`
`
`
`
`
`Ramzi Abadou (SBN 222567)
`KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
`580 California Street, Suite 1200
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 459-6900
`Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
`ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com
`
`Proposed Lead Counsel and Counsel
`for Movant, José Luis Villasenin
`
`[Additional counsel on signature page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`NICK PATTERSON, Individually and
`on Behalf of All Others Similarly
`Situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`JOSÉ LUIS VILLASENIN’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO APPOINT HIM
`AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND TO APPROVE
`HIS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Date: Thursday, November 17, 2022
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Courtroom: Courtroom 3, 5TH Floor
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`TERRAFORM LABS, PTE. LTD.,
`JUMP CRYPTO, JUMP TRADING
`LLC, REPUBLIC CAPITAL,
`REPUBLIC MAXIMAL LLC, TRIBE
`CAPITAL, DEFINANCE
`CAPITAL/DEFINANCE
`TECHNOLOGIES OY, GSR/GSR
`MARKETS LIMITED, THREE
`ARROWS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.,
`NICHOLAS PLATIAS, and DO
`KWON,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 17, 2022 at 9:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 3 – 5th Floor, 280 South 1st
`Street, San Jose, California 95113, José Luis Villasenin will and hereby does move for an order: (i)
`appointing him as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
`(“PSLRA”); and (ii) approving his selection of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Lead Counsel for the
`putative class. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities in Support Thereof, the attached declaration and exhibits, the pleadings on file in this
`action, oral argument, and such other matters as the Court may consider in hearing this motion.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Whether Mr. Villasenin should be appointed as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA.
`See generally In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002); § IV.B, infra.
`2.
`Whether the Court should approve Mr. Villasenin’s selection of Kahn Swick & Foti,
`LLC (“KSF”) as Lead Counsel. See generally In re Cohen, 586 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009); § V, infra.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Mr. Villasenin respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of his motion to: (i)
`appoint him as lead plaintiff in the above-referenced action pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities
`Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), as amended by the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C.
`§ 78u-4, and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
`C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (the “Securities
`Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77l(a)(1), and 77o, respectively, as amended by the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-
`1; and (ii) approve his selection of KSF as Lead Counsel for the putative class. See In re Cavanaugh,
`306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002).
`As described in the Certification and Loss Chart attached to the Declaration of Ramzi Abadou
`in Support of Mr. Villasenin’s Motion to Appoint Him as Lead Plaintiff and to Approve His Selection
`1
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`I.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`of Lead Counsel (“Abadou Decl.”) (Exhibits A & B), Mr. Villasenin suffered losses of approximately
`$192,000 from his purchases of LUNA cryptocurrency tokens between May 20, 2021 and May 25,
`2022, inclusive (“Class Period”). To the best of his knowledge, this loss represents the largest financial
`interest of any investor seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. In addition, Mr. Villasenin’s
`Certification and Declaration demonstrate his awareness of the fiduciary duties associated with serving
`as a lead plaintiff. See Abadou Decl., Ex’s. A & C. Hence, Mr. Villasenin also satisfies the applicable
`typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, he seeks an order: (i) appointing him
`as Lead Plaintiff in this action pursuant to Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Sections 5, 12(a)(1)
`and 15 of the Securities Act; and (ii) approving his selection of KSF as Lead Counsel for the putative
`class.
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`On June 17, 2022, Nick Patterson filed the Complaint in the above-captioned action against
`eleven different Defendants, including: (i) Terraform Labs, PTE. LTD.; (ii) Jump Crypto; (iii) Jump
`Trading LLC; (iv) Republic Capital; (v) Republic Maximal LLC; (vi) Tribe Capital; (vii) DeFinance
`Capital/DeFinance Technologies Oy; (viii) GSR/GSR Markets Limited; (ix) Three Arrows Capital
`PTE. LTD.; (x) Nicholas Platias; and (xi) Do Kwon. See ¶¶ 8-21.1 The Complaint brings claims on
`behalf of investors who purchased various Terra Tokens during the Class Period including, inter alia,
`LUNA. ¶¶ 1, 45-53.
