United States
Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth
Circuits, and various United States District Courts across the country.
In 2019 and 2020 Lawdragon named Mr. Goldberg as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff
Financial Lawyers.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 4 of 54
JONATHAN A. SAIDEL – PARTNER
Mr. Saidel has had a long and distinguished career in Pennsylvania politics, as well as in
the roles of attorney, accountant and author. He served as Philadelphia city controller for four
consecutive terms, each time earning reelection by a wide margin, and enacting financial reforms
that have saved taxpayers upwards of $500 million. Later, in 2010 he went on to campaign for
lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, where he was runner-up to Scott Conklin by only a few
thousand votes out of almost 1 million cast. A Lifelong resident of Northeast Philadelphia, Mr.
Saidel’s tireless dedication to fiscal discipline reduced the city's tax burden and spurred
economic development. Mr. Saidel also pushed for important business tax incentives and
expanded minority and small business lending, all of which have revitalized the city, helping it
prosper and come back from the brink of bankruptcy in the early 1990's to become one of the
most vibrant cities on the East Coast.
Mr. Saidel’s book, "Philadelphia: A New Urban Direction", is widely considered an
essential guide for effective government and corporate governance and is required reading at
many colleges and universities.
Mr. Saidel received his JD from the Widener University of Law and is a graduate of
Temple University. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute
of Government, and Drexel University's MBA Program. In addition to being a Certified Public
Account, Jonathan is a recipient of the National Association of Local Government Auditor's
Knighton Award, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Award for Excellence,
multiple special project awards from the National Association of Local Government Auditors,
and the "Controller of the Year" award, a peer recognition presented by the Pennsylvania City
Controllers Association.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 3
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 5 of 54
JONATHAN HORNE- PARTNER
Mr. Horne is a 2009 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he received
the Lederman/Milbank Law, Economics, and Business fellowship, and holds a B.A. in
Economics & Philosophy from the University of Toronto. Mr. Horne began his practice at Kaye
Scholer LLP. Mr. Horne specializes in securities litigation. He is admitted to practice in New
York and the United States District Courts for the District of Colorado and the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York. Mr. Horne was named a Super Lawyer – Rising Star for the New
York Metro Area.
SARA FUKS – COUNSEL
Ms. Fuks graduated from Fordham University School of Law, cum laude, in February
2005, where she was a member of Fordham Law Review. She received her B.A. in Political
Science, magna cum laude, from New York University in 2001. Ms. Fuks began her practice at
Dewey Ballantine, LLP where she focused on general commercial litigation and then went on to
prosecute numerous ERISA and securities class actions as an associate at Milberg LLP. Ms.
Fuks is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States
Southern and Eastern District Courts of New York.
BRIAN ALEXANDER – ATTORNEY
Mr. Alexander graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 2008. He received a
B.A. from Cornell University, magna cum laude, in 2003. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm,
Mr. Alexander practiced complex commercial litigation at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and other
prominent law firms in New York. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond J.
Dearie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is admitted
to practice in New York and in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern
Districts of New York.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 4
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 6 of 54
JOSHUA BAKER – ATTORNEY
Mr. Baker graduated from the New York University School of Law in 2013. He received
a B.A. from the University of Maryland in 2009. Prior to joining the Rosen Law Firm, Mr.
Baker practiced complex commercial litigation for a New York firm. He is admitted to practice
in New York, Massachusetts, and United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern
Districts of New York.
JING CHEN - ATTORNEY
Ms. Chen received a Juris Doctor degree from Pace University School of Law in 2011,
Juris Master degree from China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, China and
B.A. in English Literature and Linguistics from Shandong University in Jinan, China. She is
admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey and China. Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm,
Ms. Chen practiced corporate law, commercial transactions and arbitration for over two years.
MICHAEL COHEN - ATTORNEY
Mr. Cohen focuses his practice on securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Prior
to joining The Rosen Law Firm in 2021, Mr. Cohen was an associate in the litigation practice of
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, where he advised corporate and individual clients on a
wide variety of litigation and regulatory matters in federal and state courts. He has also served as
a law clerk to the Honorable Corinne Beckwith of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Mr. Cohen is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
GONEN HAKLAY – ATTORNEY
Mr. Haklay graduated from Stanford University School of Law in 1995. He received a
B.A. in Political Science from The University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1992. After
several years as an associate at a large Philadelphia law firm, Mr. Haklay joined the Philadelphia
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 5
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 7 of 54
District Attorney’s office. As a prosecutor, he tried over 100 criminal jury cases and handled
both capital and non-capital homicide cases. After 12 years as prosecutor, Mr. Haklay joined a
prominent plaintiffs’ firm where he tried over ten asbestos cases, recovering millions of dollars
for his clients. As a young man, Mr. Haklay served as an infantryman in the Israel Defense
Forces. Mr. Haklay is admitted to the bars of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of
New Jersey, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the
United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
RYAN HEDRICK –ATTORNEY
Mr. Hedrick received his J.D. from the University of Chicago in 2019. He received his
B.A. in Linguistics and Political Science, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University in
2015. Mr. Hedrick joined the Rosen Law Firm in August 2019. Mr. Hedrick is admitted to
practice in New Jersey and his admission to New York is pending.
DANIEL TYRE-KARP – ATTORNEY
Prior to joining The Rosen Law Firm in May 2018, Mr. Tyre-Karp was a senior associate
in the securities litigation and corporate governance group at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where he
advised corporate and individual clients on a variety of high-stakes regulatory and litigation
matters in state and federal courts. Mr. Tyre-Karp’s extensive experience includes working on
several of the largest recent shareholder class action litigations (In re American International
Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, Docket No. 08-CV-4772 (S.D.N.Y.) and related opt-out
actions; In re El Paso Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Docket No. 6949 (Del. Ch.)),
participating in complex business and bankruptcy litigations (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc., et al, Docket No. 1:08-bk-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), and advising numerous clients facing
FINRA and SEC investigations. Mr. Tyre-Karp graduated with honors from Wesleyan
University in 2003 and received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2009,
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 6
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 8 of 54
where he served as Senior Notes Editor of the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. He is
admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York.
