richard m. heimann (state bar no. 063607) -...

Case3:12-cv-02662-MMC Document115 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 40

Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 063607)

[email protected] 2 Joy A. Kruse (State Bar No. 142799)

[email protected] Sharon M. Lee [email protected]

4 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

5

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

6

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

7

8

9

10

11

Marc I. Gross [email protected] Jeremy A. Lieberman [email protected] POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

Patrick V. Dahlstrom [email protected] POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

Counsel for Movant and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel for the Class

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SPATZ, and SANJAY ISRANI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, and WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendants.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Civil No. 3:12-cv-02662-MMC

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF WILLIAM H. ANHOOD AND JOSE AND MARY GALVAN FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL

1051174.3 MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC


2

JEFF OFFNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, and BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,

Defendants.

JAMES CHANG and SAMEER ANSARI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13



14 v.


Defendants.

JOHN GREGORY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

23 Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:12-cv-2815-MMC

24

25

26

27

28

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,


15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


2

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, and BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,

Defendants.

HARVEY LAPIN, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


25 Defendants.

26 VERNON R. DEMOIS, JR, Individually And On 27 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:12-cv-3196-MMC


28


v.

2 FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,

Defendants.

DARRYL LAZAR, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

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


EDWARD J. SHIERRY, Individually And On 2 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,


4 v.


Defendants.

KAREN CUKER and BRIAN GRALNICK, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYE

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC 1051174.3


2

DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

MICHAEL LIEBER, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO

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




CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL

2 MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL

4 MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL

5 & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC.,

6 OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.,

7 RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.,

8 STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and

9 WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

10 Defendants.

11 JENNIFER STOKES, Individually And On Behalf

12 of All Others Similarly Situated,

13


14 v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC 1051174.3


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

SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

THOMAS J. AHRENDTSEN and AARON M. LEVINE, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

KEVIN HICKS, LINH LIUU and 135 additional Plaintiffs, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC.,

Defendants.




27

28


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

THOMAS E. NELSON, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.




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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

II. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................... 3

A. ANHOOD AND GALVAN SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFFS FOR THE RETAIL INVESTORS CLASS ......................... 3

1. Appointment of Separate Lead Plaintiffs For Retail Investors is Necessary to Protect the Interests of Non- Institutional Investors ...................................................................... 3

2. Anhood and Galvan Have the Largest Financial Interest of Any of the Retail Investor Movants ................................................ 6

3. Anhood and Galvan Otherwise Satisfy the Requirements of Typicality and Adequacy .............................................................. 10

III. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 11

1051174.3 - i - MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC

26

27

28


1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases Baffa v. Donaldson ,

222 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................... 5

Baydale v. Am. Express Co., No. 09 Civ. 3016, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71668 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) .............................. 6

Davidson v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, No. 07-cv-10400, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61265 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2008) ........................ 2, 3, 4

Hanon v. Data Products Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................................ 5

In re BP, PLC Sec. Litig. , 758 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D. Tex. 2010) .......................................................................................... 3

In re Cable & Wireless, PLC Sec. Litig. , 217 F.R.D. 372 (E.D. Va. 2003) ............................................................................................... 3, 6

In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig ., 206 F.R.D. 427 (S.D. Tex. 2002) .................................................................................................. 5

In re Network Assocs. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .......................................................................................... 5

Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .................................................................................................. 4

Koos v. First Nat'l Bank , 496 F.2d 1162 (7th Cir. 1974) ...................................................................................................... 6

Makasky v IAC/Interactive , No. 04-cv-7447, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2004) ............................................ 6

Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a) ........................................................................................................................... 2

15 U.S.C. § 77k(e) ........................................................................................................................... 8

15 U.S.C. § 77z-1 ............................................................................................................................. 1

15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(i) ........................................................................................................... 6

15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii). ....................................................................................................... 7

Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ........................................................................................................................... 10

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

1051174.3 - ii - MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC

27

28


I. INTRODUCTION

2

William H. Anhood (“Anhood”) and Jose and Mary Galvan (“Galvan”) respectfully

submit this memorandum in further support of their motion for consolidation, appointment as

4 Lead Plaintiffs and approval of their selection of Co-Lead Counsel, pursuant to the Private

5

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1. 1

6

Although the self-described “Institutional Investor Group” (North Carolina Department of

7 State Treasurer on behalf of the North Carolina Retirement Systems, Banyan Capital Master Fund

8 Ltd., Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, and Fresno County Employees’ Retirement

9 Association) reported the largest aggregate losses among all movants, the unique facts of this case

10 necessitate that a separate Retail Investors Class that purchased Facebook shares pursuant to its

11

May 2012 Initial Public Offering (the “IPO”) be created to ensure that their interests are

12 adequately protected.