`Notice of this action was published on June 20, 2022 through BusinessWire, a widely circulated
`national business-oriented wire service, triggering the sixty-day window for putative class members
`to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. See Abadou Decl., Ex. D; see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i);
`15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i); Yen Hoang v. Contextlogic, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88146, at *10-
`
`
`“¶” or “¶¶” refer to the corresponding paragraphs in the Class Action Complaint for Violations
`1
`of the Federal Securities Laws (see ECF No. 1, “Complaint”). All capitalized terms have the same
`definitions as in the Complaint, unless otherwise stated. For any quoted materials, all emphasis has
`been added and internal citations omitted unless otherwise indicated.
`
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`11 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (“A notice was published in Business Wire [. . .] contain[ing] all required
`information [. . .] the Court finds that the PSLRA’s notice requirement was satisfied.”) (Freeman, J.).
`III.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`This putative class action brings seven causes of action against Defendants, alleging: (i)
`violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; (ii)
`violations of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act; (iii) violations of Section 15 of the
`Securities Act of 1933; (iv) California common law claims for aiding and abetting; (v) common law
`conspiracy claims; (vi) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
`(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.; and (vii) unjust enrichment/restitution claims. ¶¶ 169-262.
`These claims are brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Terra Tokens
`between May 20, 2021 and May 25, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and were damaged thereby
`(the “Class”). ¶ 1.
`TerraForm Labs (the “Company” or “TFL”) operates the Terra blockchain and its related
`protocol which hosts, supports, and funds a community of decentralized financial applications and
`products collectively dubbed the “Terra ecosystem.” ¶ 2. Within the Terra ecosystem, TFL develops,
`hosts, and markets a suite of digital assets and financial products called “Terra Tokens.” Id. Tokens
`are contractually-based financial products, created and permanently uploaded to a given blockchain.
`Id. at n.2. Investors who purchase them expect that buying, selling, or exchanging these tokens will
`function according to the terms of the original contract and similar to other tokens on the same
`blockchain. Id. The Terra Tokens include, inter alia, native and governance tokens, so-called
`“stablecoins,” “mirrored assets,” bonded assets, liquidity pool tokens, and other protocols geared
`toward supporting and facilitating their sales. ¶ 2. At their highest peak, the various Terra Tokens were
`worth tens of billions of dollars in total market capitalization. Id. However, despite bearing all the
`hallmarks of an investment contract and meeting the definition of a security under the Howey test,
`none of the Terra Tokens were registered as such with the SEC. ¶¶ 3-4, 61-79.
`In addition to selling unregistered securities throughout the Class Period, Defendants also made
`several false and misleading statements regarding their largest Terra ecosystem digital assets—UST
`3
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`and LUNA—to induce investors into purchasing these tokens at inflated prices. ¶ 4. For example, as
`part of a promotional campaign TFL repeatedly touted UST’s stability as an “algorithmic” stablecoin
`paired to LUNA and the sustainability of its Anchor Protocol—a type of high-yield savings account
`whereby investors could “stake” (i.e., a locked-up deposit made in exchange for rewards) their UST
`tokens with TFL in exchange for a guaranteed 20% APY interest rate. ¶¶ 5, 55. TFL, in turn, would
`lend out the staked UST to interested borrowers. ¶ 55. In return, TFL would receive interest payments
`and use of the borrowers’ collateral. Id. Co-founders of a rival stablecoin called Maker DAO, however,
`derided UST as a “ponzi” and predicted on December 30, 2021 that “UST will collapse in a death
`spiral with LUNA hyper-inflating to try to cover the peg[,]” prompting dismissive retorts from
`Defendant Do Kwon. ¶ 36. Subsequently, when the head of research at Arcane Crypto tweeted his
`opinion that UST was not sustainable, Defendant Kwon made similar put downs and insults. ¶ 119.
`Cryptocurrency markets are incredibly volatile, sometimes with intraday price swings of 10%
`occurring within a matter of hours. ¶ 46. Certain currencies called “stablecoins” attempt to solve this
`problem by attempting to tie (or “peg”) their market values to an external collateral with greater
`stability, such as U.S. dollars, gold, or another financial instrument. Id. On or around January 19, 2022,
`TFL attempted to do so here by announcing it had formed the “Luna Foundation Guard” (a group of
`six venture capital firms), which promised to support and fund the Terra ecosystem and “defend the
`peg” in the event that high volatility caused the UST/LUNA pairing to become untethered. ¶¶ 1, 5, 38-
`42. The announcement specifically downplayed the “misconception” that algorithmic stablecoins were
`“unsustainable.” ¶ 39. The Luna Foundation Guard was originally funded with a 50 million LUNA
`gift from TFL, followed by a $1 billion private token sale for “use in establishing a UST Forex Reserve
`denominated in Bitcoin” to serve as collateral for the TFL stablecoins. ¶¶ 43-44. Other rounds of
`funding would follow. ¶ 44.