HA SUNG (SCOTT) KIM – ATTORNEY
Mr. Kim received his J.D. from the Columbia Law School in 2017. He received his B.A.,
magna cum laude, from Wheaton College in 2013. Mr. Kim joined the Rosen Law Firm in
January 2020. Mr. Kim is admitted to practice in New York.
BRENT LAPOINTE – ATTORNEY
Mr. LaPointe received his J.D., cum laude, from the University of Michigan Law School
in 2010, where he served as an Articles Editor on both the Michigan Journal of Law Reform and
the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law. Mr. LaPointe received a B.B.A. in Accounting &
Information Systems and Political Science, cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts-
Amherst in 2006. Mr. LaPointe focuses his practice on securities litigation.
LEAH HEIFETZ-LI – ATTORNEY
Ms. Heifetz-Li is a 2009 graduate of Columbia Law School, and received a B.A. from the
University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Heifetz-Li served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia S.
Kern, New York State Supreme Court, New York County. She has extensive experience in class
action litigation, having previously practiced at a large class action firm representing
shareholders in merger and acquisition litigation as well as shareholder derivative actions. Ms.
Heifetz-Li has worked on case teams that secured significant financial recoveries for
stockholders as well as corporate governance reforms in the Delaware Court of Chancery and
other courts throughout the country.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 7
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 9 of 54
NICHOLAS MANNINGHAM – ATTORNEY
Mr. Manningham received his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School and a B.A. from the
University of Michigan. Mr. Manningham focuses his practice on securities and shareholder
derivative litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Manningham was an associate at a boutique
law firm specializing in commercial and securities litigation, as well as an Assistant Corporation
Counsel with the New York City Law Department. During his time with the City, Mr.
Manningham was lead counsel on dozens of individual actions in Federal Court and first chaired
two jury trials in the Southern District of New York. Mr. Manningham is admitted to the bar of
the State of New York and to the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern
Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Michigan.
YU SHI – ATTORNEY
Mr. Shi received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2011 and his B.A., cum laude,
from Columbia University in 2008. He has been selected to Super Lawyers New York Metro
Rising Stars list each year since 2018. Mr. Shi began his career as a Special Assistant
Corporation Counsel in the New York City Law Department’s Economic Development Division.
Mr. Shi joined The Rosen Law Firm in 2012 and focuses his practice on securities litigation. He
is admitted to practice in the State of New York, the United States District Courts for the Eastern
District of New York, Southern Districts of New York, and the District of Colorado, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
JONATHAN STERN – ATTORNEY
Mr. Stern graduated from New York University School of Law in May of 2008, where he
was a Development Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law. He received his B.A. in
Philosophy with Honors from McGill University. Mr. Stern began his practice in the litigation
department of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and then went on to practice at the litigation
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 8
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 10 of
54
boutique of Simon & Partners LLP, where he participated in a Federal trial. Mr. Stern is
admitted to the bar of the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States
Southern and Eastern District Courts of New York.
ERICA STONE- ATTORNEY
Ms. Stone graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2013. She received
her B.A. in Political Science and Communications, cum laude, from the University of
Pennsylvania in 2009. She is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and the United
States District Courts for the Southern District and Eastern District of New York and the District
of New Jersey.
II. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
Christine Asia Co Ltd. v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., No. 15-md-2631 (CM) (SDA).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Class Counsel in this multidistrict certified class action in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially
false and misleading business information. The parties settled this action for $250 million in
cash.
Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., 15-CV-7199 (JMF). The Rosen Law Firm
was co-Class Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about its
true business condition. The parties settled this action for $110 million in cash.
In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-5146-CAS. The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Class Counsel in this certified class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 9
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 11 of
54
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements. This parties settled this action for $41.5 million in cash.
Hayes v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., No. 12-CV-1160-JST. The Rosen Law Firm
was co-Class Counsel in this certified class action in the U.S. District Court for Northern District
of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties settled this
action for $29.7 million.
Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, No. 14-CV-3251 (JPO). The
Rosen Law Firm was co-Class Counsel in this certified class action in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. The parties settled this action for $28.75 million in cash.
Beck v. Walter Investment Management, No. 14-cv-20880-UU. The Rosen Law Firm
was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of Florida. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties
settled the action for $24 million in cash.
Deering v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00367-SI. The Rosen Law Firm was co-
Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. The complaint
alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company
concealing an undisclosed stock promotion scheme. The parties have agreed to settle the action
for $20.165 million in cash.
Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., No. CV-15-1343-DOC. The Rosen Law Firm
was co-Class Counsel in this certified class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 10
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 12 of
54
District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. The parties settled the action for $20 million in cash.
Yang v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 14-cv-3538. The Rosen Law Firm was sole
Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus. Plaintiffs
and the underwriters have agreed to settle their claims for $14 million proof of claim in
bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a $2.075 million settlement with Tibet’s auditor.
In re USA Technologies, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-4565-JHS. The Rosen Law Firm
was sole lead counsel in this consolidated class action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and §§11b and 15 arising of the Securities Act out of the Company’s issuance of
materially false and misleading business information. The parties settled the action for $15.3
million in cash.
In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 12-CV-9456 (JSR). The Rosen
Law Firm was counsel to lead plaintiff in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court
for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading financial information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $14 million in cash.
In re Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-CV-4846 (WFK)(PK). The Rosen
Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 11
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 13 of
54
and misleading business information. This parties agreed to settle this action for $13.25 million
in cash, pending Court approval.
