Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`DANIEL S. DROSMAN (200643)
`TOR GRONBORG (179109)
`ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART (144892)
`LUCAS F. OLTS (234843)
`J. MARCO JANOSKI GRAY (306547)
`CHRISTOPHER R. KINNON (316850)
`HEATHER G. GEIGER (322937)
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, CA 92101-8498
`Telephone: 619/231-1058
`619/231-7423 (fax)
`MOTLEY RICE LLC
`GREGG S. LEVIN (admitted pro hac vice)
`LANCE V. OLIVER (admitted pro hac vice)
`MEGHAN S.B. OLIVER (admitted pro hac vice)
`MAX N. GRUETZMACHER (admitted pro hac vice)
`CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY (admitted pro hac vice)
`MEREDITH B. WEATHERBY (admitted pro hac vice)
`28 Bridgeside Blvd.
`Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
`Telephone: 843/216-9000
`843/216-9450 (fax)
`Co-Class Counsel for the Class
`[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`In re TWITTER INC. SECURITIES
`)
`Case No. 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
`LITIGATION
`)
`)
`CLASS ACTION
`
`)
`)
`CLASS COUNSEL’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`)
`AND MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
`)
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND
`)
`AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
`PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
`DATE:
`November 17, 2022
`TIME:
`2:00 p.m. (via videoconference)
`
`This Document Relates To:
`ALL ACTIONS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`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 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`2. 
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .........................................................................................1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..............................................................................2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`II. 
`HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION .....................................................................................3 
`III. 
`THE REQUESTED FEE IS FAIR AND REASONABLE..................................................4 
`The Court Should Award Attorneys’ Fees Using the
`A. 
`Percentage-of-the-Fund Method ..............................................................................4 
`A Fee of 22.5% of the Settlement Fund Is Reasonable Under Either the
`Percentage or Lodestar Method ...............................................................................6 
`The Requested Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable Under the
`1. 
`Percentage Method .......................................................................................6 
`The Requested Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable Under the
`Lodestar Method ..........................................................................................8 
`The Factors Considered by Courts in the Ninth Circuit Support the
`Requested Fee ........................................................................................................11 
`1. 
`Class Counsel Achieved an Excellent Result for the Class .......................11 
`2. 
`The Litigation Was Uncertain and Highly Complex .................................12 
`3. 
`The Skill Required and Quality of Work ...................................................15 
`4. 
`The Contingent Nature of the Fee and the Financial Burden
`Carried by Class Counsel ...........................................................................15 
`Awards Made in Similar Cases Support the Fee Request ..........................17 
`5. 
`The Class’s Reaction to Date Supports the Fee Request ...........................18 
`6. 
`COUNSEL’S EXPENSES ARE REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE
`APPROVED ......................................................................................................................19 
`COUNSEL’S AWARDED FEES AND EXPENSES SHOULD BE PAID UPON
`THE COURT’S ORDER GRANTING THE AWARD ....................................................20 
`CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ REQUEST FOR AWARDS PURSUANT TO 15
`U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) IS REASONABLE ...........................................................................22 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................24
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`- 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 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corp.,
`572 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Andrews v. Plains All Am. Pipeline L.P.,
`2022 WL 4453864 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2022) ................................................................6, 8, 17
`
`Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp.,
`297 F.R.D. 431 (E.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................................19
`
`Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A.,
`293 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .............................................................................................10
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...............................................................................................8
`
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
`444 U.S. 472 (1980) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp. Inc.,
`2016 WL 631880 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016) ...........................................................................21
`
`Cheng Jiangchen v. Rentech, Inc.,
`2019 WL 5173771 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2019) ......................................................................8, 14
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) .............................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Craft v. Cnty. of San Bernardino,
`624 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................10
`
`Farrell v. Bank of Am. Corp., N.A.,
`827 F. App’x 628 (9th Cir. 2020) ..............................................................................................8
`
`Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S.,
`307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co.,
`2015 WL 10847814 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2015) .........................................................................17
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- ii -
`
`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 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Fleming v. Impax Labs. Inc.,
`2022 WL 2789496 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) ............................................................................9
`
`Franco v. Ruiz Food Prods., Inc.,
`2012 WL 5941801 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) .........................................................................19
`
`Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2015 WL 2438274 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) ...................................................................10, 17
`
`Harris v. Marhoefer,
`24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................19
`
`Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`2018 WL 8950656 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018) .....................................................................18, 23
`
`Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018),
`aff’d sub nom. Heffler v. Pekoc, 802 F. App’x 285 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................ passim
`
`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) .................................................................................................................11
`
`In re 3Com Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`No. C-97-1083-EAI, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2001) ...........................................................18
`
`In re Amgen Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2016 WL 10571773 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) ..........................................................................8
`
`In re Amkor Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2009 WL 10708030 (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2009) .....................................................................4, 14
`
`In re Apollo Grp. Sec. Litig.,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61995 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2008) ...........................................................14
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................4
`
`In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig.,
`2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184031 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2022) ............................................................7
`
`In re Cardinal Health Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2007) ....................................................................................18
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- iii -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 4126533 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) ............................................................................6
`
`In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
`264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................19
`
`In re CenturyLink Sales Pracs. & Sec. Litig.,
`2020 WL 7133805 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2020) ............................................................................23
`
