Pension Trust Fund For Operating Engineers v. DeVry Education Group, Inc. et al

Northern District of Illinois, ilnd-1:2016-cv-05198

Exhibit 5

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 1 of 28 PagelD #:2977 Exhibit 5 Case: 1:16-CV-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 2 of 28 Pageld #:2977 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No. 1:16-CV-05198 Hon. Mary M. Rowland Plaintiff, DEVRY EDUCATION GROUP, INC., DANIEL HAMBURGER, RICHARD M. GUNST, PATRICK J. UNZICKER, AND TIMOTHY J. WIGGINS, Defendants. DECLARATION OF EUGENE A. SPECTOR ON BEHALF OF SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES I, EUGENE A. SPECTOR, declare as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1746: 1. I am a shareholder of the law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. I am submitting this declaration in support of my firm's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with services rendered in the above-entitled action (the "Action") from inception through October 15, 2019 (the "Time Period"). 2. My firm, which served as the original Court-appointed Lead Counsel in the Action, researched and prepared the first amended Complaint, conducted a comprehensive investigation into the Class' claims including interviewing confidential witnesses, and briefed the opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 3. The information in this declaration regarding my firm's time and expenses is taken from time and expense records prepared and maintained by the firm in the ordinary course of business. I reviewed these records (and backup documentation where necessary) to confirm both Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:2977 "Plaintiffs' counsel have been excellent in this complex, hard-fought litigation and innovative in its notice program and efforts to find class members." New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund y. First Databank, Inc., C.A. 05-11148 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2009) "Here, Plaintiffs' counsel are highly experienced in complex antitrust litigation, as evidenced by the attorney biographies filed with the Court. ... They have obtained a significant settlement for the Class despite the complexity and difficulties of this case." Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., C.A. No. 03-4578 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2005) "Counsel are among the most experienced lawyers the national bar has to offer in the prosecution and defense of significant class actions." In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 345 F. Supp. 2d 135, 137-38 (D. Mass. 2004) "[T]he class attorneys in this case have worked with enthusiasm and have been creative in their attempt to compensate as many members of the consumer class as possible. ... This Court has consistently noted the exceptional efforts of class counsel." In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 52, 80 (D. Mass. 2005) Securities/Corporate Governance Litigation SRK's securities practice group has actively managed important class actions involving securities fraud, winning not only significant damages but also important corporate governance reforms. Some of the Firm's most notable cases include: In re Abbott Labs-Depakote Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No.: 1:11-cv- 08114 (VMK) (N.D.Ill.). As the lead counsel, SRK negotiated cutting-edge corporate reforms including new legal and regulatory compliance responsibilities at both the board and management levels, a clawback policy which goes well beyond the requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, a change of the "tone at the top" to foster a culture of legal and regulatory compliance, "flow of information" protocols, and other significant reforms designed to address oversight deficiencies that resulted in Abbott having to pay $1.6 billion in criminal and civil penalties due to the illegal marketing and sale of its Depakote drug (the second largest penalties ever paid for off-label marketing at that time). In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv- 5523 (S.D.N.Y.). SRK was one of the firms prosecuting the U.S. action against Lehman Brothers arising from a massive fraud pertaining to the credit market meltdown. In this securities class action, SRK represents one of the lead plaintiffs, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee ("NILGOSC"). The case settled for over $600 million. Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 12 of 28 Pageld #:2977 In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 0030 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.). SRK was one of the co-lead counsel for the lead plaintiffs, who are European institutional bond holders, in this widely-known case, often called the "Enron of Europe." This is a massive worldwide securities fraud action involving the collapse of an international dairy conglomerate, in which major financial institutions and accounting firms created schemes to materially overstate Parmalat's revenue, income, and assets, and understate its considerable and expanding debt. The case has been heavily litigated for five years, resulting in settlements of $98 million. In addition, settlements with certain accounting firms provided that these defendants confirm their endorsement of specific corporate governance principles of behavior designed to advance investor protection and to minimize the likelihood of future deceptive transactions. This is the first time in a Section 10(b) case that shareholders were able to negotiate corporate governance measures from a defendant other than the issuer. In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Litigation, No. 04 Civ, 07897 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y.) (formerly known as Converium Holdings). In the Converium U.S. class action, SRK was one of the co-lead counsel representing a European institutional investor which served as one of the lead plaintiffs in that action. The Firm negotiated a $145 million recovery for a global class of investors, which involved settling the action on two continents - the first trans-Atlantic resolution to a securities class action. Part of the settlement, on behalf of foreign investors, was approved in the Netherlands under the then newly enacted Act on Collective Statement of Mass Claims. What is particularly noteworthy about the Converium litigation is that the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, in a landmark decision, ruled that it had jurisdiction to declare the two international settlements of that action binding. What makes the Converium decision groundbreaking is that, in addition to showing its willingness to provide an effective forum for European and other investors to settle their claims on a pan-European or even global basis, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal substantially broadened its jurisdictional reach – to the benefit of investors in this case and in future actions. The Dutch Court secured jurisdiction even though the claims were not brought under Dutch law, the alleged wrongdoing took place outside the Netherlands, and none of the potentially liable parties and only a limited number of the potential claimants are domiciled in the Netherlands. The decision means that European Union Member States, as well as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway, must recognize it, under the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention. Without the approval of the settlements by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, common stock holders of Converium, who were excluded from the U.S. action, would not have been able to recover a portion of their losses. Utah Retirement Systems v. Strauss, No. 09-cv-3221 (E.D.N.Y.). SRK served as counsel in an individual (opt-out) action brought on behalf of the Utah Retirement Systems relating