Kistenmacher v. Atchison (SeaWorld Entertainment Inc.), No. 10437-VCS. The Rosen
Law Firm was co-lead counsel in this shareholder derivative action in the Chancery Court for the
State of Delaware. The firm secured a $12.5 million cash payment to SeaWorld along with
valuable corporate governance reforms.
Hellum v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc., No. CGC-08-482329. The Rosen Law Firm was
class counsel in this certified class action in California Superior Court, San Francisco County
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the California Corporations Code in
connection with defendants’ offer and sale of unregistered securities. Plaintiffs settled this action
for $10 million in cash.
In re Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., No. CGC 05-440303. The Rosen Law Firm was
Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the assets of six related publicly
traded limited partnerships. After winning the first phase of a multi-phase bench trial, Plaintiffs
obtained a $10 million cash settlement for class members.
Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners LP, et al., No. CIV-08-936-M. The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel on behalf of purchasers of Quest Resource Corporation’s securities in this
consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Company’s former CEO and CFO misappropriating nearly $10 million. All classes and parties
to this litigation settled this action for $10.1 million in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 12
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 14 of
54
In re comScore, Inc. Virginia Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CL-2016-9465. The
Rosen Law Firm was co-lead counsel in this shareholder derivative action in the Virginia state
court. The firm helped secure a global settlement of this action and a related federal derivative
action consisting of a $10 million cash payment to comScore along with extensive corporate
governance reforms.
Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., No. 3:16-cv-783-K. The Rosen
Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. The parties agreed to settle this case for $9.5 million in cash.
Meyer v. Concordia International Corp., No. 16-cv-6467 (RMB). The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. The parties agreed to settle this case for $9.25 million in cash.
In re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, No. 11-CV-2598 (DLC) (Partial Settlement). The
Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges
violations of the Exchange Act and Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of
materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties agreed to settle Plaintiffs’
claims against the underwriters and certain other defendants for $8.7 million. The case continues
against other defendants.
Hufnagle v. RINO International Corporation, No. CV 10-8695-VBF (VBKx). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 13
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 15 of
54
the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading statements of revenue and earnings. The parties settled this action against the
company and its auditor for a total of $8,685,000 in cash.
In re Montage Technology Group Limited Securities Litigation, No. 3:2014-cv-0722 (SI).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements
relating to certain undisclosed related party transactions and the Company’s revenue. The parties
agreed to settle this action for $7.25 million in cash.
Blitz v. AgFeed Industries, No. 3:11-0992. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel
in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial information. The parties
agreed to settle this action for $7 million in cash.
Li v. Aeterna Zentaris. Inc., No. 14-CV-07081 (PGS). The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as Class Counsel in this certified class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $6.5 million in cash, pending Court
approval.
Cole v. Duoyuan Printing, Inc., No. 10-CV-7325(GBD). The Rosen Law Firm was Co-
Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 14
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 16 of
54
and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of
materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and
adequacy of the Company’s internal controls. Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants agreed to a
partial settlement of $4.3 million cash payment to class members. Plaintiffs and the underwriters
agreed to a separate $1,893,750 cash payment to class members. The total settlement was
$6,193,750 in cash.
In re Nature’s Sunshine Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Class Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements
concerning its financial statements and business practices. Following the certification of the
class and extensive discovery, Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case for $6 million in cash.
Carmack v. Amaya, Inc., No. 16-cv-1884-JHR-JS. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties settled
this action for $5.75 million in cash.
Miller v. Global Geophysical Services, No. 14-CV-708. The Rosen Law Firm was Lead
Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern of Texas. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act arising out a financial restatement. The parties settled this case for
$5.3 million in cash.
Bensley v. FalconStor Software, Inc., No. 10-CV-4672 (ERK) (CLP). The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 15
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 17 of
54
Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading statements about the Company’s true financial and business condition. The parties
agreed to settle this action for $5 million in cash.
In re Jumia Technologies AG Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-4397 (PKC). The Rosen
Law Firm is co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially
false and misleading financial statements. The collective settlement of this case and related state
action is $5 million in cash, pending Court approval.
Delorosa v. State Street, 17-cv-11155-NMG. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts. The
complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed
to settle this action for $4.9 million in cash.
Berry v. KIOR, Inc., No. 13-CV-2443. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in
this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint
alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled
this action for $4.5 million in cash.
In re Entropin, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 04-6180-RC. The Rosen Law
Firm was counsel to Plaintiff in this securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, and Lead Counsel in the related class action brought in
California state court against Entropin, Inc., a defunct pharmaceutical company. These actions
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 16
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 18 of
54
alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and violations various
state securities laws arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company’s lead drug candidate Esterom, respectively. On the eve of trial, Defendants agreed to
settle these cases for a $4.5 million cash payment to class members.
Fitzpatrick v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., No. 13-CV-01649. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead
Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties settled this action for $4.5
million consisting of $2.35 million in cash and $2.15 million in stock.
Munoz v. China Expert Technology, Inc., Case No. 07-CV-10531 (AKH). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of: (a) the Company’s issuance of materially false statements of
revenues and earnings; and (b) the Company’s auditors’ issuance of materially false and
misleading “clean” audit opinions. The parties settled this action for $4.2 million cash payment
to class members.
In re IDreamSky Technology Limited Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-2514 (JPO). The
Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act §§ 11 and 20(a) of the Securities Act and arising out of the issuance
of misleading business information. The parties settled this case for $4.15 million in cash.
Snellink v. Universal Travel Group, Inc., Case No.11-CV-2164. The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 17
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 19 of
54
arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The
parties settled this action for $4.075 million in cash.
Checkman v. Allegiant Travel Co., No. 18-cv-1758-APG-BNW. The Rosen Law Firm
was sole lead counsel in this class action in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties settled
this action for $4 million in cash.
