)25 7+( 6287+(51 ',675,&7 2) 1(:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation

Lead Case No.: 7:15-cv-03183-AT

DECLARATION OF ANTONIO VOZZOLO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

I, Antonio Vozzolo, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of New York. I am a

member of the bar of this Court, and I am the founder of Vozzolo LLC, proposed class counsel in

this Action.1 I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto under oath.

2. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff George Potzner commenced a putative class action

against Defendant Tommie Copper, Inc. (“Tommie Copper”) in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 7:15-cv-3183 (the “Potzner” Action). Plaintiffs

allege that Defendant made false and misleading statements in connection with the marketing and

sale of its “Tommie Copper” line of compression apparel and accessories, each of which

incorporate a proprietary “copper-infused” and/or “copper and zinc-infused” fabric.

1 I was a Partner at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (the “Faruqi Firm”) from 2004-2016, one of the Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel appointed by this Court in its January 4, 2016, Order granting consolidation appointing interim Class Counsel. ECF No. 50.

Case 7:15-cv-03183-AT-LMS Document 113 Filed 11/22/17 of 8

2

3. On July 31, 2015, Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs, Jerome Jeffy, and

Sandy Kontura commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-6055, in a case captioned Lucero, et al. v.

Tommie Copper Inc., et al. (the “Lucero” Action). The Lucero Action alleged the following causes

of action on behalf of a Nationwide Class and Subclasses under California, New York, Georgia,

and Ohio: negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; violation of the federal Magnuson-

Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; New York’s Breach of Express Warranty, N.Y.

U.C.C. § 2-313; New York’s Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-

314; New York’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349; New York’s

False Advertising Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350; California’s Breach of Express Warranty, Cal.

Com. Code § 2313; California’s Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Cal. Com. Code

§ 2314; California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.; California’s

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; California’s False Advertising

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; Georgia’s Breach of Express Warranty, Ga. Code

Ann. § 11-2-313; Georgia’s Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Ga. Code Ann. § 11-

2-314; Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-393; Ohio’s Breach of

Express Warranty, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302-26; Ohio’s Breach of Implied Warranty of

Merchantability, O.R.C. § 1302-26; and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code

Ann. §§ 1345, et. seq.

4. On August 3, 2015, the Potzner Complaint was amended to remove the causes of

action for declaratory relief and for violations of New York’s Deceptive Trade Practices Law.

5. On November 2, 2015, both the Potzner and Lucero Plaintiffs filed motions to

consolidate, as well as for the appointment of interim lead class counsel. See ECF Nos. 38-44 in

Lucero Action; ECF Nos. 47-53 in Potzner Action. On January 4, 2016, the Court granted


3

consolidation of the two cases, and appointed the Lucero Plaintiffs’ counsel—the Marron Firm

and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP—to serve as Interim Class Counsel for the Consolidated Action. ECF

No. 50.

6. On March 4, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed, bringing claims

for unfair and deceptive business practices under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349; false advertising under

N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 350; negligent and intentional misrepresentation; violation of California’s

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., False Advertising Law, id. §§

17500, et seq., and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq., breach of

express and implied warranties, including under Cal. Comm. Code §§ 2313 and 2315; breach of

express and implied warranty law and false advertising statutes of various other states as noted

above; the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; and unjust

enrichment under the common law.

7. On November 24, 2015, a substantially similar putative class action lawsuit was

filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:15-cv-

81611-KAM, styled Herst v. Tommie Copper, Inc. (the “Herst” Action).

8. On January 25, 2016, Interim Class Counsel intervened in the Herst Action and

moved to transfer venue of Herst to the Southern District of New York, where the earlier

consolidated case was pending. Furthermore, on February 1, 2016, Defendant Tommie Copper

moved to transfer the Herst Action to the Southern District of New York. On July 15, 2016, the

motions to transfer venue of Herst to the Southern District of New York New York were granted.

9. On November 27, 2015, subsequent to the filing of the initial complaints, the FTC

filed a substantially similar complaint against Tommie Copper and Thomas Kallish pursuant to

Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Action”).


