GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP LIONEL Z. GLANCY...

DECLARATION OF LIONEL Z. GLANCY IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF MOVANT CARBON COUNTY RETIREMENT BOARD’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD

PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP LIONEL Z. GLANCY (#134180) MICHAEL GOLDBERG (#188669) ROBERT V. PRONGAY (#270796) CASEY E. SADLER (#274241) 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: [email protected] MURRAY FRANK LLP Marvin L. Frank Katherine E. Smith 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1818 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 Email: [email protected]

[email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WOBURN RETIREMENT SYSTEM , Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SHAW HONG, ANSON CHAN, and AURELIO “RAY” CISNEROS,

Defendants.

Case No. Case No. 11-CV-5235-RMW DECLARATION OF LIONEL GLANCY IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF MOVANT CARBON COUNTY RETIREMENT BOARD’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL

Date: February 3, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 6, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

[Caption continued on following page]

Case5:11-cv-05235-RMW Document54 Filed12/27/11 Page1 of 5

DECLARATION OF LIONEL Z. GLANCY IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF MOVANT CARBON COUNTY RETIREMENT BOARD’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD

PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LABORERS LOCAL 235 BENEFIT FUNDS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SHAW HONG, ANSON CHAN, and AURELIO CISNEROS, Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-5372-JSW

CARBON COUNTY RETIREMENT BOARD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SHAW HONG, ANSON CHAN, and AURELIO CISNEROS, Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-6593-HRL


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Page 1

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA ELECTRONIC POSTING PURSUANT TO NORTHENDISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL RULES AND ECF GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

I, the undersigned, say:

I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the office of a member of the Bar ofthis Court. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is1925Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067.

On December 27, 2011, I caused to be served the following document:

DECLARATION OF LIONEL GLANCY IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFMOVANT CARBON COUNTY RETIREMENT BOARD'S MOTION FORCONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OFLEAD COUNSEL

By posting the document to the ECF Website of the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California, for receipt electronically by the parties as reflected on the attachedCourt’s Service List.

And on any non-ECF registered party:

By Mail: By placing true and correct copies thereof in individual sealed envelopes, withpostage thereon fully prepaid, which I deposited with my employer for collection and mailing bythe United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with my employer’s practice for thecollection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Inthe ordinary course of business, this correspondence would be deposited by my employer with theUnited States Postal Service that same day.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that theforegoing is true and correct. Executed on December 27, 2011, at Los Angeles, California.

I also hereby certify that I caused an electronic copy of the foregoing documents to be forwardedvia email to the following Designated Internet Site, in compliance with Civil L.R. 23-2(c)(2):

Securities Class Action ClearinghouseStanford University School of LawCrown QuadrangleStanford, CA [email protected]

s/Michael Goldberg Michael Goldberg


Electronic Mail Notice List

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.

Rachel A. [email protected]

Cynthia A. [email protected]

Christopher J. [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Angie Young [email protected]

Michael Walter [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Nancy [email protected],[email protected]

Manual Notice List

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who thereforerequire manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processingprogram in order to create notices or labels for these recipients.

(No manual recipients)

CAND-ECF- https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?118487066077758-L_1_0-1

1 of 2 12/27/2011 1:40 PM


EXHIBIT A

Case5:11-cv-05235-RMW Document54-1 Filed12/27/11 Page1 of 3

HOME SERVICES NEWSROOM ABOUT US CONTACT US Search

Source: Labaton Sucharow LLPDate: October 26, 2011 20:02 ET

Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Investors inOmniVision Technologies, Inc. (OVTI)

NEW YORK, Oct. 26, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Labaton Sucharow LLP filed aclass action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVisionTechnologies, Inc. ("OmniVision" or the "Company") common stock between August27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that theCompany had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. ("Apple")to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.

OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digitalcameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of theleading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors ("CMOS") sensorsused in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclosethat: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b)competition was eroding its "leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c)delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening itsprospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its brightprospects in the smartphone market.

On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was wellbelow analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production ofits new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance,analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of cameracomponents for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone—the iPhone 4S—set for releasein the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined$7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011on extraordinary trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and fordisassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, expertsdetermined that Sony—and not OmniVision—had supplied the CMOS sensor for theiPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join thisclass action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.

If you purchased OmniVision common stock during the Class Period, you may beable to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must befiled with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California no later thanDecember 27, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absentClass members. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share inany Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recoveryfor the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You mayretain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions aboutthe lawsuit, you may contact one of our representatives, Rachel A. Avan, Esq. ofLabaton Sucharow LLP, at (888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0709, or via email [email protected].

Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington,Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutionalinvestors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers andbusinesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive

i h i h b h i f i d i h f

Other Company Press Releases

Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class ActionLawsuit on Behalf of Investors inCommunity Health Systems, Inc. -- CYH -May 9, 2011 19:35 ET

Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class ActionLawsuit on Behalf of Investors in Bank ofAmerica Corporation -- BAC - Mar 30, 201123:02 ET

Labaton Sucharow LLP Announces NewDeadline to File Motions for Appointment asLead Plaintiff in the Class Action Lawsuit onBehalf of Investors in the RMK AdvantageIncome Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund,RMK High Income Fund, and RHY Multi-Sector High Income Fund -- RMA, RSF,RMH, RHY - Jun 3, 2010 16:24 ET

Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class ActionLawsuit Against Massey Energy Company -May 28, 2010 17:04 ET

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Cohen MilsteinSellers & Toll PLLC, and Labaton SucharowLLP Filed an Amended Consolidated ClassAction Complaint on Behalf of Investors inKingate Global Fund, Ltd. and Kingate EuroFund, Ltd. - May 28, 2010 12:00 ET

More >>

Related News

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

Blogging/Bookmarking

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

BloggerBlog Search

Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Investor... http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=236173

1 of 2 12/21/2011 6:51 PM


Home | Services | Newsroom | About Us | Contact Us | Site MapSign up for New Membership | Job Opportunities

© 2011 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has beenrecognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information aboutLabaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

CONTACT: Labaton Sucharow LLP (888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0709

del.icio.usGoogle BookmarksNewsvineRedditStumbleUponTechnoratiYahoo MyWeb

Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Investor... http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=236173

2 of 2 12/21/2011 6:51 PM


EXHIBIT B


EXHIBIT C


RETAINED SHARES

MOVANT DATE SHARES SHARE PRICEPURCHASE AMOUNT

DATE SHARES SHARE PRICE SALES AMOUNTSHARES HELD

ESTIMATED VALUE*

ESTIMATED LOSSES

Carbon County Retirement Board 5/27/2011 4,600 $35.33 162,518.00$ N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 $65,734.00 96,784.00$

8/22/2011 2,500 $23.42 58,550.00$ 2,500 $35,725.00 22,825.00$

TOTAL: 7,100 221,068.00$ $101,459.00 119,609.00$

* HOLD PRICE (90 DAY AVERAGE) = $14.29

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Class Period: 05/27/2011 ‐ 11/07/2011

Calculation of Losses

PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS SALES TRANSACTIONS


EXHIBIT D


MURRAY FRANK LLP CONCENTRATES ITS PRACTICE IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION, PARTICULARLY IN CASES INVOLVING FEDERAL SECURITIES LAW, FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW, ERISA, AND STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW. THE FIRM IS ALSO ACTIVE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION.

SECURITIES FRAUD

MURRAY FRANK has represented lead plaintiffs as lead counsel or a member of the executive committee, and has also represented class representatives, in successful securities actions throughout the United States, including the following:

In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation (recover y of $1.1 billion); In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Sec., Deriv., & ERISA Litig. ($475 million); In re Williams Sec. Litig. ($311 million); In re General Motors Corp. Sec. Litig. ($303 million); In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig. ($125 million); In re New Century Corp. Sec. Litig. ($125 million); In re JWP Inc. Sec. Litig. ($40 million); In re Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. Sec. Litig. ($19.2 million); In re Picture-Tel Inc. Sec. Litig. ($14 million); In re Marion Merrell Dow Inc. Sec. Litig.

($14 million); In re Crompton Corp. Sec. Litig. ($11 million); LaVallie v. Owens-Corning Fiber-glas Corp. ($10 million); In re USX Sec. Litig. ($9 million); Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc. ($8.8 million); Lowry v. Andrx Corp. ($8 million); In re Xybernaut Corp. Securities MDL Litigation ($6.3 million); Brody v. Zix Corp. ($5.6 million); In re ContiFinancial Sec. Litig. ($5.5 million); In re EIS Int’l Inc. Sec. Litig. ($3.8 million); In re Quintiles Transnational Sec. Litig. ($3 million).

The f ir m is cur rently lead or co-lead counsel, a member of the executive committee, or counsel to a class representative in many cases, including the following:

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig.; In re Infineon Technologies AG Sec. Litig.; In re Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC Sec. Litig.; In re Deutsche Bank AG Sec. Litig.; Scott v. ZST Digital Networks; and In re Stillwater Capital Partners. MURRAY FRANK has also represented institutional plaintiffs in individual actions against Credit Suisse Securities (U.S.A.), Deutsche Bank Securities, AOL Time Warner, and Royal Dutch Petroleum for violations of state and federal securities laws.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


MURRAY FRANK also represents the West Virginia Investment Management Board in litigation against Residential Accredit Loans, Deustche Bank, and Credit Suisse, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of West Virginia state securities laws.

SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS AND DERIVATIVE ACTIONS

MURRAY FRANK is very active litigating actions on behalf of companies against their off icers and directors for breach of f iduciary duties or against third par ties for breach of contract. MURRAY FRANK cur rently represents Media Xposure Ltd. as successor-in-interest to the rights of Reliant Int’l Media, LLC against certain of its off icers and directors for breach of f iduciary duty. MURRAY FRANK is also one of the lead counsel cur rently representing shareholders of Celera Cor p. against certain of its off icers and directors for breaches of f iduciary duty arising out of a takeover of Celera Inc.; one of four counsel representing shareholders of Smart Modular Techs., Inc. against certain of its off icers and directors arising out of a takeover of Smart Modular; and is one of three counsel representing shareholders of Gymboree Cor p. against certain of its off icers and directors arising out of a takeover of Gymboree Cor p.

MURRAY FRANK is or has been lead or co-lead counsel or represented a plaintiff in derivative actions for the benef it of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts,

Inc., nVidia Cor p., Weatherford Int’l Ltd., Arbitron, Inc., The Limited, Inc., Gilman and Ciocia, Inc., Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Norland Medical Systems, Foundry Networks, Inc., Jabil Circuits, Inc., Equinix, Inc, Arbitron, Inc., PMC Sier ra, Inc., First Marblehead Cor p., Microtune, Inc., Arena Pharmaceuticals, Corinthian Corp., and Barnes & Noble Inc. MURRAY FRANK is also active representing shareholders of companies being acquired for inadequate takeover premiums or failure to maximize shareholder value. MURRAY FRANK was lead counsel or represented shareholders in cases involving Claire’s Stores, Inc., Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., BJ Services, Co., Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., Medarex, Inc., Center plate, Inc., Sir na Therapeutics, Inc., Chapar ral Resources, Inc., The Topps Company, Inc., Genentech, Inc., Jacuzzi Brands, Inc.; Burlington Nor ther n Santa Fe; Black & Decker Inc., 3Com Cor p.; Alcon, Inc., XTO Energy, Inc.; Continental Airlines, Inc.; Facet Biotech Cor p.; Infogroup Inc.; Double-Take Software, Inc.; Iowa Telecom. Serv., Inc.; Maine & Maritimes Corp.; Millipore

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


Corp.; American Italian Pasta Corp.; Argon ST. Inc.; ATC Tech. Corp.; Abraxis Bioscience Inc.; Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pactiv Corp.; Polymer Group, Inc.; Citadel Broadcasting Corp.; Hewitt Associates, Inc.; Thermadyne Holdings Corp.; Wainwright Bank & Trust Co.; Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.; NYMagic, Inc.; NYSE Euronext; Smurf it-Stone Container Corp.; RAE Systems, Inc.; Actel Corp.; ArcSight, Inc.; Pride Int’l Inc.; Nat’l Semiconductor Corp.; OptionsXpress Corp.; LaBarge, Inc.; K-Sea Trans. Partners, LLC; Frontier Oil Corp.; Emergency Medical Services Corp.; Tomotherapy Inc.; Del Monte Foods Co.; Warner Music Group Corp.; Int’l Coal Group; Ness Techs., Inc.; Lawson Software, Inc.; California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.; Allied Healthcare, Inc.; and Interactive Data Corp.

In Mof idi v. Levy, MURRAY FRANK initiated litigation that essentially forced Nor thstar Neuroscience, Inc. to dissolve and distribute its assets to stockholders.

ANTITRUST

MURRAY FRANK is currently counsel in many cases involving antitrust law violations including: In re American Express Antitrust Litigation; Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners; In re Trans Pacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litig.; In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig; In re Air Cargo Carrier Antitrust Litig.; Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc.; Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig.; In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig.; In

re Plasma – Derivative Protein Therapies Litig.; In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig.; McDonough v. Toys “R” Us; In re Fasteners Antitrust Litig.; In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.; In re Korean Airlines Co. Ltd. Antitrust Litig.; In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig.; In re Fretted Musical Instruments Antitrust Litig.; In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig.; In re Transitions Lenses Antitrust Litig.; In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig.; In re Marine Products Antitrust Litig.; In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig.; Kleen Products Corp. v. Packaging Corp. of Amer.; and In re Food Service Equipment Hardware Antitrust Litig. MURRAY FRANK is currently co-lead counsel in Avenarius v. Eaton Corp., pending in the District of Delaware. In Eaton Corp., MURRAY FRANK representes a class of indirect purchasers of Eaton truck transmissions. In re Playmobil USA, Inc. Antitrusts Litig; MURRAY FRANK was co-lead counsel representing a class of purchasers of Playmobil products. MURRAY FRANK was successful in obtaining certification of a plaintiff class in an oft-cited opinion and settling the case on favorable terms to

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


the class. The Court, at the fairness hearing, “compliment[ed] both counsel in the fine job done negotiating with each other and also the legal work that has been submitted to the Court.” In the Disposable Contact Lens case, MURRAY FRANK represented a class of purchasers of disposable contact lenses in California, and eventually obtained reversal in the California appellate courts of a denial of class certification. In the Time Warner case MURRAY FRANK was co-lead counsel representing a class of subscribers of Time Warner’s high speed internet service. MURRAY FRANK successfully overcame an arbitration clause and obtained favorable settlement for the class.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

In the consumer protection area, MURRAY FRANK has represented consumers in class actions in various roles including lead counsel involving, inter alia, data breaches of consumer accounts and stolen personal and financial information, wrongful reduction or cancellation of home equity lines of credit by major U.S. banks; defective parts on automobiles, mold in front-loading

washing machines; wrongful billing practices and poor service by wireless communications providers; wrongful billing practices by credit card companies, banks and retailers; problems with appliances and their installation; mislabeling of imported olive oil; mislabeling of domestic pasta; brokerage fees imposed with no or insufficient notice; Medicaid overcharges; and faulty automobile seat heaters.

MURRAY FRANK is prosecuting several consumer protection actions. In Nettleton et al v. Ford Motor Co. et al., MURRAY FRANK filed a class action law suit on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of certain Ford vehicles. The action alleges that Ford knew that certain Ford vehicles contained a defect that would cause the rear tailgate to crack, frequently outside of the warranty period. According to plaintiffs, Ford refused to repair that crack at its expense, regardless of whether the crack occurred within or outside of the warranty period. Plaintiffs seek compensation for the damage that the defect caused. This action is currently pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. MURRAY FRANK is currently co-lead counsel in Walker v. Discover Corp., pending in the Northern District of Illinois. In Discover, MURRAY FRANK represents a class of consumers who were overcharged for payment protection products on their credit cards.

In the matter of Connolly v. Sony, et.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


al., MURRAY FRANK filed a class action law suit on behalf of a nationwide class of users of Sony’s PlayStation Network (“PSN”). Plaintiff alleges that subsequent to a security breach of the PSN in April 2011, Sony failed to promptly inform customers that hackers had accessed users’ sensitive personal information, leaving them vulnerable to identify theft and fraud. Moreover, without any notice to its customers, Sony shut down the PSN for nearly one month which prohibited customers from accessing a multitude of services they had paid for including, but not limited to, Netf ix and Hulu. The action is currently being litigated.

MURRAY FRANK f iled a class action law suit on behalf of Citibank customers alleging that Citibank is liable for customers’ personal and financial information begin stolen during a security breach in May 2011 that resulted in inter alia, f inancial loss to consumers. Specif ically, plaintiffs claim that Citibank did not promptly inform them of the breach, and falsely informed them that hackers did not access information that would permit them to commit fraud. The delay in informing customers and false assurance prevented customers from promptly securing third party credit monitoring services. The action is pending in the Southern District of New York.

Among its cases of note, MURRAY FRANK recovered benef its worth $40 million in Naevus Int’l v. AT&T Corp., a consumer class action brought in New York State Supreme

Court on behalf of consumers who subscribed to AT&T’s Digital One Rate wireless service. In 2005, the f irm settled with Volkswagen of America, forcing a recall of all 2003 and 2004 Volkswagen Jettas for faulty automobile seat heaters.

In Sclafani v. Barilla America, Inc., a consumer class action brought in New York State Supreme Court on behalf of consumers who purchased Barilla brand pasta, MURRAY FRANK successfully argued that Barilla’s packaging misled consumers into believing the company’s pasta was made in Italy, obtaining a reversal of a trial court dismissal.

Similarly, in Lomenzo v. Bertolli USA Inc., a consumer class action brought in New York State Supreme Court on behalf of consumers who purchased Bertolli brand olive oil, MURRAY FRANK successfully argued that Bertolli’s labeling misled consumers into believing the company’s olive oil was Italian.

In McCoy v. Capital One Bank, a consumer class action f iled in California federal court, MURRAY FRANK successfully represented a class of consumers who allegedly

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


paid for a payment protection program that did not provide benef its as advertised. MURRAY FRANK is currently representing consumers in cases regarding payment protection programs involving cards issued by Citibank, First Premier, and Bank of America. The Firm also is involved in cases regarding mold in defective frontloading washing machines manufactured by Whirlpool and LG, and is co-lead counsel in a case regarding the improper reduction or termination of home equity loans by JPMorgan Chase.