to the scandal at American Home Mortgage - one of the ~3~ Case: 1:16-CV-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:2977 companies involved in the subprime market meltdown. This action alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as well as various state laws. Although the monetary terms of the settlement are confidential, SRK was able to negotiate an amount that was nearly four times more than what the Utah Retirement Systems would have received had it participated in the class action. In re Laidlaw, Inc. Bondholders Securities Litigation, No. 3-00-2518-17 (D.S.C.). SRK was a member of the Executive Committee in this complex accounting case which resulted in a settlement of $42,875,000. In re Abbott Laboratories, Inc. Derivative Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 99-C 07246 (N.D. Ill.) (Abbott I). SRK was co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. The case was dismissed twice but reversed on appeal, and settled in 2004 for substantial corporate governance reforms funded by $27 million from directors. The ABA's Securities Litigation Journal called the Seventh Circuit's opinion the second most important decision in 2003. Felzen v. Andreas (Archer Daniels Midland Co. Derivative Litigation), C.A. No. 95-2279 (C.D. ill.). As co-lead counsel, SRK negotiated broad corporate governance changes in the company's board structure including strengthening the independence of the board of directors, creating corporate governance and regulatory oversight committees, requiring that the audit committee be composed of a majority of outside directors, and establishing a $8 million fund for educational seminars for directors and the retention of independent outside counsel for the oversight committees. The Firm is in the forefront of advising and representing foreign institutional investors in U.S. class actions and in group actions in Europe, Australia and Japan. During the past 14 years, SRK has been working with and representing various European investors and conducting educational seminars on securities class actions, as well as speaking at international shareholder and corporate governance conferences. The Firm is currently counsel to numerous large European entities. Pharmaceutical Marketing Litigation Since 2001, the Firm has been at the vanguard of identifying and pursuing healthcare reforms. It has developed an extensive practice in representing consumers and third-party payors in class actions against pharmaceutical companies over the unlawfully high pricing of prescription drugs. These cases have proceeded in state and federal courts on a variety of legal theories, including state and federal antitrust law, state consumer protection statutes, common law claims of unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO statute. As part of their work in this area, the Firm's attorneys have formally and informally ~4 Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:2977 consulted with the Attorneys General of a number of states who have been actively involved in drug and health care litigation. The Attorney General of Connecticut chose SRK in a competitive bidding process to help lead the state's pharmaceutical litigation involving use of the Average Wholesale Price. The Firm's clients also include large employee benefit plans as well as individual consumers. Some of the Firm's important pharmaceutical cases include the following: SRK, as co-lead counsel, devised the legal theory for claims against most major pharmaceutical companies for using the Average Wholesale Price to inflate the price paid by consumers and third-party payors for prescription and doctor- administered drugs. The larger AWP case, In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.), was tried in part to the court in November-December 2006. On June 21, 2007, the judge issued a 183-page opinion largely finding for plaintiffs, and requesting additional evidence on damages. Moreover, plaintiffs have reached settlements in amounts exceeding $230 million. SRK was co-lead counsel for the class. In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.). SRK, as co-lead counsel, negotiated a settlement of $150 million for purchasers of the cancer drug Lupron. New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First Databank, Inc., C.A. 05- 11148 (D. Mass.) and District 37 Health and Securities Fund v. Medi-Span, C.A. No. 07-10988 (D. Mass.). SRK was co-lead counsel for a group of third-party payors who pay for prescription drugs at prices based on the AWP. The complaints allege that First DataBank and Medispan, two of the largest publishers of AWP, fraudulently published inflated AWP prices for thousands of drugs. The claims against McKesson settled for $350 million. In addition, the settlement requires First DataBank and Medispan to lower the AWP price they publish for hundreds of drugs (by reducing the formulaic ratio they use to calculate AWP); and to eventually cease publishing AWP prices. Plaintiffs' experts conservatively estimate that the savings from this settlement will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. C.A. 03-4578 (E.D. Pa.). SRK was co-lead counsel on behalf of direct purchasers of the drug Paxil. The complaint alleged that the drug company misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in obtaining the patents protecting Paxil and then used the patents to prevent lower-cost, generic versions of the drug from coming to market. A settlement of $100 million was approved by the court. In re TriCor Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 05-360 (D. Del.). SRK was co-lead counsel for indirect purchasers in prosecuting state antitrust and ~5~ Case: 1:16-CV-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 15 of 28 Pageld #:2977 consumer protection claims against Abbott Laboratories and Labatoires Fournier for suppressing competition from generic versions of TriCor. The indirect purchaser case settled for $65.7 million to the class plus a substantial settlement for opt-out insurers. In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 01-12239 (D. Mass.). SRK was co- lead counsel for indirect purchasers in prosecuting state antitrust and consumer protection claims against GlaxoSmithKline for suppressing competition from generic versions of its drug Relafen by fraudulently obtaining a patent on the compound. The indirect purchaser settlement for $75 million was approved by the court (the overall settlement for all plaintiffs exceeded $400 million). Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., CA No. 06-1833 (E.D. Pa.) and In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation, CA No. 11-5479 (D.N.J.). SRK is serving as co- lead counsel in on-going litigation over pay-for-delay settlements involving the drugs Provigil and Effexor XR. The firm represented end -payors (consumers and healthplans) who were denied the chance to buy cheaper generic alternatives because of manipulation of the patent challenge and generic drug approval system by the brand name companies and some generic manufacturers. In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2460 (E.D. Pa) and In re Suboxone Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2445(E.D. Pa). SRK was appointed to serve as Liaison Counsel for a purported class of end payors for the drugs Niaspan and Suboxone. In each case, the complaint alleges that the end payors were overcharged by defendants' illegal efforts to keep generic versions off the market which caused the class to pay supra competitive monopolistic prices. Antitrust Litigation SRK's antitrust practice group regularly oversees important antitrust cases. Among the Firm's most significant cases are: In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL 12-2311 (E.D. Mich.). SRK has been appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs for all product cases filed (currently 16 different cases with more to follow). These massive price-fixing class actions are being brought on behalf of direct purchasers who were overcharged for various kinds of automotive parts, including wire harness products, heater control panels, instrument panel clusters, fuel senders, occupant safety restraint system products, bearings, air conditioning systems, starters, windshield wiper systems, windshield washer systems, spark plugs, oxygen sensors, fuel injection systems, alternators, ignition coils, and power window motors. All cases are pending before Judge Marianne Battani in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit. SRK and its Interim Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs have defeated ~0~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:2977 motions to dismiss filed to date in all product cases. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs have reached settlements with four defendants totaling approximately $53 million. In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL 12-2437 (E.D. Pa.). SRK has been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in this nation-wide price fixing class action. In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, MDL 09-2081 (E.D. Pa.). SRK was appointed sole Lead Counsel in this nation-wide, price-fixing class action. In January 2012, Spector Roseman negotiated a $22 million settlement with one defendant, and Judge DuBois certified plaintiffs' class in August 2012 (which was upheld on appeal). The case is set for trial in early 2017. McDonough, et al., v. Toys R Us, et al. (E.D. Pa.) (Brody, J.). SRK is Co-Lead Counsel for six sub-classes of Babies "R" Us' customers, a rare case involving resale price maintenance in which a purchaser class was certified. A settlement of $35.5 million was achieved on behalf of the sub-classes. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa.). SRK was appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in this price-fixing antitrust action which settled for total of $202 million, the largest antitrust settlement ever in Third Circuit. In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (PSD) (E.D. Pa.). SRK was lead counsel for a nationwide class of direct purchasers, which settled for $120 million. In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1200 (W.D. Pa.). SRK was co- lead counsel for plaintiffs in this price fixing/market allocation antitrust action which settled for $120 million. In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.). SRK was a member of the executive committee in this action against all major manufacturers of "dynamic random access memory" ("DRAM"), alleging that defendants conspired to fix the prices they charged for DRAM in the United States and throughout the world. The case settled with all defendants for more than $300 million. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Misc. No. 99-0197 (D. D.C.). SRK was a member of the executive committee and co-chair of the discovery committee for plaintiffs in this price-fixing antitrust action which settled for $300 million. ~7~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:2977 Privacy Litigation SRK is also litigation numerous cases relating to privacy. In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation (N.D. Cal.). SRK was appointed Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in this action. Google used its "Street View" vehicles to access wireless internet networks located in the United States and more than thirty countries around the world. Google's Street View vehicles traveled through cities and towns and collected data sent and received over the wireless networks they encountered, including all or part of e- mails, passwords, videos, audio files, and documents, as well as network names and router information. This data was captured and stored without the knowledge or authorization of class members. Plaintiffs allege that Google's conduct violated Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, et seq, also known as the Wiretap Act. The District Court denied Google's motion to dismiss and Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Google's motion to dismiss. The panel held that Google's data collection could be a violation of the Wiretap Act because Wi-Fi communications are "electronic communications" that are not "readily accessible to the general public." The Court rejected Google's argument that Wi-Fi communications are "radio communication" and its contention that this permitted Google to freely intercept them so long as they are not encrypted. Google is seeking Supreme Court review. In Re: Heartland Payment Systems Inc. Customer Data Security Breach MDL No. 2046 (S.D. TX). SRK represents banks in a class action after Heartland disclosed on January 20, 2009 that it had been the victim of a security breach within its processing system in 2008. The data stolen included the digital information encoded onto the magnetic stripe built into the backs of credit and debit cards; with that data, thieves can fashion counterfeit credit cards by imprinting the same stolen information onto fabricated cards. In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Breach MDL No. 14-2522 (D. Minn). SRK represents banks in a class-action lawsuit against Target claiming the retail giant ignored warnings from as early as 2007 that the company's point-of-sale (POS) system was vulnerable to attack, a move that put more than 40 million credit and debit card records at risk and compromised the personal information of up to an additional 70 million customers after Target's systems were penetrated by attackers from on or about November 27, 2013 through December 15, 2013. ~8~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:2977 PARTNERS EUGENE A. SPECTOR, founding partner, has extensive experience in complex litigation, and has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust and securities. Mr. Spector has handled many high profile cases, including such antitrust class actions as In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa.), in which he was co-lead counsel and which settled for more than $200 million, the largest antitrust case settlement ever in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Judge Dubois stated: "The Court has repeatedly stated that the lawyering in this case at every stage was superb ..." 2004 WL 1221350, *6 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2004). Mr. Spector was also co-lead counsel in In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, No. 01-12239 (D. Mass.), in which a settlement of $75 million was obtained for the class, which Judge Young described as "the result of a great deal of very fine lawyering." Mr. Spector has been involved in securities class action litigation including Rosenthal y. Dean Witter, which resulted in a landmark decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that recognized, for the first time, that securities fraud could be proved without reliance being alleged. This precedent-setting case was important because under state securities law the reliance element sometimes proved difficult, especially when large numbers of people were involved in a class action suit. Mr. Spector is currently serving as sole lead counsel in In Re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 02081 (E.D. Pa.); as co-lead counsel in such antitrust cases as In re Domestic Drywall Antirust Litigation, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa.); In Re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311 (E.D. Mich.); McDonough, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et al.,2:06-cv-00242-AB (E.D. Pa.); Elliott, et al. Toys "R" Us, Inc. d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et al.,2:09-cv-06151-AB (E.D. Pa.); as a member of the direct purchaser Plaintiff's Executive Committee in In Re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2186 (D.Id.), as a member of the Steering Committee for all Plaintiffs in In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2029 (N.D. Cal.), and as a member of the trial team in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869 (D.D.C.). Mr. Spector has served as lead or co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in numerous cases with successful results, such as: In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa.) (settled for $202 million, the largest antitrust settlement ever in the Third Circuit) In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 01-12239 (D. Mass.) (a drug marketing case that settled for $75 million for indirect purchasers) In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1200 (W.D. Pa.) (a price- fixing/market allocation antitrust action that settled for $120 million) In re Mercedes Benz Antitrust Litigation, No. 99-4311 (D.N.J.) (a price-fixing class action against Mercedes-Benz U.S.A. and its New York tri-state area dealers in which a $17.5 million settlement was obtained for the class) Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 19 of 28 PagelD #:2977 Cohen v. MacAndrews & Forbes Group, Inc., No. 7390 (Del. Ch.) (a class action on behalf of shareholders challenging a going-private transaction under Delaware corporate law in which a benefit in excess of $11 million was obtained for the class) Mr. Spector has also served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in a number of other securities fraud class action cases and shareholder derivative actions: Shanno v. Magee Industrial Enterprises, Inc., No. 79-2038 (E.D. Pa.) (trial counsel for defendants); In re U.S. Healthcare Securities Litigation, No. 88-559 (E.D. Pa.) (trial counsel); PNB Mortgage and Realty Trust by Richardson v. Philadelphia National Bank, No. 82-5023 (E.D. Pa.); Swanick v. Felton, No. 91- 1350 (E.D. Pa.); In re Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 91-CV-2478 (E.D. Pa.); Tolan v. Adler, No. C-90-20710-WAI (PVT) (N.D. Cal.); Rosenthal v. Dean Witter, Reynolds, Inc., No. 91-F-591 (D. Colo.); Soenen v. American Dental Laser, Inc., No. 92 CV 71917 DT (E.D. Mich.); In re Sunrise Technologies Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-92-0948- THE (N.D. Cal.); The Berwyn Fund v. Kline, No. 4671-S-1991 (Dauphin Cty. C.C.P.); In re Pacific Enterprises Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-92-0841-JSL (C.D. Cal.); In re New America High Income Fund Securities Litigation, Master File No. 90-10782-MA (D. Mass.); and In re RasterOps Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C-92-20349-RMW (EAI) (N.D. Cal. 1992). Further, Mr. Spector has actively participated as plaintiffs' counsel in national class action antitrust cases, including In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. M-02-1486 PJH (N.D. Cal.) (executive committee); In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Misc. No. 99-0197 (TFH) (D.D.C.) (Chair of the discovery committee); In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1479 (D. N.J.) (executive committee); Ryan-House v. GlaxoSmithKline, plc, No. 02-CV-442 (ED Va.) (co-chair class certification committee); In re Bulk [Extruded] Graphite Products Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-06030 (D. N.J.) (chair of experts committee); In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, No 04-MD-1631 (D. Conn.); In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-CV-1576 (W.D.N.C.); Chlorine & Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, No. 86-5428 (E.D. Pa.); In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 997 (N.D. Ill.); Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075 (N.D. Ga.); NASDAQ Market Markers Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.); Potash Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 981 (D. Minn.); Commercial Tissue Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1189 (N.D. Fla.); High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1087 (C.D. Ill.). In 2002, Mr. Spector obtained a jury verdict of $4.5 million in Heiser v. SEPTA, No. 3167 July Term 1999 (Phila. C.C.P.), an employment class action. Mr. Spector is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the United States Supreme Court; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits; and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Michigan. He is a graduate of Temple University (B.A. 1965) and an honors graduate of Temple University School of Law (J.D. 1970), where he was an editor of the Temple Law Quarterly. He served as law clerk to the Honorable Herbert B. Cohen and the Honorable Alexander F. Barbieri, Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (1970-71). ~10~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 20 of 28 PagelD #:2977 Mr. Spector has written a number of articles over the years which appeared in the National Law Journal, the Legal Intelligencer, and other trade and legal publications, and he has appeared on CNBC to discuss securities fraud. He is a member of the American, Federal, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations; the American Bar Association's Antitrust and Litigation Sections and the Securities Law Sub-Committee of the Litigation Section; and the Federal Courts Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association. Mr. Spector has been appointed to the Advisory Board of the American Antitrust Institute and has been named as a leading U.S. plaintiffs' antitrust lawyer by Who's Who Legal Competition 2014, published by the Global Competition Review. Mr. Spector also has been appointed to serve on the Board of Visitors of the James E. Beasley School of Law of Temple University. He is A-V rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named by Law & Politics to its list of Pennsylvania "Superlawyers." ROBERT M. ROSEMAN, founding partner of SRK, chairs the Firm's international and domestic securities practice. His practice focuses on investor protection issues, including the enforcement of the federal securities laws and state laws involving fiduciary duties of directors and officers, and under the laws in the various jurisdictions in Europe where group actions can be brought. An important component of his practice involves protecting U.S. and European investors in European proceedings. In that role, he works with U.S. and European institutional investors on investor protection and corporate governance matters. Most notable example of Mr. Roseman's role is Co-Lead Counsel is in the Converium/SCOR action, where he prosecuted the first US securities class action settled on two continents (for a collective $145 million). The European portion of this settlement is being adjudicated before the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam using the Dutch Act on the Collective Settlements of Mass Damage Claims. Importantly, Mr. Roseman's international expertise helped secure a key decision from the Dutch Court of Appeal in this case that will likely make it easier in the future for U.S. and European investors to claim monies recovered from actions brought in the Netherlands. Mr. Roseman represented European institutions and was co-lead counsel in the landmark In re Parmalat Securities Litigation action, the largest fraud in European corporate history that is frequently referred to as Europe's Enron, which settled for $96.5 million. There, Mr. Roseman devised a unique legal theory against the bankrupt Parmalat which used Italian bankruptcy law to secure funds not normally available to investors. He also extracted corporate governance endorsements from defendants other than the issuer - a first in a US-based investor action. Among other notable cases, Mr. Roseman represented Brussels-based KBC Asset Management in In re Royal Dutch/Shell Securities Litigation and Brussels-based Fortis Investments in In re Chicago Bridge and