4

10. On December 1, 2015, Tommie Copper stipulated to the entry of a Stipulated Final

Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief in the amount of eighty-

six million, eight hundred fifteen thousand, seven hundred seventy-eight dollars ($86,815,778.00),

which was suspended on the payment of one million, three hundred fifty thousand dollars

($1,350,000.00) to the FTC (the “FTC Settlement”). The FTC’s suspension of part of the judgment

was based on the sworn financial statements submitted to the FTC, including financial statements

from Defendants Thomas Kallish (“Kallish”) and Tommie Copper, establishing their inability to

pay in excess of the unsuspended judgment. Per the terms of the consent order, the suspended

judgment would be immediately due and owing if Tommie Copper or Kallish misrepresented their

financial condition.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Stipulated Final

Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief, filed on December 2,

2015.

12. Proposed Class Counsel identified and conducted an extensive investigation as to

the claims arising from Tommie Copper’s manufacture, distribution, and advertising of the

Tommie Copper Products. This extensive pre-suit investigation laid the groundwork for a

comprehensive and detailed Complaint and subsequent Amended Complaint.

13. Subsequent to FTC Settlement, the Parties initiated discussions about the prospect

of opening settlement discussions to resolve this Action. Thereafter, over the course of several

months, the Parties engaged in extensive arm’s-length negotiations and an informal exchange of

documents and other information pertaining to Plaintiffs’ claims. These discussions included, at

the request of both sides, in-person and telephonic court-monitored settlement conferences before

Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith, on May 5, 2016, June 6, 2016, October 4, 2016, October

31, 2016, November 17, 2016, May 24, 2017, and June 15, 2017.


5

14. The parties reached a tentative settlement under the guidance of Magistrate Judge

Smith. During and subsequent to these conferences, the parties engaged in protracted, hard-fought

negotiations to reach a final agreement on the terms of the settlement, which was fully executed

by the parties on November 22, 2017 (the “Stipulation of Settlement”).

15. Defendants deny and continue to deny all of the claims and contentions alleged in

this action, deny any wrongdoing and deny any liability to the Plaintiffs or any members of the

putative class. However, Defendants have considered the risks and potential costs of continued

litigation of this action, on the one hand, and the benefits of the proposed settlement, on the other

hand, and desires to settle the action upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement

Agreement.

16. Plaintiffs and their counsel in the course of their investigation received, examined,

and analyzed information, documents, and materials (through) informal discovery that they

deemed necessary and appropriate to enable them to enter into the Settlement Agreement on a fully

informed basis, including insurance policies, coverage summaries, notices regarding same, tax

returns, financial statements and related documents to proposed Settlement Class Counsel. In

addition, Settlement Class Counsel conducted extensive research into the claims made in this case;

the substantiation therefor; insurance available; and the implications of the FTC Settlement.2

17. The proposed Settlement of claims against Defendants will establish a common

settlement fund of $700,000.00 to satisfy the costs of notice, claims administration, to fund cash

payments to Settlement Class Members, and awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses. From this

fund, purchasers of Tommie Copper Products (who appear in Defendants’ records and submit valid

claims) are able to recover cash refunds of $10.00 for each Product purchased during the

2 Settlement Class Counsel also submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to uncover additional information about Defendants.


6

Settlement Class Period. Settlement Class Members who do not appear in Defendants’ records,

or do not provide a receipt, but who complete and submit a claim form attesting to their purchase

of the Product under penalty of perjury, would receive a total of $5.00.

18. Additionally, and in lieu of receiving a cash payment, Settlement Class Members

may apply their cash recovery to an on-line purchase of Tommie Copper products and would

receive a 40% enhancement to the value of the recovery.

19. After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the settlement for the Class

Members’ relief, the parties then reached agreement on appropriate counsel fees and representative

plaintiff awards.3

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the parties’ Stipulation

of Settlement and annexed exhibits.

21. Annexed to the Stipulation of Settlement as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of

the Long Form Notice.

22. Annexed to the Stipulation of Settlement as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of

the Summary or Publication Notice.

23. The parties propose that notice be effectuated as set forth in the Settlement

Agreement. Tommie Copper will cause the Notice, in the form approved by the Court, to be

emailed directly to over 1.5 million Class Members. As reflected in the accompanying Declaration

of Kimberly Millard, these email addresses were collected by Defendants at the time of product

purchase and comprises more than 94% of the Settlement Class Members transaction data. A

subset of those email addresses (for those who opt in to Tommie Copper’s mailing list) are

3 Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs, Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura have been engaged in the prosecution of this matter since its inception, having consistently conferred with their counsel, reviewed the various complaints and consulted with their counsel regarding the propriety of the settlement.