13

It has been well documented in news stories following Facebook’s unsuccessful debut that

14 Defendant underwriters, which act as investment managers to thousands of institutional investors,

15 advised their clients of their lowered quarterly and annual forecasts for Facebook prior to their

16 purchases in the IPO. The lowered forecasts were not disclosed to retail investors prior to their

17 purchase in the IPO. The failure to disclose the underwriters’ lowered forecasts constitutes the

18 core allegation of the Complaints. 2

19

Indeed, retail investors, which constituted 25% of the IPO, were left in the dark regarding

20 these lowered forecasts. As reported in one Reuters article, a “Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

21 adviser . . . cited the fact that institutional investors received information that retail investors did

22 1 Anhood and Galvan have also filed a memorandum in further support of their motion for 23

consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of co-lead counsel in the actions filed in the Southern District of New York where there are seven competing motions pending. The first-

24 filed action in that District is Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan v. Facebook, Inc. , No. 12 Civ. 4081 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan action”). This memorandum addresses the

25 motions filed in this District and in the Southern District of New York. 2 See Notice Of Motion And Motion Of William H. Anhood And Jose And Mary Galvan For

26 Consolidation, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff, And Approval Of Co-Lead Counsel; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof (DKT No. 64), at 3-4. See also

27 Spatz v. Facebook, Inc. , No. 3:12-cv-02662-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Class Action Complaint, ¶¶ 57, 58; Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan action, Complaint For Violation of the Federal Securities

28 Laws, ¶ 24; Lightman v. Facebook, Inc., 12 Civ. 4184 (S.D.N.Y.), Class Action Complaint, ¶¶ 3; 67.

- 1 - MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 1051174.3 CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC


2

not.”3

Given that institutional investors knew of Facebook’s lowered forecasts prior to the IPO,

there is a significant risk that the Retail Investors Class’s claims may be compromised by

individual issues as to what the members of the Institutional Investor Group – or any other

institutional investor – knew about Facebook’s lowered guidance prior to the IPO. Indeed,

institutional investors’ knowledge of these facts prior to the IPO will become the focus of the

litigation for institutional investors during class certification and merits discovery because the

institutional investors’ knowledge of the lowered guidance is a complete defense under the

Securities Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a) (providing “complete defense” if “it is proved that at the

time of such acquisition [the claimant] knew of such [alleged] untruth or omission.” Moreover,

individual issues regarding the particularized knowledge of each institutional investor will make

it difficult to certify a class of institutional investors, whereas certifying a class of retail investors

who do not suffer from any such infirmity will not require the time and resources diverted by the

institutional investors’ unique defense.

Quite simply, institutional investors’ claims are not typical of retail investors’ claims, nor

are they adequate to represent the interests of retail investors in this action. As such, Anhood and

Galvan respectfully request that a Retail Investors Class be recognized as a separate Class in the

consolidated action, and that they be appointed Lead Plaintiffs to prosecute their claims of the

Retail Investors Class. See Davidson v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, No. 07-cv-10400, 2008

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61265, at *21-22 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2008) (appointing an individual as co-lead

plaintiff with a group of investment companies because of potential conflicts between the group

and other putative class members).

Accordingly, because Anhood and Galvan (i) have the largest financial interest of any of

the retail investor movants, and (ii) otherwise satisfy the requirements of typicality and adequacy

with respect to the Retail Investors Class, Anhood and Galvan should be appointed as Lead

Plaintiffs for the Retail Investors Class.

3 See Ronald D. Oral, Facebook IPO Prompts Capitol Hill Inquiry, Marketwatch.com (June 20, 2012), available at http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-06-20/economy/32328563_1_facebook-ipo-ipo-boutique-ordinary-investors.


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


ARGUMENT

A. ANHOOD AND GALVAN SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFFS FOR THE RETAIL INVESTORS CLASS

1. Appointment of Separate Lead Plaintiffs For Retail Investors is Necessary to Protect the Interests of Non-Institutional Investors

The appointment of Lead Plaintiffs for retail investors will ensure that their interests are

adequately protected in light of the unique factual circumstances in this case. It is not uncommon

for courts to appoint a lead plaintiff for a separate class when there are questions as to “whether

the plaintiffs share legal theories and whether potential conflicts exist between a potential lead

plaintiff and absent class members.” See, e.g., In re BP, PLC Sec. Litig. , 758 F. Supp. 2d 428,

438 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (exercising the Court’s discretion in appointing a separate class “‘to ensure

that all class members will adequately be represented in the prosecution of this action’”) (quoting

In re Cable & Wireless, PLC Sec. Litig. , 217 F.R.D. 372, 376 (E.D. Va. 2003)). Indeed, it is

“particularly important at this early stage of the case to avoid prejudicing the claims of absent

class members through the appointment of a lead plaintiff who cannot fully and fairly represent

them.” BP, PLC Sec. Litig. , 758 F. Supp. 2d at 438. Moreover, the appointment of a lead

plaintiff for a separate class “does not conflict with the PSLRA’s primary goal of shifting control

of securities class actions from lawyers to investors” when “distinct theories of the case create a

significant risk of conflict and prejudice to class members if they are not separated.” Id. at 441.