Iron Securities Litigation. He represented the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, a UK institution, that is one of the lead plaintiffs in the US investor action involving Lehman Brothers and was co-lead counsel In re Atheros Communications Shareholder Litigation, in which he obtained a preliminary injunction of a merger where inadequate information about the transaction had been disclosed to shareholders. ~11~ Case: 1:16-CV-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:2977 Mr. Roseman has been at the vanguard of using securities class actions and derivative suits to implement corporate governance changes at U.S. and European companies to help them operate more effectively and reduce the likelihood that wrongdoing will occur in the future. He litigated as lead counsel against the directors of Abbott Labs (involving off label marketing of Depakote) in which the company agreed for a four year period to implement cutting-edge, bespoke reforms addressing allegations of illegal conduct which are designed to prevent it from occurring in the future. As co-lead counsel Mr. Roseman litigated against the directors of Archer Daniels Midland Company in which the corporation agreed to implement significant reforms which, at that time, were "state of the art" corporate governance measures designed to strengthen the independence of the board of directors. Mr. Roseman also litigated against the directors of Abbott Laboratories (Abbott I) and settled the case for numerous corporate governance changes governing the way in which the board of directors addresses regulatory matters. The Seventh Circuit's landmark decision in this case was named second among the top ten securities law decisions of 2003 by the American Bar Association's Securities Litigation Journal. Mr. Roseman has written extensively on securities and investor protection issues, including Global Markets, Global Fraud: What We Can Learn from Europe's Enron', Investment and Pensions Europe (May 2006 supp.); Cost-Effective Monitoring of Corporate Fraud: Reducing the Time Necessary to Stay Informed, Investment and Pensions Europe (June 2006 supp.); and A Trans-Atlantic Trend, Professional Investor (May 2005). He also appeared in a roundtable discussion in Global Pensions (October 2006 supp.). Mr. Roseman has been a frequent speaker at numerous U.S. and international conferences on the issues of investor protection through litigation and engagement and the importance of using corporate governance measures as part of settlements to ensure that Board of Directors act in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders. In addition to speaking at numerous conferences in the U.S., Mr. Roseman appeared as an invited speaker at institutional investor conferences held in London, Paris, Munich, Milan, Barcelona, Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin and the Annual Conference of the International Corporate Governance Network in Amsterdam in 2004 and Paris in 2011. Mr. Roseman obtained his J.D. in 1982 from Temple University School of Law and earned his B.S. cum laude in political science from the State University of New York in 1978. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Central District of Illinois, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits, United States Court of Federal Claims, and United States Supreme Court. He is a member of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New York State and Federal Bar Associations. Mr. Roseman recently served or is currently serving as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous major cases, including: Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. DeVry Education Group, No. 16- cy-05198 (N.D.Ill.) In re The Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14 Civ. 0952 (GMS) (D. Del.) ~12~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 22 of 28 Pageld #:2977 In re Abbott-Depakote Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:11-cv-08114 (N.D. Ill.) In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, 1:09-mdl- 0217-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y.) In re Life Partners Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2:11-CV-00043- AM (W.D. Tex.) In re Atheros Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6124-CVN (Del. Ch. Ct) In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 07897 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y.) (settled for $145 million) In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 0030 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (settled for $98 million) In re PSINet, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-1850-A (E.D. Va.) (settled for $17,833,000 on the eve of trial) Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., No. 06 Civ. 1283 (S.D.N.Y.) Mr. Roseman is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New York; the United States Supreme Court; the United States Court of Federal Claims; the United States Court of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits; and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Central District of Illinois. He is also a member of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, New York State, and Federal Bar Associations. He has lectured extensively throughout Europe on the role of private litigation in enforcing U.S. securities laws. He earned a B.S. degree with honors in political science from the State University of New York in 1978, and a J.D. degree in 1982 from Temple University School of Law. He is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named by Law & Politics to its list of Pennsylvania "Superlawyers." JEFFREY L. KODROFF concentrates his practice in healthcare antitrust, securities and consumer litigation. He was among the first attorneys to represent clients in class action litigation against national health maintenance organizations. (Tulino v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., No. 95-CV- 4176 (E.D. Pa.)). He also filed the first class action complaint against the manufacturers of the cancer drug Lupron relating to the illegal marketing practices and use of the published Average Wholesale Price. Mr. Kodroff was co-lead counsel in In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.), which settled for $150 million. Mr. Kodroff was also co- lead counsel in a consolidated national class action against many of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, including GlaxoSmithKline, BMS, J&J, Schering-Plough and ~13~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 23 of 28 Pageld #:2977 AstraZeneca, for their illegal marketing and use of a false Average Wholesale Price. See In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.) (settlement over $300 million.) He has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in other substantial pharmaceutical marketing cases, including New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First Databank, Inc. and McKesson Corp., C.A. 05-11148 (D. Mass.); and District 37 Health and Securities Fund v. Medi- Span, C.A. No. 07-10988 (D. Mass. 2007). This litigation massive class action was against pharmaceutical wholesaling giant McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") and pharmaceutical pricing publishers First DataBank, Inc. ("FDB") and Medi-Span. The case addressed an unlawful 5% mark-up in the Average Wholesale Prices ("AWPs") of various drugs, causing consumers and third party payors to overpay for pharmaceuticals. The case settled for $350 million plus an agreement to roll back AWPs by 5% thereby saving the Class and others hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Kodroff has also been very active in litigation against brand named pharmaceutical companies in their attempts to keep generic drugs from entering the market. Mr. Kodroff has served or is serving as co-lead counsel in numerous major cases, including: In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (E.D. Pa., Judge Paul S. Diamond) (settled for $120 million) Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. C.A. 03-4578 (E.D. Pa., Judge Padova) (settled for $150 million) In re Express Scripts, Inc., PBM Litigation, Master Case No. 05-md-01672-SNL (E.D. Mo.) In re Lovenox Antitrust Litigation, Case No. CV05-5598 (C.D. Cal.) In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ. 