7

regularly utilized by Defendants to communicate with purchasers of Tommie Copper Products.

Additionally, the Claims Administrator will disseminate notice directly to Settlement Class

members utilizing the same database. Settlement Class Counsel has partnered with an experienced

third-party vendor that specializes in mass email notifications in class action settlements. To

ensure a high degree of deliverability of the email notice and to avoid spam filters, the third-party

vendor will utilize a number of industry-recognized best practices and comply with the Can-Spam

Act.

24. Notice will also be published in the Journal News (Westchester edition) where

Tommie Copper’s sole retail store is located. Banner ads with links to a Settlement Website (see

paragraph 25, supra) will also posted on Tommie Copper’s retail website and various social media

sites.

25. Additionally, a Settlement Website will also be established by the Claims

Administrator for the purposes of disseminating to Settlement Class Members the Settlement

Notice, the Settlement Agreement, information relating to filing a claim, opting out of the

Settlement, objecting to the Settlement, deadlines relating to the Settlement, pleadings and other

information relevant to the Settlement.

26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Notice Program

(Declaration of Gajan Retnassaba) developed by and with CLASSAURA LLC.

27. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Law Offices of Ronald Marron, APLC, Vozzolo LLC and

their attorneys’ have considerable experience in handling consumer class action litigation, which

has provided counsel with extensive knowledge on the applicable law. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

regularly engage in major complex litigation, and have extensive experience in consumer class

action lawsuits that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the present case. Law Offices of

Ronald Marron, APLC has successfully litigated numerous class actions and complex litigation


8

matters across the country. Vozzolo LLC and/or its founder have substantial experience litigating

complex and consumer class actions, recovering hundreds of millions of dollars and other

significant remedial benefits on behalf of consumers and investors. The combined experience of

Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Law Offices of Ronald Marron, APLC, and Vozzolo LLC demonstrates that

the Settlement Class members were well-represented at the bargaining table. Counsel has the

requisite knowledge of the substantive and procedural law to prosecute this class action, and has

committed its resources to the vigorous litigation of this case, has identified appropriate claims,

and has been actively involved in the settlement negotiations.

28. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the firm resume of Faruqi

& Faruqi, LLP.

29. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the firm resume of Law

Offices of Ronald Marron, APLC.

30. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the firm resume of the

Vozzolo LLC.

31. Based on my experience, and taking into consideration the risks of continued

litigation, including appeals, versus the certain and substantial relief afforded by the Settlement, it

is my opinion that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, in the best interest of the Class,

and merits preliminary approval by this Court.

I certify the foregoing statements made are true to the best of my knowledge, under penalty

of perjury.

Executed on November 22, 2017 at Upper Saddle River, NJ.

/s/ Antonio Vozzolo_____ Antonio Vozzolo


EXHIBIT 1

Case 7:15-cv-03183-AT-LMS Document 113-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 19

7:15-cv-09304-VB

Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 4-1 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 19Case 7:15-cv-03183-AT-LMS Document 113-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 2 of 19

2

3. Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except

as specifically stated in this Order. Only for purposes of this action, Defendants admit the facts

necessary to establish jurisdiction.

4. Defendants waive any claim that they may have under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action through the date of this Order,

and agree to bear their own costs and attorney fees.

5. Defendants waive all rights to appeal or otherwise challenge or contest the

validity of this Order. This action and the relief awarded herein are in addition to, and not in

lieu of, other remedies as may be provided by law.

DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this Order:

1. “Advertising” and “promotion” mean any written or verbal statement, illustration,

or depiction designed to effect a sale or create interest in the purchasing of products or services,

whether it appears in a brochure, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, leaflet, circular, mailer, book

insert, free standing insert, letter, catalogue, poster, chart, billboard, public transit card, point of

purchase display, packaging, package insert, label, film, slide, radio, television or cable

television, audio program transmitted over a telephone system, program-length commercial

(“infomercial”), the Internet, email, press release, video news release, or in any other medium.

2. “Commerce” means as defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

3. “Corporate Defendant” means Tommie Copper, Inc. and its successors and

assigns.

4. “Covered Health Product” means any Covered Product, or any food, drug, or

cosmetic, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 55(b), (c), and (e), respectively.


3

5. “Covered Product” means any device or garment.

6. “Defendants” means the Individual Defendant and the Corporate Defendant.

7. “Device” means as defined in Section 15 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 55(d).

8. “Endorsement” means as defined in 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b).