ERISA

MURRAY FRANK has prosecuted several actions in federal court against employers on behalf of employees for employee investment fund mismanagement; knowingly offering, marketing, and selling improper investments to employees for their retirement accounts; and knowingly misrepresenting the prospects of the employees’ company in order to sell company stock to them. The firm served as co-lead counsel in In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litig., which

settled for $3 million and plaintiffs’ class counsel in In re AON ERISA Litig. and In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litig. MASS TORT Mass torts occur when large numbers of people are similarly injured by the same defective product. These products are often prescription drugs and medical devices. MURRAY FRANK is currently counsel in In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Pracices and Products Liability Litigation alleging, on behalf of its clients, that they were injured in connection with the design, development, manufacture, distribution, labeling and marketing of a widely used diabetes prescription drug. MURRAY FRANK is currently on the class action committee and co-chair of the e-discovery committee in the Avandia Litigation.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


MAJOR ONGOING CASES

In re Infineon Technologies A.G. Securities Litigation – MURRAY FRANK is co-lead counsel representing a class of investors of Infineon Technologies securities.

Marine Products Antitrust – MURRAY FRANK is a member of the executive committee on behalf of a class alleging antitrust violations regarding marine products.

In re Royal Bank of Scotland– MURRAY FRANK is a member of the executive committee on behalf of a class of purchasers of RBS preferred securities.

Scapini v. Argentina and Daelli v. Argentina – MURRAY FRANK is lead counsel representing two classes of investors who purchased government bonds from Argentina.

In re Deutsche Bank AG Securities Litigation - MURRAY FRANK is co-lead counsel representing a class of investors in certain Deutsche Bank AG preferred securities.

Media Xposure Ltd. v. Omnireliant Holdings Inc. - MURRAY FRANK represents a successor in interest to Responze TV PLC for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and fraud by officers, directors, and third parties.

Scott v. ZST Digital Networks - MURRAY FRANK is lead counsel representing a class of investors alleging fraud regarding ZST securities.

JUDICIAL COMMENDATIONS Kosseff v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., C.A. No. 188-MG (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2008), in which the Court stated “I note that plaintiff ’s attorneys are capable of sophisticated corporate litigation and have a good reputation within the bar.”

Park v. The Thompson Corp., 2008 WL 4684232 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2008), in which the court stated “class counsel have provided extremely high-quality representation.”

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 246 F.R.D 156, 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), in which the Court commended MURRAY FRANK’S “skillful and zealous representation over a six-year period,” and finding the “high quality of representation provided by Lead Counsel is evident from the extensive record of this case.”

In re Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc., 07-cv-7829 (S.D.N.Y.), in which the court stated “I think they performed extraordinarily well in the settlement process and this is an extraordinarily positive settlement for the class and I have to attribute that significantly to the performance of class counsel in the settlement discussion process.” In re General Motors Corp. Sec. Litig., 05-CV-8088 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), in which the Court, before appointing the firm lead counsel, stated: “we know Mr. Frank very well, so they are both esteemed and experienced attorneys in these matters, and I don’t

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


think anybody could go wrong with either one of them to be honest with you.”

In re EIS International, Inc. Sec. Litig., 97-cv-813 (D. Conn. 2006), in which the Court stated: “I wanted to compliment counsel . . . We have been together quite a long time in the case and I appreciate all the fine legal work that you’ve done.”

In re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. (Agilent Tech. Inc.) Analyst Reports Sec. Litig., 431 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008), in which the First Circuit stated the plaintiffs were “ably represented.”

Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001), in which the court expressed an “appreciation for how difficult this case was for all sides, for how hotly contested many of the issues in this case were from the get-go and how reaching a settlement, given all of those considerations, was particularly difficult; so I commend all of you for persevering in the efforts that you made toward reaching a settlement . . . [and] for achieving what I find to be a fair, adequate and reasonable result[.]”

Miller v. Bonmati, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 15849, Lamb, V.C. (Del. Ch. March 18, 1999), in which the Court stated “I am quite pleased by the work that was done by the plaintiffs’ counsel. They seem to have done a very professional job of dealing with a

difficult situation and have obtained, from everything I can ascertain from the record in front of me, quite a beneficial settlement that gives an opportunity for this situation to work itself out.”

Adair v. Bristol Tech. Systems, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), in which Judge Robert Sweet stated plaintiffs’ counsel were “skilled advocates and negotiators.”

Adair v. Microfield Graphics, Inc. (D. Or. 1998), in a case that recovered 47% of estimated damages, the Court noted “Plaintiff ’s counsel have exhibited a high quality of work in prosecuting this action.”

Steffen v. Playmobil USA, Inc., Civ No. 95-2896 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Court “compliment[ed] both counsel in the fine job done negotiating with each other and also the legal work that has been submitted to the Court.” PRECEDENT SETTING DECISIONS

In Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan 28, 1997), on a case of first impression, the Superior Court of Massachusetts applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


In Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001), MURRAY FRANK successfully argued on a case of first impression in the District of Rhode Island for the pleading standard for claims against an auditor under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

In Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 1998), MURRAY FRANK prevailed on an issue of first impression concerning the liability of a qualified independent underwriter for an initial public offering.

In Adair v. Bristol Tech. Sys., Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), MURRAY FRANK prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Southern District of New York, successfully arguing that standing under the Securities Act of 1933 was not limited to buyers who purchased directly on an initial public offering. The opinion was subsequently cited in decisions and secondary sources over 88 times.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE PARTNERS


THE PARTNERS

BRIAN MURRAY, a partner, was admitted to the bars of Connecticut in 1990, New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 1991, the Second Circuit in 1997, the First and Fifth Circuits in 2000, the Ninth Circuit in 2002, and the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas in 2011. He received Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees from the University of Notre Dame in 1983 and 1986, respectively. He received a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from St. John’s University School of Law in 1990. At St. John’s, he was the Articles Editor of the ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW. Mr. Murray co-wrote: Jurisdição Estrangeira Tem Papel Relevante Na De Fiesa De Investidores Brasileiros, ESPAÇA JURÍDICO BOVESPA (August 2008); The Proportionate Trading Model: Real Science or Junk Science?, 52 CLEVELAND ST. L. REV. 391 (2004-05); The Accident of Efficiency: Foreign Exchanges, American Depository Receipts, and Space Arbitrage, 51 BUFFALO L. REV. 383 (2003); You Shouldn’t Be Required To Plead More Than You Have To Prove, 53 BAYLOR L. REV. 783 (2001); He Lies, You Die: Criminal Trials, Truth, Perjury, and Fairness, 27 NEW ENGLAND J. ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONFINEMENT 1 (2001); Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Federal Securities Laws: The State of Affairs After Itoba, 20 MARYLAND J. OF INT’L L. AND TRADE 235 (1996); Determining Excessive Trading in Option Accounts: A Synthetic Valuation Approach, 23 U. DAYTON L. REV. 316 (1997); Loss Causation

Pleading Standard, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Feb. 25, 2005); The PSLRA ‘Automatic Stay’ of Discovery, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (March 3, 2003); and Inherent Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Aug. 26, 2004). He also authored Protecting The Rights of International Clients in U.S. Securities Class Action Litigation, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION NEWS (Sept. 2007); Lifting the PSLRA “Automatic Stay” of Discovery, 80 N. DAK. L. REV. 405 (2004); Aftermarket Purchaser Standing Under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 73 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 633 (1999); Recent Rulings Allow Section 11 Suits By Aftermarket Securities Purchasers, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Sept. 24, 1998); and Comment, Weissmann v. Freeman: The Second Circuit Errs in its Analysis of Derivative Copy-rights by Joint Authors, 63 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 771 (1989).

Mr. Murray was on the trial team that prosecuted a securities fraud case under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Microdyne Corporation in the Eastern District of Virginia and he was also on the trial team that presented a claim under Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Artek Systems Corporation and Dynatach Group which settled midway through the trial.

Mr. Murray’s major cases include In re Eagle Bldg. Tech. Sec. Litig., 221 F.R.D. 582 (S.D. Fla. 2004), 319 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE PARTNERS

2004) (complaint against auditor sustained due to magnitude and nature of fraud; no allegations of a “tip-off ” were necessary); In re Turkcell Iletisim A.S. Sec. Litig., 209 F.R.D. 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (defining standards by which investment advisors have standing to sue); In re Turkcell Iletisim A.S. Sec. Litig., 202 F. Supp. 2d 8 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (liability found for false statements in prospectus concerning churn rates); Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 1998) (qualified independent underwriters held liable for pricing of offering); Malone v. Microdyne Corp., 26 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 1994) (reversal of directed verdict for defendants); and Adair v. Bristol Tech. Systems, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (aftermarket purchasers have standing under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933). Mr. Murray also prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, in Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, in which the court applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts. 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan. 28, 1997). In addition, in Adair v. Microfield Graphics, Inc. (D. Or.), Mr. Murray settled the case for 47% of estimated damages. In the Qiao Xing Universal Telephone case, claimants received 120% of their recognized losses.

Among his current cases, Mr.

Murray represents the West Virginia Investments Management Board in a major litigation against Residential

Accredit Loans, Deustche Bank, and Credit Suisse.

Mr. Murray served as a Trustee of the Incorporated Village of Garden City (2000-2002); Commissioner of Police for Garden City (2000-2001); Co-Chairman, Derivative Suits Subcommittee, American Bar Association Class Action and Derivative Suits Committee, (2007-Present); Member, Sports Law Committee, Association of the Bar for the City of New York, 1994-1997; Member, Litigation Committee, Association of the Bar for the City of New York, 2003-2007; Member, New York State Bar Association Committee on Federal Constitution and Legislation, 2005-2008; Member, Federal Bar Council, Second Circuit Committee, 2007-present.

