UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1082 Filed05/08/15 Page1 of 5

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 265 Filed 08/03/18 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 2203 Filed 11/20/14 Page 1 of 5

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv SAS. Parties and Attorneys

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. United States District Court

EXPERT WITNESS AND LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document 274 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. Cross-Complainant Western National Construction ("Western") in this action.

Case 1:13-cv ML Document 194 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:11-cv LBS Document 50 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:09-cv PJD-PJK Document 19 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv SAS. Parties and Attorneys

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 14

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

OPPOSITION TO MOTION AS TO HAMED CLAIMS NOS. H-11 AND H-12: TWO CONDENSERS AND 100 SHOPPING CARTS

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 264 Filed 08/03/18 Page 1 of 3

E : x x ZU J4 S.D. OF N.Y.

Attorneys for Applicant Insurance Commissioner of the State of California FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BLACKSTONE GROUP L.P.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:12-cv JD Document 37 Filed 07/16/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-1877

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2017

mew Doc 3228 Filed 05/16/18 Entered 05/16/18 15:11:48 Main Document Pg 1 of 16

MEDICINE LICENSE TO PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner. CHANBOND LLC Patent Owner

Case5:13-cv HRL Document15 Filed01/22/13 Page1 of 8

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Plaintiff. v. GATEWAY, INC. and Gateway Country Stores LLC; and, Microsoft Corporation; and, Dell, Inc, Defendants.

Case 6:15-cv RWS-CMC Document 78 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 4503

New York University University Policies

Case 5:07-cv D Document 1 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8(A) CONTRACTING, MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM, & JOINT VENTURES. March 9, 2010 William T. Welch

Case 2:13-cv MAN Document 59 Filed 06/03/14 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:318

Call in toll free at and use 7-Digit Access Code

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, vs. Index No /2012 (Ramos, J.

ALAN G. HEVESI, : Defendant. : DEPUTY CHIEF INVESTIGATOR GREGORY J. STASIUK of the Office of

Case3:12-cv VC Document96 Filed09/14/15 Page1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, an Arizona limited liability partnership, d/b/a HBI International,

Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 33 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 9

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (El Paso) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv HLH

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned

Case 6:06-cv JA-DAB Document 12 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.

United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:96-cv DPW

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 95 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2014 EXHIBIT A

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

THIRTEENTH MONTHLY FEE AND EXPENSE STATEMENT OF MICHELMAN & ROBINSON LLP, SPECIAL COUNSEL TO LLOYD T. WHITAKER, LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE

Case 4:15-cv PJH Document Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 10

Michael F. Donner Partner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals

Home Equity Mtge. Trust Series v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc NY Slip Op 33714(U) October 10, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket

Case 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Defendant. : INVESTIGATOR GERARD J. MATHESON, SHIELD #130, of the Office of the

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv SAS. Parties and Attorneys

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/09/ :57 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2018

scc Doc 210 Filed 05/06/18 Entered 05/06/18 22:38:17 Main Document Pg 1 of 173

Case 4:14-cv BRW Document 58 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:02-cv EBB Document 34 Filed 01/20/2004 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF LEAD PLAINTIFF S AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 88 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 1 of 5

x : : : : : : : : : x

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/05/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Patents. What is a patent? What is the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)? What types of patents are available in the United States?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/02/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: Document: 60-1 Page: 1 04/05/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2012

Case3:12-cv VC Document97 Filed08/18/15 Page1 of 22 (Counsel listed on signature page)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS

MBIA Ins. Corp. v Credit Suisse Secs (USA) LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 32025(U) July 31, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2009

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/04/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 494 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2015

Action: Notice of an application for an order under sections 6(c), 12(d)(1)(J), and 57(c) of the

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE LLC OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS

[Investment Company Act Release No ; ] New Mountain Finance Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application

Case 1:11-cr JSR Document 155 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:14-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2016

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv SAS

François G. Laugier's Representative Experience

Case 3:16-md VC Document 1539 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

HOW TO READ A PATENT. To Understand a Patent, It is Essential to be able to Read a Patent. ATIP Law 2014, All Rights Reserved.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 180 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

U.S. Bank Natl. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc NY Slip Op 32875(U) October 8, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge:

Case 2:12-cv RJS-DBP Document 184 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

mew Doc 867 Filed 07/11/17 Entered 07/11/17 15:53:25 Main Document Pg 1 of 3

Transcription:

1 BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP Sandy A. Liebhard U. Seth Ottensoser Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. East 0th Street New York, NY 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - E-mail : seidman@bernlieb.com GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP Lionel Z. Glancy Michael Goldberg 01 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone : () 1-0 Facsimile : () 1-0 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Movant Intrepid Capital Management, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO,-T PRENA SMAJLAJ, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiffs, BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., GREGORY L. REYES, and ANTONIO CANOVA, [Additional Captions Below ] Defendants. SURREPLY BRIEF OF ICM CORRECTING MATERIAL Index No. :0-CV- (CRB) SUR-REPLY BRIEF OF INTREPID CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. CORRECTNG MATERIAL INACCURACIES IN COMPETING MOVANTS' SUBMISSIONS Case No. :0-CV- CRB

1 HAI-NING HUANG, On Behalf Of Himself And A ) Index No. :0-CV- (CRB) Class of Persons Similarly Situated, ) } Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., ) GREGORY L. REYES, and ANTONIO CANOVA, ) Defendants. ) } FREDERICK WITT, Individually And On Behalf Of ) Index No. :0-CV- (SBA) All Others Similarly Situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., ) GREGORY L. REYES, and ANTONIO CANOVA, ) Defendants. ) Case No. :0-CV- CRB

1 INTRODUCTION It is time to put these lead plaintiff issues to rest. APERS and Oklahoma have wasted thi s Court's time for months - refusing to see what is plain as day. They have attacked Intrepid with groundless speculation about hedge funds. They have requested discovery - and misrepresented what they found. Now they have gone beyond the pale and accused Intrepid of lying. Though Intrepid is loathe to take up any more of the Court's time, this Court should not countenance APERS' and Oklahoma 's blatant distortion of the facts and their impugning of the character o f Intrepid's principals ; thus, their filings cannot go unanswered.' ARGUMENT 1. APERS AND OKLAHOMA BRAZENLY MISREPRESENT THE FACT S Intrepid has cited chapter and verse demonstrating its authority to litigate this action o n behalf of the Funds. Intrepid, manager of Intrepid QP and Intrepid LP, and IFM, manager o f Intrepid Offshore, are all managed by Steven Shapiro. (Shapiro is also the General Partner of Intrepid QP and Intrepid LP). See Zweig Tr. (Ex. C to Seidman Decl.) at,, -0; Zweig Ex. (Ex. B to Seidman Decl.) at 000, 00, 0, 01. In a meeting prior to the lead plaintiff filing date, Shapiro explicitly gave Matthew Zweig, on behalf of Intrepid, authority to litigate thi s action for Intrepid and IFM on behalf of the Funds. Zweig Tr. at, -0. Intrepid had the righ t to litigate on behalf of its two funds under its management agreement. Likewise, under IFM' s I All capitalized terms have the same definitions as in Intrepid 's last submission. Citations to "APERS" and "Oklahoma" at are to their October 1h submissions. See Zweig Exhibit at 000, 00, 0 and 0. These partnerships, inter alia, may "exercise all rights, powers, privileges and other incidents of ownership or possession with respect to Securities held or owned by the Partnership with the ultimate objective of the preservation, protection, improvement and enhancement in value thereof and to hold such Securities in the name of the Partnership...." Zweig Tr. at 1-; Zweig Exhibit at 00 and 0. Limited Partnership Agreement, Article II, Section.1(b) (emphasis added). The General Partner has authority to exercise these rights and powers. See Intrepid 00, Limited Partnership Agreement, Article II, Section.(a). ' ' Case No. :0-CV- CRB

management agreement, IFM could delegate its right to litigate to other Intrepid entities.' IFM did 1 so when Shapiro gave Zweig, on behalf of Intrepid, authority to litigate this action for IFM. Zweig Tr. at, -0. From the amount of briefing here, APERS and Oklahoma should have understood this b y now. But they either rehash the same arguments or skew the facts and accuse Intrepid of lying. Their baseless attacks on Intrepid's credibility are nothing more than the frantic attempts of counse l trying to confuse any issue in order to obtain a lead counsel position. Thus, the real "shell game" here is the fact that each of APERS' and Oklahoma's claims are empty when examined : "ICM claimed that IFM had granted ICM authority to act on behalf of [Intrepid Offshore]. As it would turn out, this was yet another false claim by ICM." APERS at (citation omitted). "[I]t is clear that Intrepid Capital does not have the authority to represent at least one of the hedge funds, Intrepid [Offshore]." Oklahoma at. "On July, 0, Intrepid Capital files its first sworn certification which included trading data for Intrepid [Offshore], a fund it has no authority to represent,..." Id. at. "The partnership agreements confirm that Intrepid [] had no authority to represent Intrepid [Offshore]." Id. at. There "is no document by which IFM" ceded authority to pursue this litigation to Intrepid. APERS at. "ICM has never produced proof that it has authority to pursue this litigation..." Id. at. THE FACTS : As discussed above, Shapiro granted Zweig, on behalf of Intrepid, authorit y to litigate this action on behalf of 1FM. Zweig Tr. at, -0. This isproofof Intrepid's IFM's management agreement states that "[t]he Investment Manager shall be permitted to (i) assign its rights and obligations hereunder to any firm consented to by the Fund, or to any firm controlled directly or indirectly by Steven Shapiro without the consent of the Fund, and/or ii) contract with another person, firm or entity (whether or not controlled by it) for the performance b y such person, firm, or entity on behalf of the Investment Manager of the services to be provided by the Investment Manager hereunder." See Intrepid 0. -- Case No. :0-CV- CRB