9. “Essentially Equivalent Product” means any product that contains the identical

ingredients, except for inactive ingredients (e.g., binders, colors, fillers, excipients), in the same

form and dosage, and with the same route of administration (e.g., orally, sublingually); provided

that it may contain additional ingredients if reliable scientific evidence generally accepted by

experts in the field demonstrates that the amount and combination of additional ingredients is

unlikely to impede or inhibit the effectiveness of the ingredients in the Essentially Equivalent

Product.

10. “Garment” means an article of clothing.

11. “Individual Defendant” means Thomas Kallish.

12. “Person” means a natural person, an organization, or other legal entity, including

a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, association,

cooperative, or any other group or combination acting as an entity.

13. “Reliably Reported,” for a human clinical test or study (“test”), means a report of

the test has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and such published report provides

sufficient information about the test for experts in the relevant field to assess the reliability of the

results.

14. The term “including” in this Order means “including without limitation.”

15. The terms “and” and “or” in this Order shall be construed conjunctively or

disjunctively as necessary, to make the applicable phrase or sentence inclusive rather than


4

exclusive.

ORDER

I.

PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIONS: CLAIMS REGARDING COPPER, CHRONIC OR SEVERE PAIN, DISEASES,

DRUGS, AND SURGERY

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, employees, and

attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive

actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the

manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any

Covered Product are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from making, or assisting

others in making, expressly or by implication, including through the use of a product or program

name, endorsement, depiction, or illustration, any representation that:

A. The copper in any Covered Product provides a pain relief benefit to consumers;

B. Any Covered Product treats or relieves chronic or severe pain, or pain or

inflammation caused by diseases including multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and fibromyalgia; or

C. Any Covered Product provides pain relief comparable or superior to drugs or

surgery,

unless the representation is non-misleading and, at the time of making such representation,

Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate that

the representation is true. For purposes of this Section, competent and reliable scientific

evidence shall consist of human clinical testing of the Covered Product that is sufficient in

quality and quantity, based on standards generally accepted by relevant medical experts, when

considered in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, to substantiate


5

that the representation is true. Such testing shall: (1) be randomized, double-blind, and placebo-

controlled; and (2) be conducted by researchers qualified by training and experience to conduct

such testing. In addition, all underlying or supporting data and documents generally accepted by

relevant medical experts as relevant to an assessment of such testing as described in the Section

entitled Preservation of Records Relating to Competent and Reliable Human Clinical Tests or

Studies must be available for inspection and production to the Commission.

II.

PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIONS: OTHER HEALTH-RELATED CLAIMS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, employees,

and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who

receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the

manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any

Covered Health Product, are permanently restrained and enjoined from making, or assisting

others in making, directly or by implication, including through the use of a product or program

name, endorsement, depiction, or illustration, any representation, other than representations

covered under Section I of this Order, about the health benefits or health efficacy of any Covered

Health Product, unless the representation is non-misleading, and, at the time of making such

representation, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that

is sufficient in quality and quantity based on standards generally accepted in the relevant

scientific fields, when considered in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific

evidence, to substantiate that the representation is true.

For purposes of this Section, competent and reliable scientific evidence means tests,

analyses, research, or studies (1) that have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner


6

by qualified persons; (2) that are generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and

reliable results; and (3) as to which, when they are human clinical tests or studies, shall consist of

human clinical testing on the Covered Health Product (or, where such product is a food or drug,

on the Covered Health Product or an Essentially Equivalent Product), that is sufficient in quality

and quantity, that conforms to acceptable designs and protocols, and whose results, when

considered in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, is sufficient to

substantiate that the representation is true; and further, that with respect to such clinical testing,

all underlying or supporting data and documents generally accepted by experts in the field as

relevant to an assessment of such testing as set forth in the Section entitled Preservation of

Records Relating to Competent and Reliable Human Clinical Tests or Studies are available for

inspection and production to the Commission. Defendants shall have the burden of proving that

a product satisfies the definition of an Essentially Equivalent Product.

III.

FDA-APPROVED CLAIMS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall prohibit Defendants from:

A. Making any representation for any drug that is permitted in labeling for such drug

under any tentative or final monograph promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration, or

under any new drug application approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and

B. Making any representation for any product that is specifically permitted in

labeling for such product by regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration

pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 or permitted under Sections 303-

304 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997.


7

IV.