Similarly, on the same rationale, numerous courts “have used their discretion to make an

institutional investor colead plaintiff with an individual in order to provide the added benefits of

institutional investors.” Id. at 441. For example, this Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs for those

very reasons in E*Trade, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61265, at *21-22. The Court found that,

although no other movant had demonstrated that the interests of the presumptive lead plaintiff, the

KSG investment companies group, were not aligned with other putative class members, “ on the

possibility that conflicts do ultimately arise , the interests of the class can be protected by the

appointment of a co-lead plaintiff.” Id. at *21 (emphasis added). The Court proceeded to

appoint as co-lead plaintiff an individual investor who reported the largest financial interest of

any individual stock purchaser movant and who had standing to pursue claims on behalf of

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 II.

2

3

4



2

various subclasses in the litigation. Id.

For the same reasons, this Court also appointed separate movants as co-lead plaintiffs in

Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 113, 120-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Court noted that

although other movants had failed to establish that the CSIQ Investor Group, a group of seven

investors presumed to be the most adequate plaintiff under the PSLRA, was inadequate, the

appointment of a co-lead plaintiff was appropriate to protect the class should conflicts affecting

the CSIQ Investor Group ultimately arise. Id. at 121. The Court then appointed as co-lead

plaintiff an individual investor reporting the largest loss of all individual investor movants and

who had standing to pursue claims on behalf of the putative class as co-lead plaintiff. Id.

Here, all of the complaints filed in the related actions allege that prior to the IPO,

Facebook told the underwriter defendants to significantly lower their 2012 revenue forecasts for

Facebook, which the underwriters did during the IPO roadshow and conveyed the reduced

forecasts to institutional investor clients only . Numerous media outlets have reported that retail

investors in Facebook’s IPO were not privy to the same material information that institutional

investors were prior to the IPO:

• Marketwatch.com reported that,

some analysts affiliated with Facebook’s IPO underwriters, including Morgan Stanley, subsequently trimmed their revenue estimates for Facebook and said so privately to their institutional clients – leaving retail investors without the latest information about the company shortly before the IPO. 4

• Reuters also reported that,

one Morgan Stanley Smith Barney adviser also cited the fact that institutional investors received information that retail investors did not. 5

• Barron’s reported that,

many of [Morgan Stanley’s] retail customers – who got an estimated 25% of the firm’s allocation – are sitting with losses on their Facebook shares

4 Ronald D. Oral, Facebook IPO Prompts Capitol Hill Inquiry, Marketwatch.com (June 20, 2012), available at http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-06-20/economy/32328563_1_facebook-ipo-ipo-boutique-ordinary-investors 5 Suzanne Barlyn and Ryan Vlastelica, SEC, FINRA to Review Facebook Issues, Nasdaq Sued , Reuters (May 22, 2012).

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

1051174.3 - 4 - MPA IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC


and steaming that some institutional investors were warned of problems with the deal while they were told nothing. 6

The reports regarding the underwriter defendants’ disclosure of Facebook’s lowered

forecasts is particularly troublesome here, where the underwriters include the likes of Goldman

Sachs, Inc., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch—which advise a broad swath of

institutional investors throughout the country. As such, in the absence of evidence to the

contrary, there is a significant risk that an institutional investor was forewarned regarding

Facebook’s lowered forecasts prior to the IPO, possibly triggering a complete defense under

Section 11(a).

These and other reports concerning institutional investors’ access to non-public

information about Facebook, prior to the IPO, evidence that the Institutional Investor Group may

be subject to unique defenses that will become the focus of the litigation for institutional

investors. Courts have rejected applicants for lead plaintiff, or class representative, on similar

concerns. See In re Network Assocs. Sec. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1029-30 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

(“Non-public information, however, is not reflected in the market price. [Lead plaintiff movant]

KBC, unfortunately, would be encumbered with the unique question whether it acquired its

Network shares on better terms than the investing public and not fully in reliance on the market

price.”) (citing Hanon v. Data Products Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (“a named

plaintiff’s motion for class certification should not be granted if there is a danger that absent class

members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it”) (quotation

and citation omitted)); Baffa v. Donaldson , 222 F.3d 52, 59-60 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming lower

court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to intervene as class representative, in part, because she “had

access to more information than other investors in the putative class” and, thus, there was the

“danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses

unique to [her].”) (quotation omitted); In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig ., 206 F.R.D. 427, 455 (S.D.