`In re Charles Schwab Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2011 WL 1481424 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2011) .........................................................................11
`
`In re Charter Comm’ns, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2005 WL 4045741 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2005) .........................................................................17
`
`In re DaimlerChrysler Sec. Litig.,
`2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31757 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2004) .............................................................17
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig.,
`522 F. Supp. 3d 617 (N.D. Cal. 2021),
`aff’d, 2022 WL 822923 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2022) ....................................................................10
`
`In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.,
`2007 WL 2743675 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007) ........................................................................23
`
`In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig.,
`716 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................5
`
`In re Immune Response Sec. Litig.,
`497 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ....................................................................................14
`
`In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig.,
`671 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ........................................................................................6
`
`In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2007 WL 4788556 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) ........................................................................16
`
`In re Korean Air Lines Co., Antitrust Litig.,
`2013 WL 7985367 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013) ...........................................................................4
`
`In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 1:20-cv-01293-JPC, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2022) ....................................................17
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- iv -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`In re Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2009 WL 5178546 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) .........................................................................23
`
`In re Merck & Co. Inc. Sec., Derv. & “ERISA” Litig.,
`2016 WL 11575090 (D.N.J. June 28, 2016) ..............................................................................6
`
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,
`2017 WL 6040065 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017),
`aff’d, 768 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2019) .....................................................................................7
`
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,
`768 F. App’x. 651 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................4
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .....................................................................5, 6, 12, 15
`
`In re Optical Disk Drive Prod. Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 7364803 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016),
`vacated and remanded on other grounds,
`959 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................20
`
`In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`959 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2020),
`aff’d, 804 F. App’x 445 (9th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................7
`
`In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2009 WL 1709050 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2009),
`aff’d, 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................................16
`
`In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig.,
`47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................12
`
`In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 1:04-cv-09866-LTS-HBP, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2016) ............................................6
`
`In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`362 F. Supp. 2d 587 (E.D. Pa. 2005) .......................................................................................17
`
`In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................5
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
`2011 WL 7575004 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2011) .........................................................................20
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- v -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
`2013 WL 1365900 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013) .........................................................................6, 7
`
`In re Verifone Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2014 WL 12646027 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) .................................................................10, 20
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`2017 WL 1047834 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) ...........................................................................9
`
`In re Wash. Mutual, Inc. Sec. Litig,
`2011 WL 8190466 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2011) ......................................................................18
`
`Jaffe v. Household Int’l.,
`2016 WL 10571774 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2016) ..........................................................................6
`
`Kang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2021 WL 5826230 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021) ........................................................................10
`
`Mauss v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6421623 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018)............................................................................20
`
`McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2021 WL 4205055 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2021) ..........................................................................10
`
`McPhail v. First Command Fin. Plan., Inc.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26544 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) .......................................................24
`
`Mo. v. Jenkins by Agyei,
`491 U.S. 274 (1989) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................................................18
`
`Nieman v. Duke Energy Corp.,
`2015 WL 13609363 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 2015)........................................................................18
`
`Ontiveros v. Zamora,
`303 F.R.D. 356 (E.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................................19
`
`Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty,
`886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Peace Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Ga. v. Davita Inc.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131699 (D. Colo. July 15, 2021) .......................................................11
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- vi -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Pearlstein v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`2022 WL 4554858 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022) ...........................................................................6
`
`Pelzer v. Vassalle,
`655 F. App’x 352 (6th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................21
`
`Perez v. Rash Curtis & Assocs.,
`2021 WL 4503314 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021) ............................................................................10
`
`Redwen v. Sino Clean Energy, Inc.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100275 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) ........................................................19
`
`Savani v. URS Pro. Sols. LLC,
`2014 WL 172503 (D.S.C. Jan. 15, 2014) ................................................................................16
`
`Stanger v. China Elec. Motor, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................4, 15
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Steiner v. Am. Broad. Co., Inc.,
`248 F. Appx 780 (9th Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................10
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Thompson. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.,
`2020 WL 6145104 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2020) ........................................................................10
`
`Vincent v. Hughes Air W., Inc.,
`557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Vincent v. Reser,
`2013 WL 621865 ( N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) ..........................................................................19
`
`Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharms. Corp.,
`2014 WL 1802293 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) .......................................................................5, 14
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Wehlage v. Evergreen at Arvin LLC,
`2012 WL 4755371 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012) ............................................................................23
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- vii -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Wing v. Asarco Inc.,
`114 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................15
`
`STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`15 U.S.C.