PRESERVATION OF RECORDS RELATING TO COMPETENT AND RELIABLE HUMAN CLINICAL TESTS OR STUDIES

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with regard to any human clinical test or study

(“test”) upon which Defendants rely to substantiate any claim covered by this Order, Defendants

shall secure and preserve all underlying or supporting data and documents generally accepted by

experts in the field as relevant to an assessment of the test, including, but not necessarily limited

to:

A. All protocols and protocol amendments, reports, articles, write-ups, or other

accounts of the results of the test, and drafts of such documents reviewed by the test sponsor or

any other person not employed by the research entity;

B. All documents referring or relating to recruitment; randomization; instructions,

including oral instructions, to participants; and participant compliance;

C. Documents sufficient to identify all test participants, including any participants

who did not complete the test, and all communications with any participants relating to the test;

all raw data collected from participants enrolled in the test, including any participants who did

not complete the test; source documents for such data; any data dictionaries; and any case report

forms;

D. All documents referring or relating to any statistical analysis of any test data,

including, but not limited to, any pretest analysis, intent-to-treat analysis, or between-group

analysis performed on any test data; and

E. All documents referring or relating to the sponsorship of the test, including all

communications and contracts, between any sponsor and the test’s researchers.

Provided, however, the preceding preservation requirement shall not apply to a Reliably


8

Reported test, unless the test was conducted, controlled, or sponsored, in whole or in part by: (1)

any Defendant; (2) any Defendant’s officers, agents, representatives, or employees; (3) any other

person or entity in active concert or participation with any Defendant; (4) any person or entity

affiliated with or acting on behalf of any Defendant; (5) any supplier of any ingredient contained

in the product at issue to any of the foregoing or to the product’s manufacturer; or (6) the

supplier or manufacturer of such product.

For any test conducted, controlled, or sponsored, in whole or in part, by Defendants,

Defendants must establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality,

security, and integrity of any personal information collected from or about participants. These

procedures shall be documented in writing and shall contain administrative, technical, and

physical safeguards appropriate to Defendants’ size and complexity, the nature and scope of

Defendants’ activities, and the sensitivity of the personal information collected from or about the

participants.

V.

MONETARY JUDGMENT AND CONSUMER REDRESS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

A. Judgment in the amount of eighty-six million, eight hundred fifteen thousand,

seven hundred seventy-eight dollars ($86,815,778.00) is entered in favor of the Commission

against Defendants, jointly and severally, as equitable monetary relief.

B. Defendants are ordered to pay to the Commission one million, three hundred fifty

thousand dollars ($1,350,000.00), which, as Defendants stipulate, their undersigned counsel

holds in escrow for no purpose other than payment to the Commission. Such payment must be

made within 7 days of entry of this Order by electronic fund transfer in accordance with


9

instructions previously provided by a representative of the Commission. Upon such payment,

the remainder of the judgment is suspended, subject to the Subsections below.

C. The Commission’s agreement to the suspension of part of the judgment is

expressly premised upon the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of Defendants’ sworn

financial statements and related documents (collectively, “financial representations”) submitted

to the Commission, namely:

1. the Financial Statement of Individual Defendant Thomas Kallish signed

and sworn by Thomas Kallish on June 22, 2015, including the attachments;

2. the Financial Statement of Corporate Defendant Tommie Copper, Inc.

signed and sworn by Sol Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer, on June 23, 2015, including the

attachments; and

3. the additional documentation submitted by electronic mail from

Defendants’ counsel Steven Steinborn, Veronica Colas, and/or Corey Roush to Commission

counsel Carolyn Hann and Tawana Davis, dated July 17, 2015; July 21, 2015; July 23, 2015;

September 8, 2015; September 11, 2015; September 17, 2015; September 24, 2015; and

September 25, 2015; including all attachments thereto.

D. The suspension of the judgment will be lifted as to any Defendant if, upon motion

by the Commission the Court finds that Defendant failed to disclose any material asset,

materially misstated the value of any asset, or made any other material misstatement or omission

in the financial representations identified above.

E. If the suspension of the judgment is lifted, the judgment becomes immediately

due as to that Defendant in the amount specified in Subsection A. above which the parties

stipulate only for purposes of this Section represents the consumer injury alleged in the


10

Complaint, less any payment previously made pursuant to this Section, plus interest computed

from the date of entry of this Order.

VI.