`Members of the Luna Foundation Guard included Defendants Jump Crypto, Jump Trading
`LLC, Republic Capital, Republic Maximal LLC, Tribe Capital, DeFinance Capital/DeFinance
`Technologies Oy, GSR/GSR Markets Limited, and Three Arrows Capital Pte. Ltd. ¶ 1. These entities
`acted on behalf of TFL to promote the stability of UST, and misled investors into believing that Luna
`4
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`Foundation Guard: (i) had established a reserve pool that would be adequate to defend the peg against
`a “run on the bank” by UST/LUNA investors; and (ii) would be able to maintain interest payments
`from the Anchor Protocol through a well-capitalized “Anchor Yield Reserve” fund. ¶¶ 5, 38-42.
`Investors, buoyed by the promise of a purportedly “stable” digital asset in UST which would provide
`outsized returns, deposited some $14 billion of UST’s market capitalization (approximately 75% of
`same) into Anchor at its peak. ¶ 6.
`But by May 2022, the size of deposits in Anchor and related interest payments owed to
`investors grew too great for the Terra ecosystem to bear, prompting a massive selloff of both UST and
`LUNA. ¶¶ 7, 125. On the revelation that TFL’s largest digital assets were unstable and unsustainable,
`prices of UST and LUNA dropped by 91% and 99.7%, respectively, between May 7, 2022 and May
`12, 2022. ¶¶ 7, 126-29. UST fell from $1.00 to just $0.07 by May 25, 2022. ¶ 129. Later, in a so called
`“post-mortem analysis,” Luna Foundation Guard Governing Council Member Remi Tetot admitted
`that the 20% APY was unsustainable, and that Defendants had known as much all along. ¶ 130.
`IV. MR. VILLASENIN SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
`A.
`The Requirements of the PSLRA Are Satisfied Here
`Notice was published on June 20, 2022 through BusinessWire. See Abadou Decl., Ex. D. The
`notice satisfies the statutory language of the PSLRA (15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(A); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
`4(a)(3)(A)) by announcing the pendency of the action, the claims asserted, the proposed Class Period,
`and advising of the date to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Abadilla v. Precigen, Inc., 2021 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 68718, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (Freeman, J.), Hurst v. Enphase Energy, 2020 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 223696, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (Freeman, J.).
`The PSLRA further provides that the Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff the investor that the
`Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the class. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
`4(a)(3)(B)(i); see also 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(i).
`To select the “most adequate plaintiff,” the PSLRA provides that:
`[T]he court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any private
`action arising under this title is the person or group of persons that—
`
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`5
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice…
`
`(bb)
`
`(cc)
`
`in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the
`relief sought by the class; and
`
`otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure [pertaining to class actions].
`
`15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii); 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii) (same).
`Only by a showing of proof that a lead plaintiff will not fairly and adequately represent the
`Class or is subject to unique defenses that will render such plaintiff incapable of adequately
`representing the putative class, can this presumption be overcome. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
`4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).
`B. Mr. Villasenin is the “Most Adequate Plaintiff”
`1.
`Mr. Villasenin’s Motion is Timely and Complies with the
`PSLRA
`
`The lead plaintiff selection process begins when the first plaintiff files an action and publicizes
`its pendency, thereby commencing the sixty-day window to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. See
`Guohua Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Because notice
`was published on June 20, 2022 (see § IV.A, supra), Mr. Villasenin has satisfied that requirement here
`by timely seeking appointment. See id. As set forth below, Mr. Villasenin also has a substantial
`financial interest in this litigation arising from his Class Period transactions in LUNA tokens. See
`Abadou Decl., Ex. B. He has also demonstrated his willingness to represent the Class, as demonstrated
`by his Certification, which details his transactions during the Class Period, as well as a Declaration
`establishing his understanding of a lead plaintiff’s fiduciary duties to the Class. See Abadou Decl.,
`Ex’s. A & C, respectively. Additionally, Mr. Villasenin has selected and retained highly competent
`counsel with significant experience in class action and securities litigation to represent the Class. See
`Abadou Decl., Ex. E (KSF firm résumé).