Mr. Murray has been a panelist at CLEs sponsored by the Federal Bar Council and the Institute for Law and Economic Policy, at the German-American Lawyers Association Annual Meeting in Frankfurt, Germany, and is a frequent lecturer before institutional investors in Europe and South America on the topic of class actions.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE PARTNERS

MARVIN L. FRANK, the managing partner, was admitted to the bars of New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1991, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 1992, the Second Circuit in 1998, the Seventh Circuit in 1999, the United States Supreme Court in 2004, the District of Nebraska in 2005, the Eastern District of Michigan in 2006, the Northern District of Texas in 2006, the Western District of New York in 2008, and the Northern District of Illinois in 2008. Mr. Frank graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from The City College of New York in 1969, a Master of Business Administration degree from Bernard M. Baruch College in 1974, and received his Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, from New York Law School in 1991. At New York Law School, he received the Kaplun Foundation Award For Academic Excellence.

Mr. Frank’s major cases include

In re General Motors Corp. Sec. Litig., 05-CV-8088 (S.D.N.Y.), in which the Court, before appointing the firm lead counsel, stated “we know Mr. Frank very well, so they are both esteemed and experienced attorneys in these matters, and I don’t think anybody could go wrong with either one of them to be honest with you”; Kosseff v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., C.A. No. 188-MG (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2008), in which the Court stated “I note that plaintiff ’s attorneys are capable of sophisticated corporate litigation and have a good reputation within the bar”; Sclafani v. Barilla

America, Inc., 2004-03542 (N.Y. App. Div.), in which Mr. Frank successfully argued before the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division that General Business Law § 349(d) did not establish a complete defense to a plaintiff ’s allegation that Barilla’s packaging misled consumers into believing the company’s pasta was made in Italy, obtaining a reversal of a trial court dismissal; Miller v. Bonmati, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 15849 (Lamb, V.C.) (Del. Ch. Mar. 18, 1999), in which the Court stated, while approving a $9.9 million recovery: “I am quite pleased by the work that was done by the plaintiffs’ counsel. They seem to have done a very professional job of dealing with a difficult situation and have obtained, from everything I can ascertain from the record in front of me, quite a beneficial settlement that gives an opportunity for this situation to work itself out.”; In re JWP Inc. Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) ($40 million recovery); In re Marion Merrell Dow Inc. Sec. Litig. (W.D. Mo.) ($14 million); In re PictureTel Inc. Sec. Litig. (D. Mass.) ($14 million); In re ContiFinancial Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) ($5.5 million); In re EIS International, Inc. Sec. Litig., 97-cv-813 (D. Conn. 2006), in which the Court stated: “I wanted to compliment counsel . . . We have been together quite a long time in the case and I appreciate all the fine legal work that you’ve done.”; and In re Quintiles Transnational Sec. Litig. (M.D.N.C.) ($3 million).

Mr. Frank is the Vice President of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy (ILEP), a public policy research and educational foundation

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE PARTNERS

established to preserve, study, and enhance access to the civil justice system by shareholders and consumers and is Vice President of the Emerald Green Property Owners Association in Rock Hill, New York.

Mr. Frank co-wrote Securities

Class Actions: Improving Corporate Governance Through Accountability, INTERNATIONAL BARASSOCIATION SECURITIES LAW COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER (Aug. 2010), and co-wrote Staying Derivative Actions Pursuant to PSLRA and SLUSA, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Oct. 21, 2005) and the SECURITIES REFORM ACT LITIGATION REPORTER, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Dec. 2005). Mr. Frank has been a panelist at the Barcelona Bar Association Conference on class actions in Barcelona, Spain; a panelist at the American Banker’s Association Operations Conference for Securities, Brokerage & Trust in Memphis, Tennessee; a panelist at the Magenta One Conference for Securities and Trust on the Isle of Jersey, United Kingdom; and a panelist at the Global Pensions’ Conference on Shareholder Responsibility and Class Action Law in London.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE PARTNERS

LEE ALBERT, a partner, was admitted to the bars of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey in 1986. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Temple University and Arcadia University in 1975 and 1980, respectively, and received his J.D. degree from Widener University School of Law in 1986. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Albert spent several years working as a civil litigator in Philadelphia, PA. In 2005 he became a partner in the Class Action Firm, Mager & Goldstein.

Mr. Albert represents clients in all types of complex litigation including matters concerning violations of federal and state antitrust and securities laws, mass tort/product liability, and unfair and deceptive trade practices and is currently co-lead counsel in Avenarius, et al., v. Eaton Corp et al. Some of Mr. Albert’s major cases include Marine Products Antitrust Litigation (C.D. Cal.) (Executive Committee); Kleen Products, et al. v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.); Baby Products Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.); In re ATM Fee Litigation (N.D. Cal.); Nettleton, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al. (N.D. Cal.); In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (E.D. Pa.); In re Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch Litigation (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex County); In re Broadcom Securities Litigation (C.D. Cal.); In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re

WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re Canadian Car Antitrust Litigation (D. Me.); and In re Microsoft Corporation Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation (Mass. Super. Ct.). Mr. Albert has represented a national health care provider at trial obtaining injunctive relief in federal court to enforce a five-year contract not to compete on behalf of a national health care provider and injunctive relief on behalf of an undergraduate university. Mr. Albert has extensive litigation and appellate practice experience having argued before the Supreme and Superior Courts of Pennsylvania and has over twenty years of trial experience in both jury and non-jury cases and arbitrations. Mr. Albert is active in local politics and has served as his party’s representative as Municipal Chair of Whitemarsh Township, PA.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


SPECIAL COUNSEL


SPECIAL COUNSEL

RANDALL H. STEINMEYER, is a member of the Firm’s Securities and Antitrust Securities Litigation Group. Mr. Steinmeyer received a J.D. degree, cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in 1996, where he was a member of the Hamline Law Review. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in 1993. He is a member of the bars of Minnesota and the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. He is the author of multiple articles on the hedge fund and pension fund industry. Prior to joining MURRAY FRANK Mr. Steinmeyer was a partner with Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (formerly Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP) and Milberg LLP where he served as counsel in the world’s largest complex class actions involving securities fraud on behalf of public pension funds while recovering record settlements in cases such as Enron, Dynegy, Sprint, Hanover Compressor, and hundreds of others, many of which had precedent setting impacts on the securities bar. Before that, Mr. Steinmeyer headed the securities litigation department of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mr. Steinmeyer is a former securities broker and held Series 7 and Series 63 licenses with the National Association of Securities Dealers (now FINRA). He has concentrated his practice in the areas of securities and antitrust litigation since 1996. He has extensive experience, including substantial jury and non-jury trial

work in broker-dealer and class action litigation including securities, commodities and public f inance. Contemporaneously with his work at his current and previous firms, Mr. Steinmeyer served on the Board of Directors of the Hedge Fund Association for several years after serving as General Counsel for the National Association of Investment Professionals. He also is a regular guest speaker and lecturer on matters concerning current cases, changes in case law, and their respective impact on shareholders’ rights. His appearances have spanned the globe, from multiple television appearances in the U.S. on CNBC to Ch. 2 Francais. From 2000 to the present, Mr. Steinmeyer has been a regular guest speaker in the offshore f inancial community, including the U.K., France, Germany, Portugal, Cayman Islands, the Netherlands, Italy, Channel Islands, Bermuda, Mexico, Switzerland, and the Netherland Antilles. During 2002 Mr. Steinmeyer convened with the Channel Islands Securities f inancial authorities to assist in proposing new legislation ensuring that Guernsey and Jersey institutions, while acting as fiduciaries, would have better access to class action notice and participation. In 2003, he was a guest lecturer at Oxford University. In 2004, at the University of Verona, he lectured on the conflicts of U.K. and European law with US law and how, by availing themselves of U.S. law, funds based in the U.K. and the European Union can recover their losses caused by securities fraud.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


SPECIAL COUNSEL

PAUL C. WHALEN, special counsel, was admitted to the New York bar and the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 1996. He received his J.D. in 1995 from Brooklyn Law School, and a B.S. in 1987 from New York University.

Over the past decade, Mr. Whalen has served as lead or co-counsel in Capital One Bank Consumer Fee Litigation, Washington Mutual Bank Consumer Fee Litigation, and Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Consumer Fee Litigation. These three bank fraud class action settlements have returned to consumers over $40 million dollars of illegally collected bank fees.

Mr. Whalen has served as lead or co-counsel in Cambridge Credit Counseling Consumer Litigation, a case that yielded a judgment of $256,527,086 to victims of credit card scams. Currently, Mr. Whalen is counsel in the class arbitration styled Genus Credit Management Consumer Class Arbitration, an ongoing credit consolidations fraud case that has already partially settled for over $10 million.

In other class actions, Mr. Whalen has served as lead or co-counsel in Quest Diagnostics Consumer Litigation [a medical billing fraud class action], Title Insurance RESPA Litigation [bank and title company fee fraud], and Dow Jones Online Subscriber Consumer Litigation.