ADDITIONAL MONETARY PROVISIONS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

A. Defendants relinquish dominion and all legal and equitable right, title, and interest

in all assets transferred pursuant to this Order and may not seek the return of any assets.

B. The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true, without further proof, in

any subsequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Commission, including in a proceeding to

enforce its rights to any payment or monetary judgment pursuant to this Order, such as a

nondischargeability complaint in any bankruptcy case.

C. The facts alleged in the Complaint establish all elements necessary to sustain an

action by the Commission pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(a)(2)(A), and this Order will have collateral estoppel effect for such purposes.

D. Defendants acknowledge that their Taxpayer Identification Numbers (Social

Security Numbers or Employer Identification Numbers), which Defendants must submit to the

Commission, may be used for collecting and reporting on any delinquent amount arising out of

this Order, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 7701.

E. All money paid to the Commission pursuant to this Order may be deposited into a

fund administered by the Commission or its designee to be used for equitable relief, including

consumer redress and any attendant expenses for the administration of any redress fund. If a

representative of the Commission decides that direct redress to consumers is wholly or partially

impracticable or money remains after redress is completed, the Commission may apply any


11

remaining money for such other equitable relief (including consumer information remedies) as it

determines to be reasonably related to Defendants’ practices alleged in the Complaint. Any

money not used for such equitable relief is to be deposited to the U.S. Treasury as disgorgement.

Defendants have no right to challenge any actions the Commission or its representatives may

take pursuant to this Subsection.

VII.

CUSTOMER INFORMATION

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, employees,

and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who

receive actual notice of this Order, are permanently restrained and enjoined from directly or

indirectly failing to provide sufficient customer information to enable the Commission to

efficiently administer consumer redress. Defendants represent that they have provided this

redress information to the Commission. If a representative of the Commission requests in

writing any information related to redress, Defendants must provide it, in the form prescribed by

the Commission, within 14 days.

VIII.

ORDER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants obtain acknowledgments of receipt of

this Order:

A. Each Defendant, within seven days of entry of this Order, must submit to the

Commission an acknowledgment of receipt of this Order sworn under penalty of perjury.


12

B. For ten years after entry of this Order, the Individual Defendant for any business

that such Defendant, individually or collectively with the Corporate Defendant, is the majority

owner or controls directly or indirectly, and the Corporate Defendant must deliver a copy of this

Order to: (1) all principals, officers, directors, and LLC managers and members; (2) all

employees, agents, and representatives who participate in conduct related to the subject matter of

the Order; and (3) any business entity resulting from any change in structure as set forth in the

Section titled Compliance Reporting. Delivery must occur within seven days of entry of this

Order for current personnel. For all others, delivery must occur before they assume their

responsibilities.

C. From each individual or entity to which a Defendant delivered a copy of this

Order, that Defendant must obtain, within 30 days, a signed and dated acknowledgment of

receipt of this Order.

IX.

COMPLIANCE REPORTING

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants make timely submissions to the

Commission:

A. One year after entry of this Order, each Defendant must submit a compliance

report, sworn under penalty of perjury.

1. Each Defendant must: (a) identify the primary physical, postal, and email

address and telephone number, as designated points of contact, which representatives of the

Commission may use to communicate with Defendant; (b) identify all of that Defendant’s

businesses by all of their names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, email, and Internet

addresses; (c) describe the activities of each business, including the products and services


13

offered, the means of advertising, marketing, and sales, and the involvement, if any, of the other

Defendant (which the Individual Defendant must describe if he knows or should know due to his

own involvement); (d) describe in detail whether and how that Defendant is in compliance with

each Section of this Order; and (e) provide a copy of each Order Acknowledgment obtained

pursuant to this Order, unless previously submitted to the Commission;

2. Additionally, the Individual Defendant must: (a) identify all telephone

numbers and all physical, postal, email and Internet addresses, including all residences; (b)

identify all business activities, including any business for which such Defendant performs

services whether as an employee or otherwise and any entity in which such Defendant has any

ownership interest; and (c) describe in detail such Defendant’s involvement in each such

business, including title, role, responsibilities, participation, authority, control, and any

ownership.

B. For 20 years after entry of this Order, each Defendant must submit a compliance

notice, sworn under penalty of perjury, within 14 days of any change in the following:

1. Each Defendant must report any change in: (a) any designated point of

contact; or (b) the structure of the Corporate Defendant or any entity that Defendant has any

ownership interest in or controls directly or indirectly that may affect compliance obligations

arising under this Order, including: the creation, merger, sale, or dissolution of the entity or any

subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this Order.