`2.
`Mr. Villasenin Has the “Largest Financial Interest” in the
`Relief Sought by the Class
`
`“As long as the plaintiff with the largest losses satisfies the typicality and adequacy
`
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`6
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`requirements, he or she is entitled to lead plaintiff status.” GGCC, L.L.C. v. Dynamic Ledger Sols.,
`Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43728, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Here, Mr. Villasenin: (i) purchased
`2,532.28 LUNA tokens; (ii) retained the entirety of his holdings at the end of the Class Period; (iii)
`expended a net sum of $191,991; and (vi) suffered a loss of approximately $191,991 from his
`purchases of LUNA during the Class Period. See Abadou Decl., Ex. B; Contextlogic, 2022 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 88146, at *11-12 (discussing four-factor Lax-Olsten test generally used to determine which
`movant has the “largest financial interest”); see also Veal v. LendingClub Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 190912, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (Freeman, J.) (same).
`3.
`Mr. Villasenin Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23
`
`A proposed lead plaintiff must also “otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc); 15 U.S.C. § 77z-
`1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). Of the four prerequisites to class certification, only two—typicality and
`adequacy—directly address the personal characteristics of a proposed lead plaintiff. See Kim v.
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98172, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“When ruling
`on a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, the main focus is on the typicality and adequacy
`requirements of Rule 23.”). Consequently, in deciding a motion to serve as lead plaintiff, the Court
`should limit its inquiry to the typicality and adequacy prongs of Rule 23(a) and defer examination of
`the remaining requirements until the lead plaintiff moves for class certification. See Cavanaugh, 306
`F.3d at 732.
`
`a. Mr. Villasenin’s Claims Are Typical
`
`Typicality exists where “the claims . . . of the representative parties” are “typical of the claims
`. . . of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3). The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied, as
`here, when the representative plaintiff’s claims arise from the same event or course of conduct that
`gives rise to claims of other Class members, and when the claims are based on the same legal theory.
`See Gudimetla v. Ambow Educ. Holding Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195807, at *9 (C.D. Cal. 2012);
`Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2017).
`Here, Mr. Villasenin’s claims are typical. Mr. Villasenin purchased the unregistered Terra
`7
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`Tokens (LUNA) during the Class Period at artificially inflated values due to Defendants’ alleged
`misrepresentations. See Abadou Decl., Ex. A. Both Mr. Villasenin and the putative class suffered
`damages due to their purchases of Terra Tokens during the Class Period. Accordingly, Mr. Villasenin’s
`claims arise from the same conduct from which the other Class members’ claims and injuries arise.
`See Gudimetla, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195807, at *9.
`b. Mr. Villasenin Will Adequately Represent the Class
`
`A representative party must also “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED.
`R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). The PSLRA directs a court to limit its inquiry regarding adequacy to whether: (1)
`there are any conflicts between his interests and the members of the Class; (2) a Class member’s
`interests are aligned with those of other members of the Class; and (3) there is evidence of any
`antagonism between their respective interests. See Ziolkowski v. Netflix, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`91848, at *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Here, Mr. Villasenin’s interests are clearly aligned with the members
`of the putative class because his claims are substantially identical to theirs. See ¶¶ 1-7, 155-262;
`Deinnocentis v. Dropbox, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8680, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (Freeman,
`J.). Mr. Villasenin also has a significant, compelling interest in prosecuting this action to a successful
`conclusion based upon the financial interest he suffered due to Defendants’ alleged misconduct. See
`Abadou Decl., Ex. B.
`In addition, Mr. Villasenin—an accredited manager of an electrical company, who invests in
`the capital markets for his own portfolio—has demonstrated his understanding of a lead plaintiff’s role
`in controlling the litigation, supervising counsel, and the fiduciary duties he owes to the Class. Abadou
`Decl., Ex. C at ¶¶ 2-6. Further, as set forth below, Mr. Villasenin has selected and retained a law firm
`highly experienced in successfully prosecuting securities class actions and complex litigation as his
`proposed lead counsel. Id. at ¶¶ 4-6; see also Abadou Decl., Ex. E.
`V.
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE MR. VILLASENIN’S SELECTION OF
`COUNSEL
`The PSLRA vests authority in the appointed Lead Plaintiff to select and retain counsel to
`represent the putative class, subject to the Court’s approval. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v); 15
`8
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 77z–1(a)(3)(B)(v) (same); see also Cohen, 586 F.3d at 711-12; Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 734.