2237 (S.D.N.Y.) Man-U Service Contract Trust, et al. v. Wyeth, Inc. (Effexor Antitrust Litigation) Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-05661 (D.N.J.) In re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 2:12-cv-03555 (E.D. Pa., Judge C. Darnell Jones, II) Vista Healthplan Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-1833 (E.D. Pa., Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg) (Provigil) -14- Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:2977 Mr. Kodroff has served as lead or co-lead counsel in many class action securities fraud cases, including In re Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 99-CV-5333 (E.D. Pa.); In re Dreyfus Aggressive Growth Mutual Fund Litigation, No. 98 Civ. 4318 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.); Kalodner v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 3:95-CV-1903-R (N.D. Tex.); In re Valuevision International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 94-CV-2838 (E.D. Pa.); In re GTECH Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 94-0294 (D.R.I.); In re Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 91-CV-2478 (E.D. Pa.); and The Berwyn Fund v. Kline, No. 4671-S- 1991 (Dauphin Cty. C.C.P.). He has also served as lead or co-lead counsel in many consumer class actions including the current case In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, Case No. C 10- md-02184 JW (N.D. Cal.), which arise out of Google's interception of electronic communications by its Street View vehicles. Other consumer class actions in which Mr. Kodroff has served as lead or co-lead counsel include: Kaufman v. Comcast Cablevision of Phila., Inc., No. 9712-3756 (Phila. C.C.P.); LaChance v. Harrington, No. 94-CV-4383 (E.D. Pa.); Smith v. Recordex, No. 5152, June Term 1991 (Phila. Cty. C.C.P.); Guerrier v. Advest Inc., C.A. No. 90-709 (D. N.J.); and Pache v. Wallace, C.A. No. 93-5164 (E.D. Pa.). Mr. Kodroff has served as a Continuing Legal Education presenter on class actions and health care issues as well as making presentations at conferences including the NCPERS Health Care Symposium and the Pennsylvania Public Employees Retirement System Conference. He also serves on the advisory board for the Bureau of National Affairs Class Action Litigation Report. Mr. Kodroff also appeared with one of his clients before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Banking and Financial Services on the issue of predatory lending. Mr. Kodroff is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States District Courts for the Middle and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and American Bar Associations. A graduate of LaSalle University, where he earned his undergraduate degree in finance (magna cum laude, 1986), Mr. Kodroff received his law degree from Temple University School of Law (1989). He is a resident of Dresher, Pennsylvania. Mr. Kodroff is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell. JEFFREY J. CORRIGAN joined SRK in 2000 as a partner to help direct the Firm's complex antitrust litigation. From 1990 until 2000, he was a Trial Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice in the New York office of the Antitrust Division. Mr. Corrigan has extensive experience investigating and prosecuting complex antitrust and other white collar criminal cases. He was lead counsel on numerous federal grand jury investigations and has significant federal trial experience as well. His cases include United States v. Tobacco Valley Sanitation, Cr. H-90-4 (D. Conn. 1991); and United States v. Singleton, Crim. No. 94-10066 (D. Mass. 1995). He was nominated by the Antitrust Division in 1999 for the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for his lead role on a major case involving bid- ~15~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:2977 rigging at state courthouses in Queens and Brooklyn in New York City, which resulted in 49 guilty pleas. United States v. Abrishamian, No. 98 CR 826 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). Mr. Corrigan also played a major part in United States v. Canstar Sports USA, Inc., C.A. No. 93-7 (D. Vt. 1993), a complex civil antitrust case. Mr. Corrigan is currently serving as sole Liaison and Interim Lead Class Counsel in In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, MDL 09-2081 (E.D. Pa.), a nation-wide, price-fixing class action into the market for blood reagents, which are used for testing blood. Mr. Corrigan is also currently serving as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs in In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL 12-2437 (E.D. Pa.), a nation-wide price fixing class action. He has been co-lead counsel in In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV- 00826 (PSD) (E.D. Pa.), where a nationwide class of direct purchasers settled for $120 million; and In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 99-4311 (D. N.J.) (settled for $17.5 million). He was also active in In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 98-5055 (E.D. Pa.), which settled for $202 million; In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.1413 (S.D.N.Y.) which in 2003 settled for $670 million for all plaintiff groups; and In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1200 (W.D. Pa.), which settled for $120 million. Mr. Corrigan is a 1985 graduate of The State University of New York at Stony Brook, where he earned his B.A. in economics. He received his J.D. in 1990 from Fordham University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Board. Mr. Corrigan is admitted to practice in the states of New York and New Jersey, and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the D.C. Circuit; and the United States District Courts for the District of New Jersey, Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York. JOHN MACORETTA represents both individuals and businesses in a wide variety of litigation and, occasionally, transactional matters. He currently represents consumers and healthcare payors in several cases alleging that brand name pharmaceutical companies illegally kept generic drug competitors off the market. Mr. Macoretta is also involved in electronic privacy litigation, including the In re Google Streetview Electronic Communications Litigation, No. 10- md-02184 (N.D. Cal.) where he is a co-lead counsel representing consumers whose private wi-fi communications were intercepted. Mr. Macoretta also represents investors in stock-broker arbitration and class-action securities fraud litigation. He has been involved in a number of significant cases, including In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.) (where he acted as one of the trial counsel); In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.); In re Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 99-CV-5333 (E.D. Pa.); Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 4911 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. M-02-1486 PJH (N.D. Cal.). Mr. Macoretta graduated with honors from the University of Texas Law School in 1990 and received his undergraduate degree cum laude from LaSalle University in 1986. He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey; the United ~16~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:2977 States Court of Appeals for the First, Third and Ninth Circuits; and the United States District Courts in the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Michigan