2. Additionally, the Individual Defendant must report any change in: (a)

name, including aliases or fictitious name, or residence address; or (b) title or role in any

business activity, including any business for which such Defendant performs services, whether as

an employee or otherwise, and any entity in which such Defendant has any ownership interest,


14

and identify the name, physical address, and any Internet address of the business or entity.

C. Each Defendant must submit to the Commission notice of the filing of any

bankruptcy petition, insolvency proceeding, or any similar proceeding by or against such

Defendant within 14 days of its filing.

D. Any submission to the Commission required by this Order to be sworn under

penalty of perjury must be true and accurate and comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, such as by

concluding: “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: _____” and supplying the date, signatory’s

full name, title (if applicable), and signature.

E. Unless otherwise directed by a Commission representative in writing, all

submissions to the Commission pursuant to this Order must be emailed to [email protected] or

sent by overnight courier (not the U.S. Postal Service) to: Associate Director for Enforcement,

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,

Washington, D.C. 20580. The subject line must begin: FTC v. Tommie Copper, Inc., et al.,

(S.D.N.Y).

X.

RECORD KEEPING PROVISIONS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must create certain records for 20 years

after entry of the Order, and retain each such record for five years. Specifically, the Corporate

Defendant and the Individual Defendant for any business that the Individual Defendant,

individually or collectively with the Corporate Defendant, is a majority owner or controls

directly or indirectly, must create and retain the following records:


Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 4-1 Filed 12/01/15 Page 19 of 19


EXHIBIT 2


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK



STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF CLASS ACTION CLAIMS

This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”, “Settlement Agreement” or

“Stipulation”) is made and entered into by and between Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs,

Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class defined below

(hereafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or the “Class”), and Defendants Tommie Copper

Inc., Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., Thomas Kallish, and Montel Williams (“Tommie Copper”

or “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”).

RECITALS

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1.1 WHEREAS, on April 22, 2015, Plaintiff George Potzner filed a class action

complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No.

7:15-cv-3183 (the “Potzner” Action) against Defendant Tommie Copper, Inc., alleging causes of

action for (1) violations of New York’s Deceptive Trade Practices Law, NY Gen. Bus. § 349; (2)

breach of express warranties; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) unjust enrichment; (5)

declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, et seq.; and (6) violation of Iowa’s Consumer Fraud

Act, Iowa Code Ann. § 714H.3.

1.2 WHEREAS, on July 31, 2015 Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs, Jerome

Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District


Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-6055, in a case captioned Lucero,

et al. v. Tommie Copper Inc., et al. (the “Lucero” Action). Plaintiffs in the Lucero Action alleged

the following causes of action on behalf of a Nationwide Class and Subclasses under California,

New York, Georgia, and Ohio: negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; violation of the

federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; New York’s Breach of Express

Warranty, N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-313; New York’s Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, N.Y.

U.C.C. § 2-314; New York’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349;

New York’s False Advertising Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350; California’s Breach of Express

Warranty, Cal. Com. Code § 2313; California’s Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability,

Cal. Com. Code § 2314; California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750,

et seq.; California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.;

California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; Georgia’s Breach

of Express Warranty, Ga. Code Ann. § 11-2-313; Georgia’s Breach of Implied Warranty of

Merchantability, Ga. Code Ann. § 11-2-314; Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann.

§ 10-1-393; Ohio’s Breach of Express Warranty, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302-26; Ohio’s Breach

of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, O.R.C. § 1302-26; and the Ohio Consumer Sales

Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345, et. seq.

1.3 WHEREAS, on August 3, 2015, the Potzner Complaint was amended to remove

the causes of action for declaratory relief and for violations of New York’s Deceptive Trade

Practices Law.

1.4 WHEREAS, on November 2, 2015, both the Potzner and Lucero Plaintiffs filed

motions to consolidate, as well as for the appointment of interim lead class counsel. See ECF Nos.

38-44 in Lucero Action; ECF Nos. 47-53 in Potzner Action.


1.5 WHEREAS, on January 4, 2016, this Court granted consolidation of the two cases,

and appointed Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Lucero Action—the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,

APLC and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP—to serve as Interim Class Counsel for the Consolidated Action.