Stanger v. China Electric Motor, Inc., Case no. CV 11-2794-R (AGRx). The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 in connection with the Company’s $22.5 million initial public offering. The parties
settled this action for $3,778,333.33 in cash.
In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-5046-LRD. The Rosen Law Firm was
co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District
of Washington. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company misstating certain study results relating to the Company’s
products. The parties settled this action for $3,537,500 in cash.
Rose v. Deer Consumer Products, Inc., No. CV11-3701 –DMG (MRWx). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising from the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s
true financial condition. Plaintiffs settled their claims against Deer and its auditor through two
settlements totaling $3.55 million in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 18
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 20 of
54
In re L&L Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-CV-6704 (RA). The Rosen Law
Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties settled this
action for $3.5 million in cash.
Sood v. Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., No. 13-CV-23878-UU. The Rosen Law
Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Company failed to disclose material facts
about its primary drug candidate. The parties settled this action for $3.5 million in cash.
Cheung v. Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., No. 13-cv-6057 (PAC). The Rosen Law firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Company’s failure to disclose material related party transactions
in periodic reports it filed with the SEC. The parties settled this action for $2.65 million in cash.
Separately, in the related case Omanoff v. Patrizio & Zhao LLC, No. 2:14-cv-723-FSH-JBC, The
Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged that Patrizio & Zhao, LLC, as auditor for Keyuan
Petrochemicals, Inc., issued materially false and misleading audit opinions. The parties have
settled this action for $850,000 in cash. The total recovery for Keyuan investors was $3.5
million.
In re StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-00177. The Rosen Law
Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b, 20(a) and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading press
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 19
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 21 of
54
releases regarding certain contracts the Company claimed to have signed. Plaintiffs settled this
class action for $3.4 million cash payment to class members.
Mallozzi v. Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., Case No. 07-CV-10321 (GBD). The
Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading statements of revenues and earnings. During the pendency of the Company’s
bankruptcy, the parties settled this class action for $3.4 million in cash.
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CV-3474-TJH. The Rosen Law Firm was sole
Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false statements regarding the clinical testing of one its
products. The parties settled this action for $3.4 million in cash.
Kelsey v. Textura Corporation, No. 14 C 7837. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
allegations that the Company misstated its true financial condition. The parties settled this action
for $3.3 million in cash.
Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., No. 14-8020 (FLW). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of
materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed to settle this case for
$3.275 million in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 20
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 22 of
54
Meruelo Capital Partners 2, LLC et al. v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., Case no. BC
352498. The Rosen Law Firm was co-counsel to plaintiffs in this action brought in California
Superior Court, Los Angeles County for violations of the California State securities laws against
the securities issuer and broker-dealer in connection with the sale of $2.5 million worth of
securities. On the eve of trial, plaintiffs settled the claims against the issuer for a cash payment
of $1 million. Following an eight day jury trial, Plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict in their favor
and against the underwriter for over $2.2 million (which included prejudgment interest). In sum,
plaintiffs recovered over $3.2 million, which represented 100% of plaintiffs’ principal
investment of $2.5 million and over $700,000 in prejudgment interest. The verdict was affirmed
by the California 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Chan v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., No. 16-CV-9279-KSH. The
Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange
Act in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial
statements. This parties have agreed to settle this action for $3.15 million in cash, pending Court
approval.
Ray v. TierOne Corporation, Case No. 10CV199. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of earnings and the
Company’s banking operations and business. The parties settled this action for $3.1 million in
cash.
Van Wingerden v. Cadiz, Inc., No. CV-15-3080-JAK-JEM. The Rosen Law Firm was
co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 21
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 23 of
54
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties
settled this action for $3 million in cash.
Pham v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, No. CV 15-CV-7894 (RMB). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $3 million in cash.
In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-CV-5416-DOC
(RZx). The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the §§ 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising
out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and
earnings. Plaintiffs settled this action for $3 million in cash.
In re Spectrum Pharms. Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-2279-RFP-GWF. The
Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act in connection
with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. Plaintiffs
settled this action for $2.995 million in cash.
Abrams v. MiMedx Group, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-03074-TWT. The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating the regulatory
compliance of its products. The parties settled this action for $2.979 million.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 22
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 24 of
54
Madden v. Pegasus Communications Corp, Case No. 2:05-cv-0568. The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the
Company’s direct broadcast satellite agreement with DirecTV and the Company’s reported
subscriber growth and totals. Plaintiffs settled this action for a $2.95 million cash payment to
class members.
Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, No. 14-CV-6637 (FB) (SMG). The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. The complaint alleged violation of §10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
out of the Company’s misstatements about its true financial condition and prospects. The parties
settled this action for $2.868 million.
In re Lihua International, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 14-CV-5037 (RA). The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements.
The collective settlement of the class action and consolidated derivative actions are $2.865
million in cash.
In re TVIA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-06-06403-RMW. The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b, 20(a), 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements by virtue of the Company improper recognition of revenues in
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 23
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 25 of
54
violation of GAAP. Plaintiffs settled this action for a $2.85 million cash payment to class
members.
Vaccaro v. New Source Energy Partners LP, No. 15-CV-8954 (KMW). The Rosen Law
Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of
the company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties
settled this action for $2.85 million in cash.
Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., Case No. 3:06-CV-1654-D. The Rosen
Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of § 10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial
statements in violation of GAAP. Plaintiffs settled this case for $2.75 million cash payment to
class members.
In re Sequans Communications Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-4665 (FB)(SJB). The
Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s misstatements about its true financial condition
and prospects. The parties settled this action for $2.75 million in cash.
In re Akari Therapeutics PLC Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-3577 (KPF). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading
statements about the results of a clinical study. The parties settled this case for $2.7 million in
cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 24
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 26 of
54
Romero v. Growlife, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03015-CAS (JEMx). The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial
condition. The parties settled this action for total consideration of $2.7 million, comprised of
$700,000 in cash and $2 million in stock.