1 authority to litigate for IFM. Further, under its management agreement, IFM can delegate the right to litigate to another Intrepid entity. See fn.. "[I]n the first and second [Zweig] Declarations[,...] Zweig claimed in both instances that Intrepid Capital is the authorized investment manager for all three hedge funds., These facts are not true." Oklahoma at (emphasis in original). "Moreover, the Investment Management Agreement also designates Intrepid Fund [IFM] as the investment manager of the [Offshore] fund, not Intrepid Capital as previously represented in Zweig's First and Second Declarations." Id. at. "Intrepid Capital also filed the First Zweig Declaration which falsely stated that Intrepid [] is the investment manager of Intrepid [Offshore]." Id. at. "On August, 0, Intrepid... falsely stated that [Intrepid] was the agent and attorney-infact for all three hedge funds." Id. "On August 1, 0, Intrepid Capital filed the Second Zweig Declaration which falsely stated that Intrepid Capital is the investment manager of Intrepid [Offshore]." Id. at. THE FACTS : Zweig's first declaration stated that "ICM and IFM are investment managers for the three entities whose trading...underlies ICM's motion.... These three entities operate as three separate hedge funds." Zweig Decl. (emphasis added). Zweig's second declaration stated that "Intrepid, which is the manager for Intrepid [QP] and Intrepid [LP], along with Intrepid Fun d Management ("IFM"), which is the investment manager for Intrepid [Offshore], are the three entities whose trading... underlies Intrepid's motion for lead plaintiff." Second Zweig Decl. (emphasis added). On August 1, 0, "ICM disclosed that IFM, not ICM [Intrepid ], is the general manager for [Intrepid Offshore]." APERS at. THE FACTS : Zweig, in his first declaration filed August, 0, stated that "ICM and IF M are investment managers for the three entities whose trading... underlies ICM's motion...to wit, ^- SURREPLY BRIEF OF ICM CORRECTING MATERIAL -- Case No. :0-CV- CRB

I 1 Intrepid Capital Fund (QP), LP, Intrepid Capital Fund (Offshore), Ltd., and Intrepid Capital Fund, L.P." Zweig Dec].. "Zweig could not explain why the partnership agreements were not produced previously despite the fact that he knew his previous certifications were confusing." Oklahoma at. THE FACTS : There was no requirement to proffer the documents earlier ; they were produced at the deposition pursuant to a formal document request. Thus, APERS' claims that Intrepid has been "hid[ing] the truth," and has been "less than candid with this Court," (see APERS at 1-), and Oklahoma' s claims that Intrepid has filed "misleading and inconsistent submissions," simply do not bear scrutiny. Intrepid does not take lightly accusations of lying and neither should the Court. CONCLUSIO N For the reasons set forth herein, and in the other submissions by Intrepid concerning its motion for lead plaintiff, Intrepid and/or the Funds should be appointed as lead plaintiff(s) in this litigation, and Bernstein Liebhard appointed as lead counsel in this litigation. DATED : November 1, 0 Respectfully submitted, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LL P /s/lionel Z. Glancy Lionel Z. Glancy (0) Michael Goldberg (#) Even removing the losses of Intrepid Offshore ($,,0), Intrepid still has far and away the largest financial interest (Intrepid QP lost $,,1 and Intrepid LP lost $,). APERS' and Oklahoma's case citations are all irrelevant. For example, in Carson v. Clarent Corp., No. C-01-01, 01 WL 1, at * (N.D. Cal. Dec., 01), this Court rejected a movant who filed its initial motion two weeks late "without reasonable explanation". Here, Intrepid filed a timely motion and if the Court so directs, it will, as other courts have allowed, file an amended certification for related parties. The rest of APERS' authorities fare no better. See Intrepid's Oct. t' submission at. SURREPLY BRIEF OF ICM CORRECTING MATERIAL -- Case No. :0-CV- CRB

1 01 Avenue of the Stars, Suite Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: () 1-0 Facsimile: () 1-0 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Liaison Counsel for Intrepid Capital Management, Inc. and Proposed Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Clas s Sandy A. Liebhard U. Seth Ottensoser Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP East 0th Street, nd Floor New York, NY 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - E-mail : seidman@bernlieb.com Counsel for Intrepid Capital Management, Inc. and Proposed Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Clas s -- Case No. :0-CV- CRB f