`§78u-4(a)(4) ...................................................................................................................2, 18, 22
`§78u-4(a)(6) ...............................................................................................................................5
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Rule 23 .....................................................................................................................................20
`Rule 23(h) ................................................................................................................................21
`
`17 C.F.R.
`§240.10b-5 ...............................................................................................................................11
`
`SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
`
`Charles Silver,
`Due Process and the Lodestar Method: You Can’t Get There from Here,
`74 Tul. L. Rev. 1809 (June, 2000) .............................................................................................5
`
`Janeen McIntosh and Svetlana Starykh,
`Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2021 Full-Year Review
`(NERA Jan. 25, 2022) ..........................................................................................................1, 12
`
`Laarni T. Bulan & Laura E. Simmons,
`Securities Class Action Settlements – 2021 Review and Analysis
`(Cornerstone Research 2022) ...................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO AN AWARD OF
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES - 4:16-cv-
`05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- viii -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 17, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., via teleconference, in
`the courtroom of the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, in the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Class Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman
`& Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) and Motley Rice LLC (“Motley Rice”), on behalf of all Plaintiffs’
`Counsel, will move the Court for an Order awarding attorneys’ fees and providing for payment of
`litigation expenses and awards to Class Representatives pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4).
`This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
`accompanying Joint Declaration of Daniel S. Drosman and Lance V. Oliver in Support of: (1) Class
`Representatives’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and (2) Class
`Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Awards to Class Representatives
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) (“Joint Declaration” or “Joint Decl.”) and its exhibits, the
`Declarations of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, all prior pleadings and papers in this Litigation, the arguments of
`counsel, and such additional information or argument as may be required by the Court.
`A proposed Order will be submitted with Class Counsel’s reply submission on November 10,
`2022, after the October 27, 2022 deadline for Class Members to object to the motion for fees and
`expenses has passed.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION - 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Whether the Court should approve as fair and reasonable Class Counsel’s application
`for an attorneys’ fee award for all Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the amount of 22.5% of the Settlement Fund
`(the Settlement Amount, plus all interest accrued thereon).
`2.
`Whether the Court should approve Class Counsel’s request for payment of
`$3,570,056.21 in litigation costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the Litigation, plus
`all interest accrued thereon.
`3.
`Whether the Court should award Class Representatives National Elevator Industry
`Pension Fund (“NEIPF”) $6,531.00 and KBC Asset Management NV (“KBC”) $28,000 pursuant to
`15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) for their time and expenses incurred in their representation of the Class.
`
`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
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED - 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`After more than five years of hard-fought litigation, on the eve of trial, Class Counsel secured
`a cash settlement of $809,500,000.00 on behalf of the Class (the “Settlement”). The Settlement is
`the second-largest securities class action settlement ever obtained in the Ninth Circuit. It yields an
`exceptional recovery of between 24% and 30% of the Class’s estimated recoverable damages –
`many multiples of the median ratio of recovery-to-investor losses obtained in securities class action
`settlements between 2012 and 2021. See Janeen McIntosh and Svetlana Starykh, Recent Trends in
`Securities Class Action Litigation: 2021 Full-Year Review (NERA Jan. 25, 2022) (“NERA Report”)
`at 24, Fig. 22, attached as Exhibit C to the Joint Declaration.