Tex. 2002) (denying state pension fund’s lead plaintiff motion where it relied, in part, upon an

6 Andrew Barry, In Facebook’s Fiasco, Hope for Reform , Barrons.com (May 26, 2012), available at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB5000142405311190396430457742238001766 3106.html.

2

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



advisory firm with connections to Enron and was possibly in possession of non-public

2 information prior to purchasing the company’s shares); see generally Baydale v. Am. Express Co.,

No. 09 Civ. 3016, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71668, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (denying lead

4

plaintiff motion of movant reporting the largest financial interest, reasoning that “‘[w]here it is

5 predictable that a major focus of the litigation will be on an arguable defense unique to the named

6

plaintiff. . . then the named plaintiff is not a proper class representative.’”) (citing and quoting

7 Koos v. First Nat'l Bank , 496 F.2d 1162, 1164 (7th Cir. 1974)).

8

Here, there also is a risk that if institutional investors are appointed to represent both

9

institutional investors and retail investors, institutional investors such as the Institutional Investor

10 Group could ultimately be dismissed from this Action or have their motion to be appointed as

11

class representatives denied, which would prejudice retail investors because they are not subject

12 to the absolute defense grounded in Section 11(a). To avoid such prejudice to retail investors,

13 Anhood and Galvan should be appointed as Lead Plaintiffs for the Retail Investors Class, or be

14

appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs for the entire Action to ensure that the interests of retail investors in

15 the Class are adequately protected. See, e.g., Makasky v IAC/Interactive , No. 04-cv-7447, 2004

16

U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2004) (finding a co-lead plaintiff structure “provides

17

flexibility and stability to the class” in the event either co-lead plaintiff “fails to address certain

18

interests within the class, drops out of the action or compromises the class in some fashion.”);

19 Cable & Wireless , 217 F.R.D. at 376 (appointing pension fund potentially subject to unique

20 defenses as co-lead plaintiff with individual investor not subject to such defenses to ensure

21

adequate class representation).

22

2. Anhood and Galvan Have the Largest Financial Interest of Any of the Retail Investor Movants

23

24

The PSLRA provides that in securities class actions, “courts shall appoint as lead

25 plaintiff(s) the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be

26 most capable of adequately representing the interests of the class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-

27

1(a)(3)(B)(i). Under the PSLRA, “the most adequate plaintiff” is the plaintiff who files a

28

complaint or a lead plaintiff motion, has the largest financial interest in the case, and also satisfies



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

the typicality and adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii).

Here, a review of the Certifications and loss calculations provided by competing movants reveals

that Anhood and Galvan unquestionably have the largest financial interest of any competing

individual retail investor.

The movants and their purported losses are as follows:

Movant Claimed Loss Institutional Investor Group $7,175,153.23

Eiffel Tower Ventures, LLC, The GAF Unit Trust, and “in excess of $1.5 White Dune LLC (collectively, the “Funds”) million”

KBC Asset Management NV for account of the KBC $646,661.67 Equity Fund -Technology and KBC Equity Fund –New Shares, and the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands (collectively, the “Institutional Investors”)

Desmond Doris, Donald Pompliano, Eric Rand, and $524,004.66 Ranford Williams (collectively, the “Facebook Investor Group”)

William H. Anhood and Jose and Mary Galvan $414,600

Ramesh Purohit, Karen Stewart, and Scott Wilson $184,404.13 (collectively, the “Facebook Investor Group II”) 7

David Goldberg, Garrett Garrison, Mariusz Kuzian, Sidney “at least $166,692”

Nasr, and Sean Quirk (collectively, the “Goldberg Group”)

Rick Pond $83,981.50

Marcus A. Gerber $77,270

Alexis Alexander, as custodian for Chloe Sophie Alexander, $19,147 Robert Herpst, and Vijay Akkaraju

Michael Spatz and Sanjay Israni $4,432.00

Here, Anhood and Galvan suffered a loss of at least $414,600 from their transactions in

Facebook shares. Anhood, who suffered a loss of at least $288,000, claims the largest individual

7 Coincidentally, the movant group consisting of Desmond Doris, Donald Pompliano, Eric Rand, and Ranford Williams and the movant group consisting of Ramesh Purohit, Karen Stewart, and Scott Wilson both refer to themselves as the “Facebook Investor Group.” For the purposes of this memorandum, the former is referred to as “Facebook Investor Group” and the latter is referred to as the “Facebook Investor Group II.”