Moleski v. Tangoe, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00146. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel
in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint
alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled
this action for $2.55 million in cash.
Hosey v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-CIV-02228. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel
in this class action in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Mateo County. The
complaint alleged violations of §§11 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance
of materially false and misleading business information. The parties settled this action for $2.5
million in cash.
Nguyen v. Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Case No. CV11-0405-DOC (MLGx).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of false statements concerning the
Company’s clinical trial involving its principal product. The parties agreed to settle this action
for $2.5 million in cash.
In re Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, Case No. SA CV-04-0876 DOC (PJWx).
The Rosen Law Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 25
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 27 of
54
for the Central District of California and the related California state court class actions. This
action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
sale of partnership interests that corresponded to the securities of Chaparral Network Storage and
AirPrime, Inc., n/.k/a Sierra Wireless, Inc. Plaintiffs settled this and the related state court
actions for an aggregate $2.485 million cash payment to class members.
In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C 10-9239-CAS (JCx).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading
statements of revenue and earnings. The parties settled this action for $2.425 million in cash.
Mikhlin v. Oasmia Pharmaceuticals AB., No. 19-cv-4349 (NGG) (RER). The Rosen
Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false financial statements.
The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.35 million in cash, pending Court approval.
Chu v. BioAmber, Inc., 17-cv-1531 (ADS) (GRB). The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.25 million in cash, pending Court
approval.
In re Akers Biosciences, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 18-cv-10521 (ES) (CLW). The Rosen Law
Firm was sole lead counsel in this consolidated class action in U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 26
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 28 of
54
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.25 million in cash.
Kubala v. SkyPeople Fruit Juice, No. 11-CV-2700 (PKC). The Rosen Law Firm was sole
Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act out of the Company’s failure to disclose material related party transactions that rendered the
Company’s financial statements false. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.2 million in
cash.
Tapia-Matos v. Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd., No. 15-CV-6726 (JMF). The Rosen Law
Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the
Company’s true financial condition and business prospects. The parties agreed to settle this
action for $2.2 million in cash.
In re Fuwei Films Securities Litigation, Case no. 07-CV-9416 (RJS). The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company’s $35 million IPO. The
parties settled this action for $2.15 million cash payment to class members.
Snellink v. Gulf Resources, Inc., No.CV11-3722-ODW (MRWx). The Rosen Law Firm
was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s failure to disclose the related party nature of certain transactions,
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 27
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 29 of
54
and the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties agreed to settle this action
for $2.125 million in cash.
Crandall v. PTC Inc., No. 16-cv-10471-WGY. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and certain
violations of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition. The parties agreed to settle
this action for $2.1 million in cash.
In re DS Healthcare Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 16-60661-CIV-DIMITROULEAS. The
Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.1 million in cash.
Henning v. Orient Paper, Inc., No. CV 10-5887-VBF (AJWx). The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and certain violations of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially
false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and business
prospects. The parties settled this action for $2 million in cash.
Pena v. iBio, Inc., 14-CV-1343-RGA. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in
this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged
violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out misstatements and
omissions relating to the Company’s purported involvement with an Ebola treatment. The
parties settled this action for $1.875 million in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 28
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 30 of
54
Campton v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 12-CV-2196. The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for
the company’s IPO. The parties settled this action for $1.8 million in cash.
Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., No. SACV 10-0252-DOC (RNBx). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. Following dismissal of the complaint by the district court, the
Rosen Firm obtained a reversal of the dismissal from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Company’s publicly stated
internal policies. The parties settled this case for $1.755 million in cash.
Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp., No. 16-00255 TJH (AFM). The Rosen Law Firm
was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information.
The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.75 million in cash.
Hayden v. Wang, et al., No. Civ. 518333. The Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in
this class action in the California Superior Court of San Mateo County brought on behalf of
purchasers of Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc. common stock in two private
placements. The Complaint alleged that the offering documents were materially false. The
parties settled this action for $1,615,000 in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 29
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 31 of
54
Burritt v. Nutracea, Inc., Case No.CV-09-00406-PHX-FJM. The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. This action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Arizona securities laws in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially
false and misleading statements of earnings and revenues. During the pendency of the
Company’s bankruptcy, Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million in cash and a remainder
interest of 50% of the issuer’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy.
Press v. Delstaff LLC, No. MSC 09-01051. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel
in this class action in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, brought in
connection with a “going private” transaction valued at $1.25/share for the 6.4 million shares
implicated in the transaction. The parties settled this action for $1,642,500 in additional
compensation to shareholders.
Shapiro v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 17-CV-2583 (RBK)(AMD). The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§11b and 15(a) of the Securities Act arising out of
the company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements in connection
with the company’s initial public offering. The parties settled this action for $1.55 million in
cash.
In re Lightinthebox Holding Co., Ltd., 13-CV-6016 (PKC). The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New
York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties agreed to settle
this action for $1.55 million in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 30
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 32 of
54
Hrasok v. Kraton Corporation, No. 18-CV-591. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed
to settle this action for $1.5 million in cash.
Weinstein v. RMG Networks Holding Corporation, C.A. 2018-0210-AGB. The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the Court of Chancery of State of
Delaware, brought in connection with a “going private” transaction. The parties settled this
action for $1,500,000 in additional compensation to shareholders.
Pankowski v. BlueNRGY Group Ltd, f/k/a CBD Energy Ltd., No. 4:15-cv-1668. The
Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations Securities Act and Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false financial statements. The parties
agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million in cash.
Guimetla v. Ambow Education Holding Ltd., No. CV-12-5062-PSG (AJWx). The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial
statements. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million.