Mr. Whalen served as lead class counsel for the settlement class in Peck v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., settled in 2002 in New York State Supreme Court in which the court approved a settlement of a class action involving consumers from three states who contracted with AT&T Wireless for cell phone service. The suit alleged that defendants improperly credited calls causing the class to lose the benefit of weekday minutes included in their calling plans by deceptive practices and false advertising. In the Peck action, Mr. Whalen negotiated a settlement worth over $35 million for a class of 900,000 consumers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Prior to law school, Mr. Whalen was a Series 7 licensed stockbroker and worked with Bear Stearns and Paine Webber and also worked at Nomura Securities on the commercial paper desk and as a commercial bank analyst.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


SENIOR COUNSEL


SENIOR COUNSEL

BENJAMIN BIANCO, counsel, was admitted to the New York bar in 2003, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 2005, and the District of Colorado in 2009. He received his Juris Doctor Degree, cum laude, in 2002 from Brooklyn Law School, and a Bachelor of Arts from Gonzaga University in 1998. Prior to joining MURRAY FRANK in September 2010, Mr. Bianco spent the prior two and half years in the civil prosecution of antitrust and securities fraud class actions at Labaton Sucharow LLP. Mr. Bianco began his career at O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Sidley Austin LLP, where he practiced complex commercial litigation, including numerous antitrust and securities actions in state and Federal courts, before the SEC, and international arbitration panels.

Mr. Bianco represents clients in all types of complex litigation including matters concerning violations of federal and state antitrust and securities laws, corporate governance, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, including consumer fraud.

Mr. Bianco is currently co-lead counsel in Avenarius, et al., v. Eaton Corp., et al. (D. Del.), an antitrust class action against the world’s largest commercial truck and transmission manufactures.

Mr. Bianco is also a member of the leadership team prosecuting Scott v.

ZST Digital Networks, Inc. (C.D. Cal.), a federal securities class action; Page v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. (Del. Ch.), a shareholder derivative action; and In re Marine Prods. Antitrust Litig. (C.D. Cal.).

In addition, Mr. Bianco is currently a member of the teams prosecuting Nettleton, et al., v. Ford Motor Company (N.D. Cal.); In re Rough Rice Commodity Litig. (N.D. Ill.); In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig. (N.D. Cal.); Kleen Prods Corp. v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill); In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig. (E.D.N.Y.); and In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill). Mr. Bianco was also a leading member of the teams that reached successful settlements in In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig. II (W.D. Pa.); In re NovaGold Resources Inc. Securities Litig. (S.D.N.Y.); and In re Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. Securities Litig. (D. Colo.).

Mr. Bianco recently co-wrote an article on “Recent Developments in Class Arbitration,” published in the Mealey’s Litigation Report (Sept. 17, 2009). Mr. Bianco is the founding member and President of Gonzaga University’s New York City Alumni Chapter.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE ASSOCIATES


THE ASSOCIATES

GREGORY B. LINKH, an associate, was admitted to the bars New York and the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 2000. He graduated from the State University of New York at Binghamton with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1996 and received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Michigan in 1999. Mr. Linkh is the co-author of Inherent Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Aug. 26, 2004); Staying Derivative Action Pursuant to PSLRA and SLUSA, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Oct. 21, 2005) and the SECURITIES REFORM ACT LITIGATION REPORTER, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Dec. 2005). Prior to joining MURRAY FRANK, Mr. Linkh was associated with the law f irms Dewey Ballantine LLP and Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP.

THOMAS J. KENNEDY, an associate, was admitted to the bars of New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 1996. He received a Juris Doctor degree in 1995 from St. John’s University School of Law and a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from Miami University in 1992. Mr. Kennedy passed the Certif ied Public Accounting exam in 1998.

BRIDGET V. HAMILL, an associate, was admitted to the bars of New Jersey in 2001, New York in 2005 and to the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey in 2011. She received a Juris Doctor degree in 2000 from Rutgers School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts from Douglass College of Rutgers University, where she was one of twelve members of her graduating class in the Douglass Scholars Academic Scholarship Program, in 1985. Her primary area of practice is securities class action. Prior to joining MURRAY FRANK, Ms. Hamill was law clerk to United States Magistrate Judge Mark Falk in the District of New Jersey. While attending law school, she was an employee stock options/stock purchase plan administrator in New York City. Prior to entering law school, Ms. Hamill was a health care information systems manager.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE ASSOCIATES

OLGA FORT, an associate, was admitted to the New York bar in 2005 and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 2007. She graduated from Fordham University School of Law with a Master of Laws degree in Banking, Corporate and Finance Law in 2004. She received a Juris Doctor degree in 1998 from the Moscow Institute of Economics and Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Commerce and Marketing from Moscow University for the Humanities in 1995. She attended the Russian State Institute of Intellectual Property from 1998 to 2000. Ms. Fort is the author of “International Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights”, PATENT AFFAIRS, #8, Moscow, 2000 and “Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights”, RUSSIAN STATE INSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL, Moscow, 1999 (Presentation at the Conference on Legal Protection, Commercial Use and Problems associated with Intellectual Property organized by the Russian State Agency on Patents and Trademarks, December 16-17, 1999). While attending law school, Ms. Fort clerked for a Judge in Moscow Military Court. She worked as a legal counsel for the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation where she specialized in banking, f inance, and corporate law. She is a member of the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, and

New York County Lawyers’ Association. Ms. Fort is fluent in Russian.

SCOTT H. LEVY, an associate, was admitted to the New York bar in 2006 and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 2007. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from the University of California at Berkeley in 2001 and a Juris Doctor degree from the Fordham University School of Law in 2005. At Fordham, he was a staff member of the FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL.

GREGORY A. FRANK, an associate, was admitted to the New York Bar in 2008 and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 2009. He received a B.A. from Dartmouth College in 2001 and earned his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2006. At Georgetown, Mr. Frank was a member of The Tax Lawyer, published by the American Bar Association Section on Taxation and edited by Georgetown Law.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


THE ASSOCIATES

ANGELA M. FINLAY, an associate, was admitted to the Washington State bar in 2000. She received a Juris Doctor degree from New York Law School in 1999 and a Bachelor of Arts from Loyola College in Maryland in 1991. She holds a Certif icate in Advanced Accounting from the University of Washington Business School.

KATHERINE E. SMITH, an associate, was admitted to the bars of New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in 2008. She received a B.S. from Boston University in 2003 and earned her J.D. from the New York Law School in 2007. Prior to joining MURRAY FRANK in March 2011, Ms. Smith was employed by the City of New York, assigned to the Special Federal Litigation Division, where she litigated numerous cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


SHIYONG (SHAUN) YE, an associate, was admitted to the bars of New York in 2010 and Massachusetts in 2010 and was admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2011. He received a L.L.B. from the Guizhou University School of Law in 2001 and earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law in 2008. Prior to joining MURRAY FRANK, Mr. Ye worked at King & Wood Law Firm (Beijing), Chicago Climate Exchange, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Crone & Rozynko LLP. Mr. Ye has advised a range of clients on corporate securities, merger and acquisition, and environmental and energy matters. His clients include investors, power grids, electric generation, oil and gas, mineral exploration companies, carbon funds, offset providers, manufacturers, and industry coalitions. He also has handled general corporate matters, SEC filings, EPA registration, and mergers and acquisitions.

MURRAY FRANK LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

New York Office

30 BROAD STREET

SUITE 1401 NEW YORK, NY 10004 TELEPHONE (212) 382-2221 FACSIMILE (212) 382-3944

1925 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2100LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

TELEPHONE (310) 201-9150FACSIMILE (310) 201-9160

[email protected]

SAN FRANCICSO OFFICE

ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER

SUITE 760 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

TELEPHONE (415) 972-8160 FACSIMILE (415) 972-8166

FIRM RESUME

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has represented investors, consumers and employees infederal and state courts throughout the United States for sixteen years. Based in Los Angeles,California and with offices in New York, New York and San Francisco, California, Glancy Binkow& Goldberg has developed expertise prosecuting securities fraud, antitrust and complex commerciallitigation. As Lead Counsel or as a member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Executive Committees, GlancyBinkow & Goldberg has recovered in excess of $1 billion for parties wronged by corporate fraud andmalfeasance. The firm’s efforts on behalf of individual investors have been the subject of articlesin such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times.

Appointed as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel by federal judges throughout the United States,Glancy Binkow & Goldberg has achieved significant recoveries for class members, including:

In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of California,Case No. 05-3395, in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved

a settlement valued at over $117 million.

In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation, USDC Central District of California,Case No. 98-7035 DDP, in which the firm served as local counsel and plaintiffs achieved a $184million jury verdict after a complex six week trial in Los Angeles, California and later settled thecase for $83 million.

In re Lumenis, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No.02-CV-1989, in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a settlement

valued at over $20 million.


In re Heritage Bond Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 02-ML-1475-DT,where as Co-Lead Counsel, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg recovered in excess of $28 million fordefrauded investors and continues to pursue additional defendants.

In re ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 01-913-A,in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as sole Lead Counsel and recovered almost $22 millionfor defrauded ECI investors.

Jenson v. First Trust Corporation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 05-cv-3124-ABC,in which the firm was appointed sole lead counsel and achieved an $8.5 million settlement in a verydifficult case involving a trustee’s potential liability for losses incurred by investors in a Ponzischeme. Kevin Ruf of the firm also successfully defended in the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals the trialth

court’s granting of class certification in this case.

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

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

at over $32 million for defrauded consumers.

In re Infonet Services Corporation Securities Litigation, USDC Central District of California, CaseNo. CV 01-10456 NM, in which as Co-Lead Counsel, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg achieved asettlement of $18 million.

In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 00-02018, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg was sole Lead Counselfor the Class and recovered in excess of $13 million.

In re ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, CaseNo. 98 Civ. 7530, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as soleLead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $17 million.