2

loss of any individual investor movants. The only individual movants reporting a larger loss than

Anhood and Galvan are the Facebook Investor Group, however, that group failed to properly

calculate its financial interest according to the relevant provision of the Securities Act and,

therefore, reported losses that were materially inflated. 8

Section 11(e) of the Securities Act provides, in relevant part, that damages in a suit

alleging violations of Section 11 shall be measured as follows:

such damages as shall represent the difference between the amount paid for the security (not exceeding the price at which the security was offered to the public) and (1) the value thereof as of the time such suit was brought, or (2) the price at which such security shall have been disposed of in the market before suit, or (3) the price at which such security shall have been disposed of after suit but before judgment if such damages shall be less than the damages representing the difference between the amount paid for the security (not exceeding the price at which the security was offered to the public) and the value thereof as of the time such suit was brought.

§ 77k(e). Accordingly, for shares held, the maximum per share recovery in this case is limited to

the difference between the amount paid for Facebook shares (but not exceeding its IPO price of

$38.00), and $32.00, the closing price of the shares on May 23, 2012, the day on which the first

federal action subject to the PSLRA was filed, i.e., the Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan action. 9

For shares sold before the action was filed, damages are measured based on the difference

between the $38.00 IPO price and the actual sale price. For shares sold, after the filing of the first

action was filed, damages are measured based on the difference between the price paid for the

shares (not exceeding $38.00 per share) and the higher of the actual sale price and $32.00.

Contrary to the statutory measure of damages in Section 11(e), members of the Facebook

8 The Facebook Investor Group filed its motion in the actions pending in the Southern District of New York. See Notice Of Facebook Investors Group’s Motion For Consolidation, Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Its Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel (DKT No. 32), Memorandum of Law in support thereof (“Facebook Investor Group Memo”) (DKT No. 33), and Declaration of Frank R. Schirripa (“Schirripa Decl.”) (DKT No. 34) filed in the Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan action. 9 The first action alleging Securities Act violations in connection with Facebook’s allegedly false and misleading IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus was filed in California State Court on May 22, 2012. See Lazar v. Facebook, Inc. , No. CIV 514065 (Cal. Super. Ct.). The closing price of Facebook shares on May 22, 2012 was $31.00. The Court may therefore find that for shares held, damages should be measured based on the difference between the IPO price of $38.00 and the closing price on May 22, 2012 of $31.00, or $7.00 per share. Similarly, the Court may find that for shares sold after the action was filed, damages should be measured based on the difference between the IPO price and the higher of the actual sale price and $31.00 .


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


2

Investor Group, except Desmond Doris, calculated their losses by simply taking the difference

between the total amount they paid for their shares and the total proceeds they received from

selling their shares. 10 See Facebook Investor Group Memo. Those calculations are contrary to

Section 11(e) because many of the Facebook Investor Group’s purchase transactions were made

at prices higher than $38 per share, and many of their sales transactions after the action was filed

were made at prices less than $32.00 per share, thereby materially overstating the Facebook

Investor Group’s losses.

For example, Desmond Doris, who claims a loss of $250,497.33, apparently either

miscalculated his loss or incorrectly certified his relevant transactions in Facebook. See Schirripa

Decl., Exhibit B. Specifically, according to the Facebook Investor Group’s Individual Damage

Calculations chart, the total amount that Desmond Doris purportedly paid for his shares was

$1,057,571.35 and the total amount of proceeds from the sale of those shares was $883,559.98.

The difference between those numbers is $174,011.37, not the $250,497.33 he reported. Id. The

discrepancy may be related to Desmond’s purported purchase of 2,031 shares on May 18, 2012.

Desmond’s certification indicates that he paid $40.20 per share for those shares, which would

equal a total cost of $81,646.20. The Individual Damage Calculations chart states, however, that

Desmond paid only $5,226.20 for those shares, which calls into question whether Desmond

actually purchased fewer shares than those listed in his certification. Schirripa Decl., Exhibit B.

Accordingly, either Desmond’s certification or the chart, or both, is inaccurate.

Analyzing the Facebook Investor Group’s reported transactions in Facebook securities in

accordance with Section 11(e) of the Securities Act yields losses of $303,277, which is

significantly less their claimed loss of $524,005.56.11 See Exhibit A to Declaration of Joy A.