`Mr. Villasenin has selected KSF to serve as Lead Counsel for the putative class, a firm with substantial
`expertise in the prosecution of securities class actions in federal and state courts across the country.
`See Abadou Decl., Ex’s. C & E.
`Courts throughout the country have found KSF well-qualified to serve as Lead Counsel in
`securities class actions such as this. See, e.g., Ziolkowski, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91848, at *11
`(appointing KSF, noting its “extensive experience as lead counsel in securities class actions”);
`Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124472, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
`(appointing KSF as lead counsel); Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109608, at
`*42-43 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) (after approving KSF as lead counsel, appointing KSF as class counsel
`pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g)); In re Chi. Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec. Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`49786, at *29 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (same); Bangzheng Chen v. CytRx Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`194696, at *9 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Based on the firm’s résumé and experience with class action
`securities litigation, the Court is satisfied that Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC is qualified to serve as lead
`counsel in this case.”).
`KSF also prevailed on behalf of the court appointed lead plaintiff in Khoja v. Orexigen
`Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. 139 S. Ct. 2615 (2019), which
`significantly altered the federal securities laws (and civil pleading practice generally) in this Circuit.
`See Abadou Decl., Ex. E. In the court’s order granting final approval in Khoja, Judge Sammartino
`highlighted KSF’s “extensive experience prosecuting complex securities class actions[,]” and stated
`that “settlement may not have been reached without Lead Counsel’s skill and expertise.” Khoja v.
`Orexigen Therapeutics, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230105, at *21 (S.D. Cal. 2021). KSF also served as
`counsel to the lead plaintiff in the Halliburton securities litigation matter, where lead plaintiff twice
`prevailed before the United States Supreme Court and ultimately obtained a $100 million recovery for
`the class. See Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014); Erica P. John Fund,
`Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011). The firm’s experience and successes
`should assure the Court that in granting this motion, the Class will receive legal representation of the
`9
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`highest caliber from KSF. In re Health Ins. Innovations Secs. Litig., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61051, at
`*34 (M.D. Fla. 2021) (noting KSF “practices extensively in complex federal civil litigation,
`particularly securities class actions, and has successfully litigated these types of actions in courts
`throughout the country.”).
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Villasenin respectfully requests that the Court: (i) appoint him
`as Lead Plaintiff; and (ii) approve his selection of KSF as Lead Counsel for the Class.
`
`Dated: August 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
`
`By:
`
`s/ Ramzi Abadou
`Ramzi Abadou (SBN 222567)
`KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
`580 California Street, Suite 1200
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 459-6900
`Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
`ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`-and-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lewis S. Kahn
`(to be admitted pro hac vice)
`Alexander L. Burns
`(to be admitted pro hac vice)
`Morgan M. Embleton
`(to be admitted pro hac vice)
`KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
`1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
`New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
`Telephone: (504) 455-1400
`Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
`lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
`alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com
`morgan.embleton@ksfcounsel.com
`
`Proposed Lead Counsel and Counsel
`for Movant, José Luis Villasenin
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`10
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on August 19, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses
`registered, as denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have
`mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF
`participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.
`
`s/ Ramzi Abadou
`RAMZI ABADOU
`
`NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`11
`
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-03600-BLF
`
`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
`
`
`
`8/19/22, 6:48 PM
`
`CAND-ECF-
`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 13 of 13
`Mailing Information for a Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Patterson v.
`TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd. et al
`
`Electronic Mail Notice List
`
`The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.
`
`John T. Jasnoch
`jjasnoch@scott-scott.com,scott-scott@ecf.courtdrive.com,scaesar@scott-scott.com,edewan@scott-scott.com
`
`Sean T. Masson
`smasson@scott-scott.com
`
`Colby Brian Springer
`cspringer@polsinelli.com,sfdocketing@polsinelli.com,sildocketing@polsinelli.com,catherine-schmitz-
`7536@ecf.pacerpro.com,caschmitz@polsinelli.com
`
`Daniel Amon Zaheer
`daniel.zaheer@kobrekim.com
`Manual Notice List
`
`The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore
`require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing
`program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients.
`
`(No manual recipients)
`
`https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?125638157960955-L_1_0-1
`
`1/1
`
`