`The Settlement would not have been achieved without counsel’s skill, dogged pursuit, and
`refusal to accept a lower settlement. Counsel expended substantial resources – approximately
`73,400 hours in professional time and over $3.5 million of their own cash expenses – all without any
`assurance of recovery. Given the size of the Settlement and the percentage of recovery, the result is
`extraordinary by any measure.
`As compensation for their efforts, Class Counsel, on behalf of all Plaintiffs’ Counsel, request
`that the Court award 22.5% of the Settlement Amount, plus the interest earned thereon. Class
`Counsel’s fee request is reasonable, particularly considering the extent of their efforts and the ex-
`ante risks of this case. Defendants were represented by several of the nation’s most respected
`securities litigators who exhausted every litigation strategy in an effort to end the Litigation without
`any recovery for the Class. From the outset to the eve of trial, Class Counsel overcame each of these
`challenges.
`Class Counsel spent a year investigating the alleged fraud before filing the initial complaint.
`The complaint largely survived Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Class Counsel obtained class
`certification, and undertook exhaustive discovery efforts. These efforts included, among other
`things, reviewing millions of pages of documents and taking and defending more than three dozen
`depositions. Class Counsel litigated an array of discovery disputes, and defeated a hotly-contested
`summary judgment motion. Class Counsel also worked closely with six expert witnesses to obtain
`
`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
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`detailed expert reports on complex subjects, including loss causation, social media user and
`engagement metrics, stock trading plans, corporate disclosure requirements and processes, and
`analyst, investor, and advertiser perceptions of Twitter. Class Counsel then fended off myriad
`pretrial motions to exclude Plaintiffs’ trial experts and evidence and were prepared to try this case
`when it settled on the eve of trial. At all stages of the action, Class Counsel exhibited diligence, hard
`work, and skill.
`The 22.5% fee requested falls below the Ninth Circuit’s 25% fee benchmark in common-
`fund litigation as well as the usual and customary range that clients pay lawyers to handle complex
`commercial cases in the private market. A 22.5% fee award is merited here because of the outsized
`recovery obtained for the Class in the face of risks that Class Counsel faced in the Litigation. See
`Joint Decl., ¶13. A lodestar cross-check also confirms the reasonableness of the requested fee. The
`lodestar multiplier of approximately 4.14 here falls well within the range of multipliers awarded in
`the Ninth Circuit, particularly in cases (as here) where the risk was substantial and the recovery was
`exceptional. See Expert Declaration of Professor William B. Rubenstein (“Rubenstein Decl.”),
`¶¶57-62, attached as Exhibit G to the Joint Declaration. The fee request is also supported by Class
`Representatives, both sophisticated institutions, a fact that is afforded significant weight in the
`analysis. See §III.C.6, infra; Declaration of Robert Betts on behalf of NEIPF (“Betts Decl.”) and
`Declaration of Bart Elst on behalf of KBC (“Elst Decl.”) (“Class Representative Declarations”),
`attached as Exhibits E and F, respectively, to the Joint Declaration.
`Likewise, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s litigation costs, charges, and expenses of $3,570,056.21 (plus
`interest accrued thereon) should be awarded in full as they were reasonably and necessarily incurred
`in the prosecution of the Litigation. Finally, the Class Representatives should also be awarded their
`modest time and expenses as provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
`(“PSLRA”). 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4).
`In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, over 401,000 copies of the Notice have
`been mailed to potential Class Members and their nominees through October 10, 2022, and the
`Summary Notice was published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted over PR Newswire. See
`Declaration of Bradford H. Amann Regarding: (A) Dissemination of the Settlement Notice and
`
`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
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
`4856-0560-4661.v1
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 661 Filed 10/13/22 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Claim Form; and (B) Publication of the Summary Settlement Notice (“Epiq Decl.”), ¶¶10, 12,
`attached as Exhibit D to the Joint Declaration. The Notice advised potential Class Members that
`Class Counsel would apply for an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed 22.5% of the
`Settlement Fund, payment of litigation expenses not to exceed $4 million, and aggregate PSLRA
`awards to the Class Representatives not to exceed $40,000. Epiq Decl., Ex. B, Notice at 2. The fees
`and expenses sought do not exceed the amounts projected in the Notice. The deadline set by the
`Court to object to the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses has not yet passed, but, to date, no
`objections to the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses have been received. Joint Decl., ¶118.1
`In short, Class Counsel respectfully submit that the requested fee i