10 The Facebook Investor Group does not expressly explain anywhere in its motion papers how it calculated its losses. However, according to the Facebook Investor Group’s “Individual Damage Calculations,” included as Exhibit B to the Schirripa Decl., one of its members, David Pompliano reported a loss of $155,680, which is equal to the difference between the “Total Cost” of his purchases, i.e., $496,000 and the “Total Proceeds” of his sales, i.e., $340,320. The same methodology was apparently used to calculate the losses of Eric Rand (“Total Cost” of $440,000 minus “Total Proceeds” of $374,000 for a loss of $66,000), and Ranford Williams (“Total Cost” of $478,591.10 minus “Total Proceeds” of $426,763.77 for a loss of $51,827.33). 11 Applying the alternative measure of damages described in footnote 9, the Facebook Investor Group’s losses are $321,976.43 and Anhood and Galvan’s losses are $483,700. Under either measure, Anhood and Galvan’s losses are larger than the losses of the Facebook Investor Group.


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


Kruse In Further Support of the Motion of William H. Anhood and Jose and Mary Galvan,

submitted herewith (“Kruse Decl.”) (attaching analysis of Facebook Investor Group’s losses). It

is also substantially less than Anhood and Galvan’s losses of $414,600 . Assuming, arguendo,

that Facebook Investor Group’s methodology was proper, applying the Facebook Investor

Group’s faulty methodology yields the same result: Gavin and Anhood’s losses would be

$544,757.83, which is still larger than the $524,005.56 claimed by the Facebook Investor Group.

See Kruse Decl., Exhibit B. Moreover, the application of either methodology does not alter the

fact that Anhood possesses the largest individual losses of any retail investor: $288,000 using the

appropriate methodology, and losses of $305,000 utilizing the faulty methodology employed by

the Facebook Investor Group. Id.

Accordingly, Anhood and Galvan clearly have the largest financial interest of any

individual investor movants in this litigation.

3. Anhood and Galvan Otherwise Satisfy the Requirements of Typicality and Adequacy

Anhood and Galvan have heretofore demonstrated that they will adequately represent the

interests of all class members and that their claims are typical of the Class and, therefore, they

meet the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Indeed, Anhood and Galvan satisfy the

requirements of adequacy and typicality for the Retail Investor Class because:

• they purchased shares of Facebook pursuant and traceable to the IPO

• they had no prior knowledge regarding Facebook’s lower revenue forecasts prior to the IPO

• they are not subject to the unique defenses faced by institutional investors that either they or their investment advisors might have had access to information prior to the IPO warning them of Facebook’s lowered revenue forecasts

As further evidence of their adequacy, Anhood and Galvan have selected Pomerantz

Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP (“Pomerantz”) and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &

Bernstein, LLP (“Lieff Cabraser”) as Co-Lead Counsel for the Retail Investor Class. As

demonstrated in Anhood and Galvan’s initial Motion papers, both firms have extensive


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


1

experience in securities litigation and class actions and the resources necessary to prosecute a

2 case of this magnitude. For these reasons, Anhood and Galvan should be appointed as Lead

3 Plaintiffs and Pomerantz and Lieff Cabraser should be appointed Lead Counsel for the Retail

4

Investor Class.

5 III. CONCLUSION

6

For the foregoing reasons, Anhood and Galvan respectfully request the Court to issue an

7 Order (a) consolidating the related actions; (b) appointing Anhood and Galvan as Lead Plaintiffs

8 for the Retail Investor Class, or in the alternative, appointing Anhood and Galvan as Co-Lead

9 Plaintiffs for the Class of all Facebook IPO investors; (c) approving Pomerantz and Lieff

10 Cabraser as Co-Lead Counsel for the Retail Investor Class; or in the alternative approving

11 Pomerantz and Lieff Cabraser as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class of all Facebook IPO investors;

12 and (d) granting such other relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Dated: August 9, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

By: /s/ Joy A. Kruse Joy A. Kruse

Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 063607) [email protected] Joy A. Kruse (State Bar No. 142799) [email protected] Sharon M. Lee [email protected] 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

24

25

26

27

28



1

POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP

2

Marc I. Gross [email protected]

3

Jeremy A. Lieberman [email protected]

4

600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016

5


6 POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM

7

& GROSS LLP Patrick V. Dahlstrom

8

[email protected] Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505

9

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181

10

Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

11


12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 063607)

[email protected] 2 Joy A. Kruse (State Bar No. 142799)

[email protected] Sharon M. Lee [email protected]

4 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

5

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

6


7

8

9

10

11

Marc I. Gross [email protected] Jeremy A. Lieberman [email protected] POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

Patrick V. Dahlstrom [email protected] POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184


12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SPATZ, and SANJAY ISRANI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1051602.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC


2

JEFF OFFNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

JAMES CHANG and SAMEER ANSARI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13



14 v.