In re Lason, Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 99 76079, inwhich Glancy Binkow & Goldberg was Co-Lead Counsel and recovered almost $13 million fordefrauded Lason stockholders.

In re Inso Corp. Securities Litigation, USDC District of Massachusetts, Case No. 99 10193, asecurities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel forthe Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $12 million.

In re National TechTeam Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 97-74587, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-LeadCounsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $11 million.


In re Ramp Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of California, Case No.C-00-3645 JCS, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of nearly $7 million.

In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of New York, CaseNo. 02-1510 CPS, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $20 million.

Taft v. Ackermans (KPNQwest Securities Litigation), USDC Southern District of New York, CaseNo. 02-CV-07951, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement worth $11 million.

Ree v. Procom Technologies, Inc., USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 02CV7613, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for

the Class and achieved a settlement of $2.7 million.

Capri v. Comerica, Inc., USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 02CV60211 MOB, asecurities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel forthe Class and achieved a settlement of $6.0 million.

Tatz v. Nanophase Technologies Corp., USDC Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 01C8440, asecurities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel forthe Class and achieved a settlement of $2.5 million.

In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 99 Civ9425, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-LeadCounsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $27 million.

Plumbing Solutions Inc. v. Plug Power, Inc., USDC Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV 00

5553 (ERK) (RML), a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served asCo-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $5 million.

Schleicher v. Wendt ,(Conseco Securities Litigation), USDC Southern District of Indiana, Case No.02-1332 SEB, a securities fraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as LeadCounsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $41 million.

Lapin v. Goldman Sachs, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 03-0850-KJD, a securitiesfraud class action in which Glancy Binkow & Goldberg served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class andachieved a settlement of $29 million.


Glancy Binkow & Goldberg filed the initial landmark antitrust lawsuit against all of themajor NASDAQ market makers and served on Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Executive Committee in In reNasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 94 C3996 (RWS), MDL Docket No. 1023, which recovered $900 million for investors in numerousheavily traded Nasdaq issues.

The firm currently serves as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in numerous securities fraud andconsumer fraud actions throughout the United States, including, among others:

Senn v. Sealed Air Corporation, USDC New Jersey, Case No. 03-cv4372, in which the firm acts asco-lead counsel (the case has tentatively settled).

Shah v. Morgan Stanley Co.,USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 03 Civ. 8761 (RJH)

Payne v. IT Group, Inc.,USDC Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 02-1927

In re ADC Telecommunications Inc. Securities Litigation,USDC District of Minnesota, Case No. 03-1194 (JNE/JGL)

The firm has also previously acted as Class Counsel in obtaining substantial benefits forshareholders in a number of actions, including:

In re F & M Distributors Securities Litigation,Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 95 CV 71778 DT (Executive Committee Member) ($20.25million settlement)

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

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

Resources High Equity Securities Litigation,California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 080254

The firm has served and currently serves as Class Counsel in a number of antitrust classactions, including:

In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation,USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 94 C 3996 (RWS), MDL Docket No. 1023

In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation,USDC Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 94 C 897


The firm has served and currently serves as Class Counsel in a number of wage and hourclass actions, including:

Smith v. L’Oreal, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 284690, in which firm partner KevinRuf successfully argued before the California Supreme Court and achieved the reversal of lowercourt holdings which could have curtailed employee rights to prompt payment of wages.

Mathews v. American Laser Centers, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:08-cv-10638,in which the firm represents employees of ALC who contend they are entitled to unpaid overtimeand other benefits.

Baldwin v. Johnny Rockets, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 385539, in which the firmrepresents a class of restaurant managers who contend they are entitled to overtime and other benefits

because they were improperly classified by their employer as “exempt” from such benefits.

Jenkin v. Sunglass Hut, USDC Central District of California, Case No. CV08-5394, in which thefirm represents Sunglass Hut employees who contend they were denied meal and rest breaks andother compensation.

Bousquet v. Cerritos Ford, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 354026, in which the firmrepresents mechanics claiming unpaid overtime.

Paredes v. Pacific Ford, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 372598, in which the firmrepresents mechanics claiming unpaid overtime.

The firm currently also serves as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in In re Nokia, Inc. ERISALitigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 10-CV-03306-PKC. This consolidatedaction is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of

participants and beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan from January1, 2008 through the present seeking to recover losses to the Plan as a result of its investments inNokia stock.

The firm has represented, or currently represents, numerous plaintiffs in shareholderderivative actions, including, among others:

In re Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department - Chancery Division,Case No. 10CH46380;

Diep v. Chen, et al.USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 11-CV-3210;


Dulberg v. Plastina, et al.USDC Central District of California, Case No. 8:11-cv-00351 JVS (RNBx);

Garay v. Gamache, et al.USDC Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 11-cv-04412;

Markowitz v. Duprey, et al.In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department - Chancery Division,Case No. 11-CH-11048;

Oh v. Bartz, et al.USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 11-cv-03286; and

Surloff v. Georgiopoulos, et al.

USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 11-CV-1855-RJH.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has been responsible for obtaining favorable appellateopinions which have broken new ground in the class action or securities fields, or which havepromoted shareholder rights in prosecuting these actions. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg successfullyargued the appeals in a number of cases.

In Smith v. L’Oreal, 39 Cal.4th 77 (2006), firm partner Kevin Ruf established ground-breaking law when the California Supreme Court agreed with the firm’s position that waitingpenalties under the California Labor Code are available to any employee after termination ofemployment, regardless of the reason for that termination.

Other notable firm cases are: Silber v. Mabon I, 957 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992) and Silber v.Mabon II, 18 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994), which are the leading decisions in the Ninth Circuitregarding the rights of opt-outs in class action settlements. In Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 (2d

Cir. 2000), Glancy Binkow & Goldberg won a seminal victory for investors before the SecondCircuit Court of Appeals, which adopted a more favorable pleading standard for investors inreversing the District Court’s dismissal of the investors’ complaint. After this successful appeal,Glancy Binkow & Goldberg then recovered millions of dollars for defrauded investors of the GTInteractive Corporation. The firm also argued Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir.2002), as amended, 320 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2003) and favorably obtained the substantial reversal ofa lower court’s dismissal of a cutting edge, complex class action initiated to seek redress for a groupof employees whose stock options were improperly forfeited by a giant corporation in the course ofits sale of the subsidiary at which they worked. The revived action is currently proceeding in theCalifornia state court system.

The firm is also involved in the representation of individual investors in court proceedingsthroughout the United States and in arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association,National Association of Securities Dealers, New York Stock Exchange, and Pacific Stock Exchange.


Mr. Glancy has successfully represented litigants in proceedings against such major securities firmsand insurance companies as A.G. Edwards & Sons, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch & Co., MorganStanley, PaineWebber, Prudential, and Shearson Lehman Brothers.

One of firm’s unique skills is the use of “group litigation” - the representation of groups ofindividuals who have been collectively victimized or defrauded by large institutions. This type oflitigation brought on behalf of individuals who have been similarly damaged often provides anefficient and effective economic remedy that frequently has advantages over the class action orindividual action devices. The firm has successfully achieved results for groups of individuals incases against major corporations such as Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and OccidentalPetroleum Corporation.

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

THE FIRM’S PARTNERS

LIONEL Z. GLANCY, a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, is the foundingpartner of the firm. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Judge Howard McKibben,he began his career as an associate at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, concentrating insecurities litigation. Thereafter, he started a boutique law firm specializing in securities litigation,and other complex litigation, from the Plaintiff’s perspective. Mr. Glancy has established adistinguished career in the field of securities litigation over the last fifteen years, appearing as leadcounsel on behalf of aggrieved investors in securities class action cases throughout the country. Hehas appeared and argued before dozens of district courts and several appellate courts, and hasrecovered billions of dollars in settlement proceeds for large classes of shareholders. Well knownin securities law, he has lectured on its developments and practice at CLE seminars and law schools.

PETER A. BINKOW, a partner in Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, was born in Detroit, Michigan onAugust 16, 1965. Mr. Binkow earned his degree in English Literature from the University ofMichigan in1988 and attended law school at the University of Southern California (J.D., 1994). Mr.Binkow joined the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy upon graduation and became a partner in 2002.

Mr. Binkow has prosecuted lawsuits on behalf of consumers and investors in state and federal courtsthroughout the United States. He has served as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in many class action cases,including In re Mercury Interactive Corp Securities Litigation ($117.5 million recovery), In reLumenis Ltd Securities Litigation ($20.1 million recovery), In re Heritage Bond Litigation ($28million recovery), In re National Techteam Securities Litigation ($11 million recovery), In re CreditAcceptance Corporation Securities Litigation ($2.5 million recovery), In re Lason Inc. SecuritiesLitigation ($12.68 million recovery), In re ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation ($17million recovery) In re GT Interactive Securities Litigation ($3 million recovery) and many others.Mr. Binkow has prepared and/or argued appeals before the Ninth Circuit, Sixth Circuit and SecondCircuit Courts of Appeals.


Mr. Binkow is admitted to practice before the state of California, the United States District Courtsfor the Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California, the United States District Court forthe Eastern District of Michigan and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a member of the LosAngeles County Bar Association and the American Bar Association.

MICHAEL GOLDBERG, a partner in Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, specializes in federalsecurities, federal and state antitrust, and consumer fraud class action lawsuits. He has successfullylitigated numerous cases which resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for investors, consumersand businesses.