and the Middle and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania. In addition to being a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Mr. Macoretta also serves as an arbitrator in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the US District Court. Mr. Macoretta also serves as a pro bono attorney representing Philadelphia residents whose homes are facing foreclosure. WILLIAM G. CALDES is a partner in the Antitrust Practice Group. He has a national practice representing plaintiffs in antitrust class actions for over twenty years. He has represented both individual and corporate clients in class actions across the United States. Mr. Caldes has been involved in some of the largest Antitrust cases ever litigated, including In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.) which was the first antitrust case to have settlements in excess of one billion dollars to most recently being co-lead counsel in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311 (E.D. Mich.), regarded as one of the largest antitrust cases to be litigated to date. Mr. Caldes also represents several unions and their members in litigation against the pharmaceutical industry for various types of antitrust and consumer violations on behalf of the union's pension funds. He is currently involved in In Re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2460 (E.D.Pa.); In re Loestrin 24 FE Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2472 (D.R.I.); In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521 (N.D.Ca.); and In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2516 (D.Conn.). Among other cases in which Mr. Caldes has participated are McDonough, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et al., No. 2:06-cv-00242-AB (E.D. Pa.); Elliott, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et al., No. 2:09-cv-06151-AB (E.D. Pa.); In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2029 (N.D. Cal.); In re Processed Eggs Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002 (E.D. Pa.); In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1775 (E.D.N.Y.); In Re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:08-md-01950-VM (S.D.N.Y.); In Re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:10-ms-02143-RS (N.D. Cal.); In Re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:08-cv-04883 (N.D. Ill.); In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99-CV-20743 (N.D. Cal.); In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1419 (D.N.J.); In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 01-12222 (D. Mass); In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1413 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No.98-5055 (E.D. Pa.); In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No.M-02-1486 PJH (N.D. Cal.); In re Baycol Products Litigation, No. 1431 (D. Minn.); and In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Misc. No. 99-0197(TFH) (D.D.C.). Mr. Caldes is a 1986 graduate of the University of Delaware, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Economics and Political Science. He received his J.D. in 1994 from Rutgers School of Law at Camden, and then served as law clerk to the Honorable Rushton H. Ridgway of the New Jersey Superior Court, Cumberland County. Mr. Caldes is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. ~17~ Case: 1:16-CV-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:2977 JEFFREY L. SPECTOR graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 2000 with a B.S. in Economics and concentrations in Marketing and Legal Studies. He received his J.D. degree from Temple University in 2007. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Spector worked for the William Morris Agency in New York as a part of its prestigious Agent Training Program. Mr. Spector is currently participating in In Re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:09-md-02081-JD (E.D. Pa.); In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-md-2437 (E.D. Pa.); McDonough, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et al., No. 2:06-cv-00242-AB (E.D. Pa.); Elliott, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et al., No. 2:09-cv-06151-AB (E.D. Pa.); and In Re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.). Mr. Spector is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. He is currently a member of the American and Philadelphia Bar Associations. ASSOCIATES DIANA J. ZINSER focuses her practice on consumer protection and healthcare litigation. She is involved in a number of cases including In re Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, No 2:12-cv-03555 (E.D. Pa.); In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:13-md-2460 (E.D. Pa.; In re Suboxone Antitrust Litigation, (E.D. Pa.), and Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2:06-cv-01833 (E.D. Pa.). Prior to joining SRK, Ms. Zinser was an attorney with the law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLC, where she was involved with antitrust and complex consumer litigation. Ms. Zinser graduated cum laude from Saint Joseph's University in 2003 with a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in Economics, where she was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Sigma Alpha, and Omicron Delta Epsilon Honor Societies. She earned her J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2006. While attending law school, she received a summer fellowship from the Peggy Browning Fund and worked as a legal intern for Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 19. Ms. Zinser is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. OF COUNSEL RACHEL E. KOPP focuses her practice in antitrust litigation. She is involved in a number of significant cases, including In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-md- 2437 (E.D. Pa.); In Re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.); In Re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:09-md-02081-JD (E.D. Pa.); In Re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2221 (E.D.N.Y.); and In Re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (S.D.N.Y.). She has also previously been heavily involved in the following securities cases: In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 0030 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.); In Re Converium Holding AG Securities Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 7897 (DLC) ~18~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:2977 (S.D.N.Y.); Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., No. 06 Civ. 01283 (JES) (S.D.N.Y.); and In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.). Ms. Kopp has also been actively involved in the Philadelphia and American Philadelphia Bar Associations. Most recently, Ms. Kopp finished serving a three-year term on the Philadelphia Bar Association Board of Governors. Ms. Kopp has also served as the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division (ABA YLD) liaison to the ABA Standing Committee on Membership; the Membership Director of the ABA YLD, which is comprised of approximately 150,000 young lawyers worldwide; and the ABA YLD's Administrative Director. In recognition of her service to the ABA YLD, Ms. Kopp has received Star of the Year awards at several ABA Annual Meetings. Ms. Kopp earned her Juris Doctor degree from Villanova University Law School, where she received a Public Interest Summer Fellowship, to serve as a legal intern at New York Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts and VH1 Save The Music. She received a B.