Defendants.

JOHN GREGORY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

23 Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:12-cv-2815-MMC

24

25

26

27

28

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,


15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


2

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, and BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,

Defendants.

HARVEY LAPIN, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.


4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


25 Defendants.

26 VERNON R. DEMOIS, JR, Individually And On 27 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,



28


v.

2 FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,

Defendants.

DARRYL LAZAR, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

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


EDWARD J. SHIERRY, Individually And On 2 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,


4 v.


Defendants.

KAREN CUKER and BRIAN GRALNICK, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYE

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC 1051602.1


2

DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

MICHAEL LIEBER, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO

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




CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL

2 MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL

4 MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL

5 & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC.,

6 OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.,

7 RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.,

8 STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and

9 WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

10 Defendants.

11 JENNIFER STOKES, Individually And On Behalf

12 of All Others Similarly Situated,

13


14 v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID A. EBERSMAN, DAVID M. SPILLANE, MARC L. ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BLAYLOCK ROBERT VAN LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., LAZARD CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, M.R. BEAL & COMPANY, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PACIFIC CREST

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC 1051602.1


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

SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

THOMAS J. AHRENDTSEN and AARON M. LEVINE, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

KEVIN HICKS, LINH LIUU and 135 additional Plaintiffs, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC.,

Defendants.




27

28


THOMAS E. NELSON, Individually And On 2 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,


4 v.


5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Defendants.

Certificate of Service

I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of

eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 275 Battery Street,

San Francisco, California 94111-3339.

I hereby certify that on August 9, 2012, the below-referenced documents were

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system:

1. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF WILLIAM H. ANHOOD AND JOSE AND MARY GALVAN FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL; and

2. DECLARATION OF JOY A. KRUSE IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION OF WILLIAM H. ANHOOD AND JOSE AND MARY GALVAN FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL

which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record.

I also hereby certify that I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1051602.1 - 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC

28


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

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for

mailing with the United States Postal Service, and on August 9, 2012, I caused a copy of the

foregoing documents to be served via the United States Postal Service upon the following:

See Manual Notice List entries in the attached Service List

I also hereby certify that I caused an electronic copy of the foregoing documents to be

forwarded via email to the following Designated Internet Site, in compliance with Civil L.R. 23-

2(c)(2):

Securities Class Action Clearinghouse Stanford University School of Law Crown Quadrangle Stanford, CA 94305-8612 scaclaw.stanford.edu

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in

San Francisco, California on August 9, 2012.

A 'xa derZane

1051602.1 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Civil No. 3: 12-C V-02662-MMC

28


Service List

2

Case 3:12-cv-02662-MMC Electronic Mail Notice List

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. 4

• James Francis Basile

5

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] ,alevin@kirk land.com

6 • Brant W. Bishop [email protected]

7

• Mary K. Blasy [email protected] ,[email protected],[email protected]

8

• Andrew B. Clubok [email protected]

9

• Timothy Alan DeLange [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

10

om • Elizabeth L. Deeley

11

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],tiffany.lee@kirkland. com,[email protected]

12 • Andrew Ditchfield [email protected]

13 • Facebook, Inc. [email protected]

14 • Francis M. Gregorek [email protected]

15 • Joy Ann Kruse [email protected]

16 • Mark I. Labaton [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected]

17

om • Rosemary Farrales Luzon

18

[email protected] ,[email protected] • Azra Z. Mehdi

19

[email protected] • Patrick Hugh Moran

20

[email protected] • Danielle Suzanne Myers

21

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] • Neal Alan Potischman

22

[email protected] ,[email protected],[email protected],felicia.yu@ davispolk.com

23 • Rachele R. Rickert [email protected]

24 • James P. Rouhandeh [email protected]

25 Manual Notice List

26 The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case

27 (who therefore require manual noticing).

28



2

Counsel for Michael Spatz:

Gregory M. Nespole Robert B. Weintraub Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman&Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

Counsel for KBC Asset Management NV and the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands (Collectively, the Institutional Investors):

David P. Abel James M. Hughes William S. Norton Joseph F. Rice Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

Counsel for Facebook, Inc.:

Richard D. Bernstein Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP 1875 K Street Washington, DC 20006

Counsel for Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co, Barclays Capital Inc, Allen & Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated:

Charles S. Duggan Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017

Counsel for Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co.:

Samantha Harper Knox Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025

Counsel for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Blaylock Robert Van LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Cabrera Capital Markets, LLC, Castleoak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, E*Trade Securities LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Lebenthal & Co., LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, M.R.