Mr. Goldberg was born in New York on April 27, 1966. He earned his B.A. degree in 1989 fromPitzer College - The Claremont Colleges, and his J.D. degree in 1996 from Thomas M. Cooley LawSchool. After graduation from law school, Mr. Goldberg joined the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancyand became a partner of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg in 2003. He was admitted to both the

California and Florida bars in 1997 and is admitted to practice in numerous courts.

SUSAN G. KUPFER, a partner of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, joined the firm in 2003, whereshe established its antitrust practice. She is a native of New York City and received her A.B. degreefrom Mount Holyoke College in 1969 and her J.D. from Boston University School of Law in 1973.She did graduate work at Harvard Law School. In 1977, she was named Assistant Dean and Directorof Clinical Programs at Harvard, where she supervised that program of legal practice and taught itsrelated academic components: Introduction to Advocacy (a NITA-style workshop), LawyeringProcess and Professional Responsibility.

For much of her legal career, Ms. Kupfer has been a professor of law. She subsequently taught atHastings College of the Law, Boston University School of Law, Golden Gate University School ofLaw and Northeastern University School of Law. From 1991 to 2002, she was a lecturer on law atUniversity of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall, teaching Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws. Herareas of academic expertise are Civil Procedure, Federal Courts, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional

Law, Legal Ethics and Jurisprudence. Her publications include articles on federal civil rightslitigation, legal ethics and jurisprudence. She has also taught various aspects of practical legal andethical training, including trial advocacy, negotiation and legal ethics, to both law students andpracticing attorneys.

Ms. Kupfer previously served as corporate counsel to The Architects Collaborative in Cambridgeand San Francisco and was the executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on JudicialConduct. She returned to the practice of law in San Francisco with Morgenstein & Jubelirer andBerman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo before joining the Glancy Firm. Her practice isconcentrated in antitrust, securities and consumer complex litigation. She has been a member of thelead counsel team which achieved significant settlements in the following cases: In re SorbatesAntitrust Litigation ($96.5 million settlement), In re Pillar Point Partners Antitrust Litigation ($50million settlement), In re Critical Path Securities Litigation ($17.5 million settlement).


Ms. Kupfer is a member of the Massachusetts and California State Bars and the United StatesDistrict Courts for the Northern, Central and Southern districts of California, the District ofMassachusetts, the First and Ninth Circuits Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. She wasnamed one of Northern California’s Super Lawyers of the Year in 2004, 2005, and 2006 in antitrustlitigation.

Ms. Kupfer is currently serving in leadership positions in the following cases:

In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, U.S.D.C., Central District of California, MDL1891, No. 07-5107, Interim Co-Lead Counsel

In re: Urethane Antitrust Litigation, U.S.D.C., District of Kansas, No. 2:04-md-01616, Co-LeadCounsel.

In re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, U.S.D.C., District of Nevada, No.2:03-cv-01431, Co-Lead Counsel.

Sullivan et al v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C, District of New Jersey, No. 3:04-cv-02819,Counsel for Reseller Subclass.

KEVIN F. RUF, a partner in Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, was born in Wilmington, Delawareon December 7, 1961. Mr. Ruf graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1984 witha B.A. in Economics and earned his J.D. from the University of Michigan in 1987. Mr. Ruf wasadmitted to the State Bar of California in 1988. Mr. Ruf was an associate at the Los Angeles firmManatt Phelps and Phillips from 1988 until 1992, where he specialized in commercial litigation andwas a leading trial lawyer among the associates there. In 1993 he joined the firm Corbin & Fitzgeraldin order to gain experience in criminal law. There he specialized in white collar criminal defensework, including matters related to National Medical Enterprises, Cynergy Film Productions and theEstate of Doris Duke. Mr. Ruf joined Glancy Binkow & Goldberg in 2001 and has taken a lead trial

lawyer role in many of the firm's cases. In 2006, Mr. Ruf argued before the California SupremeCourt in the case Smith v. L'Oreal and achieved a unanimous reversal of the lower court rulings; thecase established a fundamental right of all California workers to immediate payment of all earningsat the conclusion of employment. In 2007, Mr. Ruf took an important case before the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals, convincing the Court to affirm the lower court's certification of a class action ina fraud case (fraud cases have traditionally faced difficulty as class actions because of therequirement of individual reliance). Mr. Ruf has extensive trial experience, including jury trials, andconsiders his courtroom and oral advocacy skills to be his strongest asset as a litigator. Mr. Rufcurrently acts as the Head of the Firm's Labor and Consumer Practice, and has extensive experiencein Securities cases as well. Mr. Ruf also has experience in real estate law and has been a LicensedCalifornia Real Estate Broker since 1999.


MARC L. GODINO has extensive experience successfully litigating complex, class action lawsuitsas a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Marc has played a primary role in cases resulting in settlements of more than$100 million. He has prosecuted securities, derivative, merger & acquisition, and consumer casesthroughout the country in both State and Federal court as well as represented defrauded investors atFINRA arbitrations. Marc supervises the firm’s consumer class action department.

While an associate with Stull Stull & Brody, Marc was one of the two primary attorneys involvedin Small v. Fritz Co., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (April 7, 2003) in which the California Supreme Court creatednew law in the state of California for shareholders that held shares in detrimental reliance on falsestatements made by corporate officers. The decision was widely covered by national media includingThe National Law Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the New York Law Journal,among others and was heralded as a significant victory for shareholders.Recent successes with the firm include: In re Magma Design Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation,Case No. 05-2394 (N.D.Cal.) ($13,500,000.00 cash settlement for shareholders); ( In re Hovnanian

Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-0099 (D.N.J.) ($4,000,000.00 cash settlementfor shareholders); In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-5416(C.D.Cal.) ($3,000,000.00 cash settlement for shareholders); In re Youbet.com, Inc. ShareholderLitigation, Case No. BC426144 (L. A. Sup. Ct.) (settlement provided supplemental disclosures toshareholders in this merger action); Burth v. MSC Software Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2009-00282743 (Orange Cty. Sup. Ct.) (settlement provided supplemental disclosures to shareholders inthis merger action)Shin et al., v. BMW of North America, 2009 WL 2163509 (C.D.Cal. July 16,2009) (after defeating a motion to dismiss, the case settled on very favorable terms for class membersincluding free replacement of cracked wheels); Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. MIVA, Inc., Case No.06-1923 (S.D.N.Y.) ($3,936,812 cash settlement for class members); Villefranche v. HSBC BankNevada, N.A., Case No. 09-3693 (C.D.Cal.) (after defeating a motion to dismiss, the case resultedin 100% recovery to class members). Other published decisions include: In re 2TheMart.com Securities Litigation, 114 F.Supp 2d 955(C.D.Ca 2002); In re Irvine Sensors Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (C.D.Ca

2003).

The following represent just a few of the cases that Marc is currently litigating in a leadershipposition:In re Toyota Motor Corp. Hybrid Brake Marketing, Sales Practices and Products LiabilityLitigation, MDL 02172 (C.D. Ca.), Co-Lead CounselIn re Stec, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 10-00667 (C.D. Ca.), Co-Lead CounselSabbag v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-002735 (N.D. Ca.), Co-Lead Counsel Conroy v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-4930 (C. D. Cal.), Co-Lead Counsel

Marc received his undergraduate degree from Susquehanna University with a bachelor of sciencedegree in Business Management. He received his J.D from Whittier Law School in 1995.

Marc is admitted to practice before the state of California, the United States District Courts for the


Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California, the District of Colorado, and the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals.

OF COUNSEL

ROBIN BRONZAFT HOWALD, a native of Brooklyn, New York, returned home in 2001 to openthe firm’s New York City office. Ms. Howald graduated magna cum laude from Barnard Collegein 1980, with a B.A. in psychology. In 1983, she received her J.D. from Stanford Law School, whereshe served as an Articles Editor for the Stanford Law Review. In addition to her current focus onsecurities fraud and consumer class action matters, during her 20-year career Ms. Howald hashandled cases in many different practice areas, including commercial disputes, professionalmalpractice, wrongful termination, bankruptcy, patent and construction matters. As outside counselfor the City of Torrance, California, she also handled a number of civil rights and land use matters,as well as a ground-breaking environmental action concerning Mobil Oil’s Torrance refinery. Ms.

Howald has experience in pre-trial and trial procedure and has successfully prosecuted post-trialmotions and appeals. Mrs. Howald is a member of the bar of both California (1983) and New York (1995), and is admittedto practice in all federal judicial districts in California, the Southern and Eastern Districts of NewYork, and the United States Supreme Court. She co-authored “Potential Tort Liability in BusinessTakeovers” (California Lawyer, September 1986), was a speaker and contributing author at theEighth Annual Current Environmental and Natural Resources Issues Seminar at the University ofKentucky College of Law (April 1991), and served as a Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles CountySmall Claims Court (1996-1997). Married in 1985, Mrs. Howald and her husband have two sons.An avid runner, Mrs. Howald has completed six marathons.

EX KANO S. SAMS II earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the Universityof California Los Angeles in 1993. Mr. Sams earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University ofCalifornia Los Angeles School of Law in 1996, where he served as a member of the UCLA Law

Review. Since graduating from UCLA Law School, he has dedicated his entire career exclusivelyto representing plaintiffs in large-scale class action and complex civil litigation matters.

After law school, Mr. Sams practiced class action civil rights litigation on behalf of plaintiffs incases involving employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and sexual harassment.Subsequently, Mr. Sams was a partner at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (currentlyRobbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP), where his practice focused on securities and consumer classactions. While at Coughlin Stoia and its predecessor, he worked in the firm’s San Diego, SanFrancisco, and Los Angeles offices.