Lee v. Active Power, Inc., No. l:13-cv-00797. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The
complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of
the Company’s issuance of false statements relating to a purported distribution agreement with a
major information technology provider. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 31
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 33 of
54
In re Northfield Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 06 C 1493. The Rosen
Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements
concerning its PolyHeme blood substitute product and business prospects. Following extensive
class discovery and litigation activity in bankruptcy court, the parties agreed to settle this action
for $1.5 million in cash.
In re PartsBase.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-8319. The Rosen Law Firm
was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The action arose from a $45.5 million initial public offering of common stock by the
defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including Roth Capital Partners and PMG
Capital Corp. Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million in cash.
Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., No. 10-728-SLR. The Rosen Law Firm was sole
Lead Counsel in the class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. Plaintiffs settled this
action for $1.5 million in cash.
Simmons v. FAB Universal Corp., No. 13-CV-8216 (RWS). The Rosen Law Firm was
co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties agreed to
settle this action for $1.5 million in cash.
Springer v. Code Rebel Corp., No. 16-cv-3492 (AJN). The Rosen Law Firm was co-
Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 32
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 34 of
54
New York and counsel in a related case in California Superior Court. The actions alleged
violations of the Exchange Act and Securities Act violations, respectively. Following the
bankruptcy of the Company, the parties settled both actions for $1.415 million.
In re Empyrean Bioscience Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02CV1439. This class
action in which the Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. The action alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act based on misrepresentations in defendants’ SEC filings and press
releases concerning the clinical testing of the Company’s GEDA Plus microbicide gel. After the
court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the parties briefed the issue of whether
the securities were traded in an efficient market. Prior to a decision on market efficiency,
Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.4 million payment to class members.
Balon v. Agria, Inc., No. 16-8376 (SDW). The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel
in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint
alleged violation of §10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s
manipulation of its stock price. The parties settled this case for $1.3 million in cash.
Pepe v. CoCrystal Pharma, Inc., No. 18-cv-14091-KM-JBC. The Rosen Law Firm is
serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information
and stock manipulation. The parties settled this case for $1.265 million in cash, pending Court
approval.
Desta v. Wins Financial Holdings, Inc., 17-cv-2983-CAS-AGR. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 33
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 35 of
54
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The parties have agreed to settle this case for $1.26 million in cash, pending Court
approval.
Tran v. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., No. 15-cv-24440. The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead
Counsel in this class action on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. While on
appeal following the dismissal of the case, the parties settled the action for $1.215 million in
cash.
Knox v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd., No. 2:15-cv-4003. The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false financial statements.
While on appeal following the dismissal of the case, the parties agreed to settle the action for
$1.2 million in cash.
In re Himax Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C 07-4891-DDP. The
Rosen Law Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The complaint alleged violations
of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s IPO. Plaintiffs agreed to
settle this case for $1.2 million cash payment to class members.
In re Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-1175. The
Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut. The action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the defendants alleged failure to disclose material adverse
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 34
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 36 of
54
information concerning the Company’s products under development and misrepresenting the
amount of time it would take to commercialize the products. Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.2
million cash payment to class members.
In re: M.H. Meyerson & Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-2724. This class
action, in which the Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel, was filed in U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act based on allegedly false and misleading SEC filings related to the planned launch
of an online brokerage business, and other material misrepresentations, which allegedly inflated
the price of Meyerson stock during the class period. Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.2 million
payment to class members.
Perez v. Izea, Inc., No. 18-cv-2784-SVW-GJS. The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial information. The parties agreed
to settle this action for $1.2 million in cash.
In re OPUS360 Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-Civ-2938. The Rosen Law Firm
was Co-Lead Counsel for this action brought in the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of the federal securities laws arising from a $75.0 million initial public offering of
common stock by the defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including JP Morgan and
Robertson Stephens, Inc. The Court certified the action as a class action and approved a final
settlement.
Ansell v. National Lampoon, Inc., Case No. CV10-9292-PA (AGRx). The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 35
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 37 of
54
Act arising out of a market manipulation scheme involving National Lampoon’s common stock.
The parties agreed to settle this action for $1 million in cash.
Garcia v. Lentuo International, Inc., CV-15-1862-MWF (MRWx). The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s
issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action
for $1 million in cash.
Fouladian v. Busybox.com, Inc., Case No. BC 248048. The Rosen Law Firm was Co-
Lead Counsel in this class action brought in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
The action arose from a $12.8 million initial public offering of securities by the defendant issuer
and underwriter. California and federal securities laws claims (Cal. Corp. Code §25401 and §11
of 1933 Act) were brought on behalf of a nationwide class of public offering investors. The
Court approved a $1.0 million cash settlement to a nationwide class of investors.
Singh v. Tri-Tech Holding, Inc., No. 13-CV-9031 (KMW). The Rosen Law Firm was
co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New
York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties settled this action
for $975,000 in cash.
Xu v. ChinaCache International Holdings, Ltd., No. CV 15-7952-CAS. The Rosen Law
Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information.
While on appeal following the dismissal of the case, the parties agreed to settle the action for
$950,000 in cash.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 36
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 38 of
54
Howard v. Chanticleer Holdings, Inc.., No. 12-CV-81123-JIC. The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for
the Company’s public offering of common stock and warrants. The parties agreed to settle this
action for $850,000 in cash.
Pollock v. China Ceramics Co. Ltd, No. 1:14-cv-4100 (VSB). The Rosen Law Firm was
co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company’s lack of internal controls. The parties settled this action for
$850,000, consisting of $310,000 in cash and $540,000 in stock.
Grand Clam Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. Rosen, No. 19-cv- 5362 (PGG). The Rosen
Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of Fusion Connect, Inc.
investors. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in connection with the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled
this action for $850,000, pending Court approval.
Katz v. China Century Dragon Media, Inc., Case no. CV 11-02769 JAK (SSx). The
Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. Following entry of
default against the issuer and certification of the class, the non-issuer defendants and Plaintiffs
agreed to resolve their claims against the non-issuer defendants for $778,333.33.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 37
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 39 of
54
Allen v. Pixarbio Corp., No. 2:17-cv-496-CCC-SM. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead
Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint
alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed
to settle this case for $750,000 in cash.