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland, where she concentrated in languages and studied abroad in Florence, Italy. Ms. Kopp is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. MARY ANN GEPPERT graduated cum laude from St. Joseph's University in 2000, with a B.S. degree in Finance. She received her Juris Doctor degree from the Widener University School of Law in 2003, where she served as the Articles Editor of the Widener Law Symposium Journal. She also was a legal intern for the Honorable James J. Fitzgerald of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Among the cases in which Ms. Geppert has participated are In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, C.A. No. 5:10-md-02184 (N.D. Cal.); Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2:06-cv-01833 (E.D. Pa.); and In re Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 2:12-cv-03555 (E.D. Pa.). Ms. Geppert is currently admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Ms. Geppert was named as a Pennsylvania Rising Star by Philadelphia Magazine in 2010 and 2013. ~19~ Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 3 of 28 PagelD #:2977 the accuracy of the entries as well as the necessity for and reasonableness of the time and expenses committed to the Action. My review also confirmed that the firm's guidelines and policies regarding expenses were followed. As a result of this review, I believe that the time reflected in the firm's lodestar calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought are reasonable in amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the Action. In addition, I believe that the expenses are all of a type that would normally be charged to a fee- paying client in the private legal marketplace. 4. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is a summary indicating the amount of time spent by attorneys and professional support staff members of my firm who were involved in the prosecution of the Action, and the lodestar calculation based on my firm's current hourly rates. For personnel who are no longer employed by my firm, the lodestar calculation is based upon the rates for such personnel in his or her final year of employment by my firm. The schedule was prepared from daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by my firm, which are available at the request of the Court. Time expended in preparing this application for fees and payment of expenses has not been included in this request. 5. The total number of hours spent on this Action reported by my firm during the Time Period is 1428.75. The total lodestar amount for reported attorney/professional staff time based on the firm's current rates is $ 888,647.50. 6. The hourly rates for the attorneys and professional support staff of my firm included in Exhibit A are my firm's usual and customary hourly rates, which have been approved by Courts in other securities class action litigations. My firm's lodestar figures are based upon the firm's hourly rates, which do not include charges for expense items. Expense items are recorded separately and are not duplicated in my firm's hourly rates. Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 4 of 28 Pageld #:2977 7. As detailed in Exhibit B, my firm has incurred a total of $ 27,049.99 in expenses in connection with the prosecution of the Action. The expenses are reflected on the books and records of my firm. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, and other source materials and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred. 8. With respect to the standing of my firm, attached hereto as Exhibit C is a brief biography of my firm as well as biographies of the firm's partners and of counsels. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st day of October, 2019. ENEA. SPECTOR - 3 - Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 5 of 28 Pageld #:2977 Exhibit A Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 6 of 28 Pageld #:2977 EXHIBIT A Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. DeVry Education Group, Inc. et al. Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. Reported Hours and Historical Lodestar Inception through October 15, 2019 NAME TOTAL HOURS | HISTORICAL LODESTAR HOURLY RATE | A. Abramowitz (P) 20.25 $750 $15,187.50 A. Dodemaide (A) 345.75 $450 $155,587.50 D. Felderman (P) 16.0 $695 $11,120.00 D. Mirarchi (P) 656.0 $585 $383,760.00 E. Spector (P) .20 $925 $185.00 A. Iozzo (PL) 1.0 $175 $175.00 D. Shay (PL) .5 $150 $75.00 C. Briglia (PL) 24.25 $250 $6,062.50 G. DeMarshall (PL) 15.5 $260 $4,030.00 R. Roseman (P) | 317.55 $900 $285,795.00 M. Willis (P) 31.75 $840 $26,670.00 TOTAL 1428.75 $888,647.50 (P) Partner (OC) Of Counsel (A) Associate (LC) Law Clerk (PL) Paralegal Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 7 of 28 Pageld #:2977 Exhibit B Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 8 of 28 Pageld #:2977 EXHIBIT B Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. DeVry Education Group, Inc. et al. Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. Reported Expenses Incurred Inception through October 15, 2019 EXPENSE REPORT CATEGORY AMOUNT INCURRED $1,754.00 $317.44 $84.00 $200.00 Duplicating Postage/Overnight Delivery Services Long Distance Telephone/Fax/Conference Calls Court/Witness/Service Fees Court Transcripts Computer Research Fees | Document Management/Litigation Support | Expert/Consultant Fees Mediation Fees Work-Related Transportation/Meals/ Lodging $9,871.30 $14,383.25 $440.00 TOTAL: $27,049.99 Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 9 of 28 PagelD #:2977 Exhibit C Case: 1:16-cv-05198 Document #: 154-5 Filed: 11/01/19 Page 10 of 28 PagelD #:2977 SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3420 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 215.496.0300 FAX 215.496.6611 http://www.srkattorneys.com email: classaction@srkattorneys.com FIRM BIOGRAPHY Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. is a highly successful law firm with a nationwide practice that focuses on class actions and complex litigation, including securities, antitrust, consumer protection, and commercial claims. The firm is active in major litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country and internationally. The firm's reputation for excellence has been recognized by numerous courts which have appointed the firm as lead counsel in prominent class actions. As a result of the firm's efforts, defrauded consumers and shareholders have recovered billions of dollars in damages and implemented important corporate governance reforms. The firm is rated "AV" by Martindale-Hubbell, its highest rating for competence and integrity. Judges throughout the country have recognized the Firm's contributions in class action cases: "Lead class counsel - Jeffrey Corrigan and the other lawyers from Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. - performed brilliantly in this exceptionally difficult case." In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (PSD) (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008) "[Class counsel] did a wonderful job here for the class and were in all respects totally professional and totally prepared. I wish I had counsel this good in front of me in every case." In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 0030 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (approval hearing March 2, 2009) "I think perhaps the most important for the class is the recovery, and I think the recovery has been significant and very favorable to the class given my understanding of the risks in the litigation. And so perhaps that's always the starting point for judging and assessing the quality of representation. The class I think was well represented, in that it got a very significant recovery in the circumstances". In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 07897 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y.) (formerly known as Converium Holdings) "O]utstanding work (of counsel] ... was done under awful time constraints" and the "efforts here were exemplary... under lousy time constraints." In re Atheros Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6124-VCN (Del. Ch.)