Mr. Sams has served as lead counsel in dozens of securities class actions throughout the country. Inone securities fraud class action that he actively litigated, Mr. Sams assisted in a successful appealbefore a Fifth Circuit panel that included former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra DayO’Connor sitting by designation, in which the court vacated the lower court’s denial of class


certification, reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, and issued an importantdecision on the issue of loss causation in securities litigation: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v.Flowserve Corp., 572 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009). The case eventually settled for $55 million. Mr.Sams also worked on a securities fraud class action where lead counsel obtained a settlement thatrepresented approximately 78% of the likely recoverable damages in the case. He has also led largelitigation teams in securities class actions and has prepared massive summary judgment oppositions,drafted and argued numerous motions, worked closely with expert witnesses, and has taken anddefended dozens of depositions.

Mr. Sams has also successfully represented consumers in class action litigation. Mr. Sams workedon nationwide litigation and a trial against major tobacco companies and in statewide tobaccolitigation that resulted in a $12.5 billion recovery for California cities and counties in a landmarksettlement. He also was a principal attorney in a consumer class action against one of the largestbanks in the country that resulted in a recovery of over 80% of the compensatory damages and a

change in the company’s business practices. Additionally, Mr. Sams has also handled severalcomplex environmental matters. Mr. Sams participated in settlement negotiations on behalf ofnational environmental organizations along with the United States Department of Justice and theOhio Attorney General’s Office that resulted in a consent decree requiring the company to conductwide-ranging remediation measures to ameliorate the effects of air and water pollution and to paycivil penalties. He also participated in discovery and trial preparation in an unfair business practicesaction that led to a favorable settlement near the eve of trial providing for monetary relief for a publicwater provider against the threat of groundwater contamination.

Mr. Sams is admitted to practice law in the State of California. He is also admitted to practice beforethe United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuitsand before the district courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California,the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado. Mr.Sams is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the John M. Langston BarAssociation, and the Consumer Attorneys of California.


ASSOCIATES

DALE MacDIARMID is a native of Los Angeles, California. He holds a B.A. in Journalism (withDistinction) from the University of Hawaii, and a J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law,where he was a member of the Board of Governors of the Trial Advocacy Honors Program. He isadmitted to practice in California, before the United States District Courts for the Southern, Centraland Northern Districts of California and the District of Colorado. Dale is a member of Kappa TauAlpha, the national journalism honor society, and before joining Glancy Binkow & Goldberg he wasa writer and editor for newspapers and magazines in Honolulu and Los Angeles.

ANDY SOHRN joined Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP in 2006. He was admitted to the CaliforniaBar in January 2006 after receiving his J.D. from the University of California Los Angeles Schoolof Law in May 2005. While attending law school, Andy was the Managing Editor of the PacificBasin Law Journal, participated in Moot Court and was a Teaching Assistant for the LawyeringSkills program. He also holds a B.A. in Economics and Mathematics from Yale University (classof 2002).

COBY MARIE TURNER joined Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP in 2010. Coby was a Regent’sScholar at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and holds a B.A. in Business Economics andPolitical Science. She received her J.D. from the University of Southern California, Gould Schoolof Law. During law school, Coby was an editor of the Hale Moot Court Honors Program, thePresident of the International Law and Relations Organization, and an extern for Mental HealthAdvocacy Services in Los Angeles, California. Coby was admitted to the California State Bar in2009.

ROBERT V. PRONGAY is an associate in the Firm’s Los Angeles office, where he focuses onthe investigation, initiation, and litigation, of complex securities cases brought on behalf ofinstitutional and individual investors.

Mr. Prongay earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the University of SouthernCalifornia in 2005 and earned his Juris Doctor degree from Seton Hall University School of Law in2008. While attending law school, Mr. Prongay worked as a summer associate at the Firm, andinterned for a federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of NewJersey. Mr. Prongay is admitted to the State Bar of California, as well as the United States DistrictCourts for the Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California, and the District of Colorado.

LOUIS BOYARSKY joined Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP in 2010. Louis received hisJD/MBA from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and Loyola Marymount University’s GraduateSchool of Business. While in law school, Louis served as a staff writer for the Loyola of Los AngelesEntertainment Law Review. The Law Review published his article: Stealth Celebrity Testimonialsof Prescription Drugs: Placing the Consumer in Harm’s Way and How the FDA has Dropped theBall. Additionally, while in law school, Louis externed for the Honorable Suzanne H. Segal,magistrate judge for the Central District of California.


Louis is a member of the St. Thomas More Legal Honor Society, the Alpha Sigma Nu NationalJesuit Honor Society and the Beta Gamma Sigma Business Honor Society. Louis is admitted topractice before the state of California and the United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia.

CASEY E. SADLER is a native of New York, New York. After graduating from the University ofSouthern California, Gould School of Law, Mr. Sadler joined Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP in2010. While attending law school, Mr. Sadler externed for the Enforcement Division of theSecurities and Exchange Commission, spent a summer working for P.H. Parekh & Co, one of theleading appellate law firms in New Delhi, India, and was a member of USC's Hale Moot CourtHonors Program. Mr. Sadler holds a B.A. in Political Science from Emory University and wasadmitted to the State Bar of California in December 2010.

ELIZABETH M. GONSIOROWSKI graduated with honors from Vassar College, where shereceived a BA in Cognitive Science. As a student at Brooklyn Law School, she interned with theHonorable Ramon Reyes in the Eastern District of New York. After graduating from Brooklyn Lawin 2008, she was awarded a fellowship to work with the World Intellectual Property Organizationat the United Nations. She is admitted to practice in California, New York and New Jersey.


Other Supporting Documents5:11-cv-05235-RMW WoburnRetirement System v. OmnivisionTechnologies, Inc. et al

ADRMOP,E-Filing

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Goldberg, Michael on 12/27/2011 at 9:49 PM PST and filed on12/27/2011Case Name: Woburn Retirement System v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc. et alCase Number: 5:11-cv-05235-RMWFiler: Carbon County Retirement BoardDocument Number: 54

Docket Text:Declaration of Lionel Z. Glancy in Support of [53] MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and LeadCounsel [Notice of Motion and Motion of Carbon County Retirement Board for Consolidation,Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Lead Counsel; Memorandum of Points andAuthorities in Support Thereof filed byCarbon County Retirement Board. (Attachments: # (1)Exhibit A - Press Release, # (2) Exhibit B - Movant Certification, # (3) Exhibit C - Loss Chart, #(4) Exhibit D - Murray Frank LLP and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Firm Resumes)(Relateddocument(s)[53]) (Goldberg, Michael) (Filed on 12/27/2011)

5:11-cv-05235-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Angie Young Kim [email protected]

Brian Joseph Barry , Esq [email protected]

Christopher J. Keller [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Cynthia A. Dy [email protected]

Ian David Berg [email protected]

Joy Ann Kruse [email protected]

Michael M. Goldberg [email protected]

Michael Walter Stocker [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Nancy Tompkins [email protected], [email protected]

CAND-ECF https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?694127187371578

1 of 2 12/27/2011 9:47 PM

Rachel A. Avan [email protected]

Reed R. Kathrein [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Stephen R. Basser [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Vahn Alexander [email protected], [email protected]

5:11-cv-05235-RMW Please see General Order 45 Section IX C.2 and D; Notice has NOT beenelectronically mailed to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main DocumentOriginal filename:OPERATIVE LP Glancy Declaration_MF.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=12/27/2011] [FileNumber=8151141-0][a6d2c736971bf b25e4c611236bc3945ac21c2aac8a70ceffa0f3b96325200f4a801866197e51bbb2646e6f86ab382d2630daab652708cd2b0d5795b02634a241]]Document description:Exhibit A - Press ReleaseOriginal filename:Exhibit A_Press Release.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=12/27/2011] [FileNumber=8151141-1][36afac5d463e2704bd11863129c415ed9b6642871c35efffa60f4b9732310656713157f100361305300033a943f63d8d1214eb10ee3ec3df955156d2fcda5e6d]]Document description:Exhibit B - Movant CertificationOriginal filename:Exhibit B_Pltf Certification.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=12/27/2011] [FileNumber=8151141-2][a3f9ad1da31976b72b8bef5727b881cc427cc3ab5fc60c73e2fbcba514cd5daf7896e8da45bbc7872f5b0b83c8ade134e2fdae280383a90d3e6b40035de540ef]]Document description:Exhibit C - Loss ChartOriginal filename:OPERATIVE Exhibit C_Loss Calculation Spreadsheet.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=12/27/2011] [FileNumber=8151141-3][9edc71ef8bbd2bb1be0e3174a22b3da06d3487aff1e592673519edf08e2f73078f8f2253d7c6bfc73ed4c6101dea2089d451f218ca8a2d25e0b272d4758e5d2b]]Document description:Exhibit D - Murray Frank LLP and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Firm ResumesOriginal filename:Exhibit D_MF Resume.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=12/27/2011] [FileNumber=8151141-4][97ef1788636fb9bf6d6042614831b4fe63baaf67b8a9d3a93aa5006fb0957bd95a89a42c3d5b9ea32415f84a7ef6cd9b68da70a5cd4a03e2264d010455f05227]]

CAND-ECF https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?694127187371578

2 of 2 12/27/2011 9:47 PM

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP LIONEL Z. GLANCY...

Documents

Transcript of GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP LIONEL Z. GLANCY...