Hartmann v. Verb Technology Company, Inc., No. CV-19-5896-GW-(MAAx). The
Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading
business information. The parties agreed to settle this case for $640,000 in cash, pending Court
approval.
In re Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, 17-cv-832 (PAC). The Rosen
Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Following the dismissal of the action and while on appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the parties settled this action for $625,000 in cash.
In re China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:11-CV-
02768 PSG (SSx). The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations
of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial
statements. The parties agreed to partially settle this action for $631,600 in cash. A default
judgment was obtained against the issuer.
Gianoukas v. Tullio and Riiska, Case No. 02CC18223. The Rosen Law Firm was lead
counsel to a group of twenty-one plaintiffs that brought claims of fraud and negligent
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 38
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 40 of
54
misrepresentation in California Superior Court, Orange County against the former Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officers of a publicly traded software company, NQL Inc. The
complaint alleged that the officers issued a series of false and misleading press releases
concerning the business of NQL for the purpose of inducing the purchase and retention of NQL
securities. Plaintiffs settled the action favorably for a confidential amount.
The BoxLot Company v. InfoSpace, Inc., Case No. GIC 779231. The Rosen Law Firm
was plaintiff’s counsel for this action filed in California Superior Court, San Diego County
which arose from the aborted merger agreement and ultimate sale of The BoxLot Company’s
assets to InfoSpace. The action alleged violations of California securities laws (Cal. Corp. Code
§25400 & §25401) and common laws and sought damages of $92.8 million from InfoSpace and
its CEO, Naveen Jain. The case settled favorably for plaintiffs for a confidential amount.
Hull v. Global Digital Solutions, Inc., No. 16-5153 (FLW). The Rosen Law Firm was
sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The
complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed
to settle this action for $595,000 in cash.
Scalfani v. Misonix Inc., No. 16-cv-5215 (ADS) (AKT). The Rosen Law Firm was sole
Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties have settled this action for
$500,000 in cash—resulting in a recovery of nearly 100% of damages.
Teague v. Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., No. 10-CV-634-BLW. The Rosen Law Firm
was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 39
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 41 of
54
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements and business
condition. The parties settled this action for $450,000.
Huttenstine v. Mast, Case No. 4:05-cv-152 F(3). The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s material misstatements and omissions
concerning the nature of certain sales contracts it had entered into. Plaintiffs have preliminarily
agreed to settle this action for a $425,000 cash payment to class members.
In re Forcefield Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-3020 (NRB). The Rosen
Law Firm was Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading information. The
parties agreed to settle this case for $414,500.
Kinzinger v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Case No. 03-0922608. The Rosen Law
Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this class action filed in Utah state court alleged violations
of the Utah Securities Act against Paradigm Medical arising out of false and misleading
statements made to investors in a $5.0 million private placement of securities. The court
approved a $625,000 settlement on behalf of the private placement purchasers.
III. SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. IS CURRENTLY
LEAD COUNSEL
In re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, No. 11-CV-2598 (DLC). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 40
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 42 of
54
Exchange Act and Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements. The class is certified and this action is in discovery.
In re Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Litigation, 17-cv-8983 (NRB). The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false
and business information. The firm obtained reversal of the District Court’s dismissal from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The action is in discovery.
Van Dorp v. Indivior PLC, No. 19-CV-10792-ES-MAH. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in connection
with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. This
action is at the pleading stage.
Sell v. Acer Therapeutics, Inc., No. 19-CV-6137 (GHW). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. The action is in discovery.
Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited, No. 19-CV-24 (DLI) (LB). The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange
Act in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial
statements. The action is at the pleading stage.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 41
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 43 of
54
Luo v. Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc., No. 12-45-WAL-GWC. The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the
U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division. The complaint alleges violations of
the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading
financial statements. The action is at the pleading stage.
Machniewicz v. Uxin Limited, No. 19-CV-822 (MKB)(VMS). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements.
The action is at the pleading stage.
Pepicelli v. Innocoll Holdings Public Ltd., No. 17-341. The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This action is in discovery.
Ito-Stone v. DBV Technologies S.A., No. 19-CV-525-MCA-LDW. The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This action is at the pleading stage.
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., No. 18-cv-3396-PWG. The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 42
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 44 of
54
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The action is at the pleading stage.
Ortiz v. Canopy Growth Corporation, No. 19-CV-20543-KM-ESK. The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This action is at the pleading stage.
Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust v. Sandridge Energy, Inc., et al. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. This action is in
discovery.
In re Zillow Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C17-1387-JCC. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving sole Class Counsel in this certified class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false
and misleading business information. This case is in discovery.
Lai v. PPDAI Group Inc., No. 18-cv-6716 (FB)(JC). The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of New York. The complaint alleges violations the Securities Exchange Act and
Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case is at the pleading stage.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 43
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 45 of
54
Davis v. Katanga Mining Limited, No. 17-cv-12188-CCC-JBC. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in connection
with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. This
action is at the pleading stage.
Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., No. CV 18-10725-AB-AFM. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The action is in discovery.
In re Maiden Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-5296-RMB-JS. The Rosen
Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This action is at the pleading stage.
Renner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., No. 18-cv-11603 (GHW). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case is at the pleading stage.
Acerra v. Trulieve Cannabis Corp., No. 20-cv-186-RH-MJF. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida. The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act in
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 44
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 46 of
54
connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This action is at the pleading stage.
In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Sec. Litig., No. CV 12-4621- JFW (PLAx). The
Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action.
Following dismissal of the complaint by the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit overturned the dismissal. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company overstating it assets and cash balances
and misstating the Company’s internal controls. The action is in discovery.
Feierstein v. Corrrevio Pharma Corp., No. 19-cv-11361 (VEC). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case is at the pleading stage.