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1051602.1 - - Civil No. 3:12-CV-02662-MMC


1 Beal & Company, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Pacific Crest Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James &

2 Associates, Inc., Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, The Williams Capital Group, L.P., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., C.L.

3 King & Associates, Inc.:

4 Andrew Ditchfield Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

5 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017

6 Neal Alan Potischman

7 Davis Polk & Wardwell 1600 El Camino Real

8 Menlo Park, CA 94025

9 Richard D. Bernstein Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP

10

1875 K Street Washington, DC 20006

11

12 Counsel for King & Associates, Inc.:

13 Richard D. Bernstein Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP

14

1875 K Street Washington, DC 20006

15 Counsel for Jeff Offner:

16 Daniel C. Girard

17 Ian Samson Jonathan Krasne Levine

18 Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP 601 California Street

19

Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104

20

21 Counsel for James Chang and Sameer Ansari:

22 Reed R. Kathrein Peter E. Borkon

23 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202

24 Berkeley, CA 94710

25 Counsel for John Gregory:

26 George Schieffelin Trevor

27 Bruce Lee Simon: Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny LLP

28 44 Montgomery Street



1

Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104

2 Alexander Robert Safyan

3 Clifford H. Pearson Daniel L. Warshaw

4 William James Newsom Pearson, Simon, Warshaw, Penny, LLP

5

15165 Ventura Blvd. Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

6

7 Counsel for Harvey Lapin:

8 Lionel Z. Glancy Casey Edwards Sadler

9 Michael M. Goldberg Robert Vincent Prongay

10 Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1925 Century Park East

11

Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722

12 Mark Robert Rosen

13 Barrack, Rodos & Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Sq.

14 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

15 Samuel M. Ward

16 Barrack Rodos & Bacine One America Plaza

17 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101

18

19 Counsel for Vernon R. DeMois, Jr.:

20 Daniel E. Bacine Beth T. Seltzer

21 Barrack Rodos & Bacine 2001 Market Street

22 Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103

23 Stephen R. Basser

24 Barrack, Rodos & Bacine One America Plaza

25 600 West Broadway Suite 900

26 San Diego, CA 92101

27 Counsel for Darryl Lazar

28



1 Lionel Z. Glancy Casey Edwards Sadler

2 Michael M. Goldberg Robert Vincent Prongay

3 Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1925 Century Park East

4

Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722

5 Mark Robert Rosen



8 Stephen R. Basser

9 Samuel M. Ward Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

10 One America Plaza 600 West Broadway

11

Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101

12

13 Counsel for Elbita Alfonso

14 Betsy Carol Manifold Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz

15 Symphony Towers 750 B Street Suite 2770


17 Counsel for Edward Shierry:

18 Frank James Johnson

19 David Elliot Johnson & Weaver, LLP

20 110 West A Street Suite 750


22 Counsel for Karen Cuker and Brian Gralnick:

23 Lionel Z. Glancy

24 Casey Edwards Sadler Michael M. Goldberg

25 Robert Vincent Prongay Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

26 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100

27 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722

28 Mark Robert Rosen





3 Stephen R. Basser

4 Samuel M. Ward Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

5 One America Plaza 600 West Broadway

6 Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101

7

8 Counsel for Michael Lieber:

9 Jordan L. Lurie Andrew Joseph Sokolowski

10 Raul Perez Sue Jin Kim

11 Initiative Legal Group APC 1800 Century Park East

12 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067

13

14 Counsel for Jennifer Stokes:

15 Robert Ahdoot Bradley Keith King

16 Theodore Walter Maya Tina Wolfson

17 Ahdoot & Wolfson APC 10850 Wilshire Boulevard

18

Suite 370 Los Angeles, CA 90024

19

20 Counsel for Thomas J. Ahrendsten and Aaron M. Levine:

21 Jonathan Shub Seeger Weiss LLP

22

1515 Market Street Suite 1380

23 Philadelphia, PA 19102

24 Christopher A. Seeger Seeger Weiss LLP

25 77 Water Street 26th Floor

26 New York, NY 10005

27 Counsel for Kevin Hicks, Linh Liuu, and 135 additional Plaintiffs:

28



1 Raj Vasant Abhyanker Raj Abhyanker, PC

2 1580 W El Camino Real Suite 13

3 Mountain View, CA 94040

4 Kuscha Hatami Fard Raj Abhyanker P.C.

5 1580 W El Camino Real Suite 14

6 Mountain View, CA 94040

7 Counsel for Thomas E. Nelson:

8 Jon Charles Furgison

9 444 Longfellow Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


richard m. heimann (state bar no. 063607) -...

Documents