Oh v. Hanmi Financial Corporation, No. CV 20-2844-AB (JCx). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action. The complaint alleges violations of
§§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of
materially false and misleading financial information. This case is at the pleading stage.
In re RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-1841-AHB. The
Rosen Law Firm is serving as co-lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM, Inc. Sec. Litig., 17-cv-916 (RA). The Rosen
Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 45
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 47 of
54
District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false
and business information. The case is in discovery.
Willard v. UP Fintech Limited, 19-cv-10326 (JMF). The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§11, and 15 of the Securities Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business information. The case at
the pleading stage.
Marchand v. Momo, Inc., 19-CV-4433 (GBD). The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving
as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business information. The
case at the pleading stage.
Vataj v. Johnson (PG&E), No. 19-cv-6996-HSG. The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case at the pleading stage.
Ma v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 20-CV-3697-RS. The Rosen Law Firm is currently
serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case at the pleading stage.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 46
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 48 of
54
Hashem v. NMC Health Plc, No. CV-20-2303-CBM (MAAx). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case at the pleading stage.
In re Sundial Growers, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-cv-8913 (ALC). The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case at the pleading stage.
In re The RealReal, Inc. Securities Litigation, The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving
as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District
of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially
false and business information. The case at the pleading stage.
Correa v. Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc., 20-CV-946-RBJ. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
District of Colorado. The complaint alleges violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business information. The case at
the pleading stage.
Kumar v. SAExploration Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-3089. The Rosen Law Firm is
serving as co-lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 47
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 49 of
54
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Kim v. Allakos, Inc., No. 20-cv-1720-JSW. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as
sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business information. The case at
the pleading stage.
White v. Just Energy Group Inc., No. H-20-590. The Rosen Law Firm is serving as sole
lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. This case is
at the pleading stage.
He v. China Zenix Auto International, No. 18-cv-15530 (JLL) (JAD). The Rosen Law
Firm is serving as sole lead counsel in this consolidated class action pending in U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. This case is in discovery.
Horowitz v. Sunlands Technology Group, No. 19-CV-3744 (FB)(SMG). The Rosen Law
Firm is serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Kasilingam v. Tilray, Inc., No. 20-CV-3459 (PAC). The Rosen Law Firm is serving as
sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 48
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 50 of
54
New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information.
This case is at the pleading stage.
Salim v. Mobile TeleSystems PJSC, No. 19-cv-1589 (AMD) (RLM). The Rosen Law
Firm is serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Jun v. 500.com Limited, No. 20-cv-806 (SJF) (SMG). The Rosen Law Firm is serving as
sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information.
This case is at the pleading stage.
Brandel v. Sibanye Gold Limited, No. 18-cv-3721 (KAM) (PK). The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information. The case is at the pleading stage.
In re XP Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 20-cv-1502 (BMC). The Rosen Law Firm is
serving as co-lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§11, 12(a)(2) and 15 Securities Act
arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information.
This case is at the pleading stage.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 49
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 51 of
54
In re Tupperware Brands Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 20-cv-357-GJK. The
Rosen Law Firm is serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and
misleading business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
In re Aceto Corporation Sec. Litig., No. 18-CV-2425 (JFB)(AYS). The Rosen Law Firm
is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false
financial information. The case is at the pleading stage.
Thomas v. China Techfaith Wireless, 19-CV-134-FB-CLP. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false financial
information. The case is at the pleading stage.
In re Akazoo S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 20-cv-1900 (BMC). The Rosen Law Firm is
serving as co-lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act and
Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial
and business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Gordon v. Tencent Music Entertainment Group, No. 19-CV-5465 (LDH) (SMG). The
Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges
violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and §§11 and 15 of the Securities
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 50
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 52 of
54
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false financial information. The case is
at the pleading stage.
Lee v. IQIYI, Inc., No. 20-cv-1830 (LDH)(JO). The Rosen Law Firm is serving as co-
lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act and Securities Act arising
out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial and business
information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Luo v. Sogou, Inc., No. 19-cv-230 (JPO). The Rosen Law Firm is serving as co-Lead
counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. This case is
at the pleading stage.
In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-1424 (NGG) (VMS). The Rosen Law
Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the
Company’s issuance of materially false business information. The case is at the pleading stage.
Kupfner v. Altice USA Inc., No. 18-cv-6601-FB-PK. The Rosen Law Firm is serving as
sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and §§11, and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false
and misleading business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Castillo v. 6D Global Technologies, Inc., No. 15-cv-8061 (RWS). The Rosen Law Firm
is serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action that is pending in U.S. District Court for the
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 51
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 53 of
54
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false statements
about the improper stock manipulation. After successfully appealing the dismissal of this action
with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, this case is in discovery.
City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., No. 1:19-
cv-PLR-CHS. The Rosen Law Firm is serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending
in U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges violations of
§§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of
materially false and misleading business information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Vanderhoef v. China Auto Logistics, Inc., No. 18-cv-10174-CCC. The Rosen Law Firm
is serving as sole lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information. This case is at the pleading stage.
Miller v. Sonus Networks, Inc., No. 18-12344-GAO. The Rosen Law Firm is serving as
co- lead counsel in this class action pending in U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out
of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. This case is
at the pleading stage.
Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 17-CV-6956-EMC. The Rosen Law Firm is
currently serving as co- Lead Counsel in this class action on appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and business
information.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 52
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 366-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 54 of
54
Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-5828-CRB. The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving
as sole Lead Counsel in this class action currently on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business
information.
ROSEN LAW FIRM BIOGRAPHY 53
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.366.5.pdf
- Size
- 406,586 bytes
- SHA-256
- aaf27b772d33a13a29dc2cf128c70edfdda217b1657df512415b501b56a0bcce
- Original
- archive.org