ECF No. 50

1.6 WHEREAS, on March 4, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed,

bringing claims for unfair and deceptive business practices under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349; false

advertising under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 350; negligent and intentional misrepresentation; violation

of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., False

Advertising Law, id. §§ 17500, et seq., and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§

1750 et seq., breach of express and implied warranties, including under Cal. Comm. Code §§ 2313

and 2315; breach of express and implied warranty law and false advertising statutes of various

other states as noted above; the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.;

and unjust enrichment under the common law.

1.7 WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, a substantially similar putative class action

lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No.

9:15-cv-81611-KAM, styled Herst v. Tommie Copper, Inc. (the “Herst” Action.)

1.8 WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, Interim Class Counsel intervened in the Herst

Action and moved to transfer venue of Herst to the Southern District of New York, where the

earlier consolidated case was pending. On February 1, 2016, Defendant Tommie Copper, Inc. also

moved to transfer the Herst Action to the Southern District of New York.

1.9 WHEREAS, on July 15, 2016, the motions to transfer venue of the Herst Action to

the Southern District of New York was granted. Thereafter, the Herst matter was transferred to

the Southern District of New York, Case No. 71:16-cv-7008.


1.10 WHEREAS, on November 27, 2015, subsequent to the filing of the initial

complaints, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a substantially similar complaint against

defendants Tommie Copper and Thomas Kallish pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act (the “FTC Action”).

1.11 WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, Tommie Copper stipulated to the entry of a

Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief in the

amount of eighty-six million, eight hundred fifteen thousand, seven hundred seventy-eight dollars

($86,815,778.00), which was suspended on the payment of one million, three hundred fifty

thousand dollars ($1,350,000.00) to the FTC (the “FTC Settlement”). The FTC suspension of part

of the judgment was based on the financial statements submitted to the FTC, including financial

statements from Defendant Thomas Kallish and Defendant Tommie Copper, establishing their

inability to pay in excess of the unsuspended judgment. Per the terms of the consent order, the

suspended judgment would be immediately due and owing if Tommie Copper or Thomas Kallish

misrepresented their financial condition.

1.12 WHEREAS, on March 24, 2016, Interim Class Counsel and counsel for Tommie

Copper initiated discussions about the prospect of opening settlement discussions to resolve the

litigation, and since that date, Interim Class Counsel and counsel for Tommie Copper have had a

series of negotiations about terms of a settlement.

1.13 WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in informal discovery thereafter. Defendants also

produced various insurance policies, coverage summaries, notices regarding same, and financial

statements and related documents to Interim Class Counsel. In addition, Interim Class Counsel

conducted extensive research into the claims made in this case; the substantiation therefor;

insurance available; and the implications of the FTC Settlement.


1.14 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2016, the Parties appeared for an in-person settlement

conference before Magistrate Judge Lisa Smith in an attempt to resolve this action.

1.15 WHEREAS, on May 20, 2016, Defendants served a meet and confer pursuant to

Section III(B) of Judge Annalisa Torres’ Individual Practices in Civil Case-Special Rules for

Motions to Dismiss, arguing among other points, that Plaintiffs’ claims were subject to a Final

Judgment.

1.16 WHEREAS, on June 3, 2016, Defendants filed a letter motion asserting that the

FTC Judgment—initiated and ordered after the commencement of this action—precludes

Plaintiffs from pursuing any claims, let alone a class action. That same day, the Parties also entered

into a Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order.

1.17 WHEREAS, on June 8, 2016, the Action was stayed so that settlement discussions,

which had been ongoing, could be explored more fully.

1.18 WHEREAS, on June 6, October 4, October 31, and November 17, 2016, the Parties

participated in telephonic settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge Lisa Smith in an attempt

to resolve this action. Magistrate Judge Smith’s guidance and the negotiations between Interim

Class Counsel and Tommie Copper resulted in this Agreement, which Plaintiffs and Interim Class

Counsel believe provides benefits to the Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and is

in the best interests of Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members.

1.19 WHEREAS, this Agreement was reached after extensive review of the underlying

facts and after extensive arm’s length negotiations between Interim Class Counsel and counsel for

Defendants.

1.20 WHEREAS, based upon the discovery and investigation to date and evaluation of

the facts and law relating to the matters alleged in the pleadings, Plaintiffs and Interim Class


Counsel have agreed to settle, subject to court approval, the claims asserted in the Action pursuant

to the provisions of this Agreement. In so doing, Plaintiffs and Interim Class Counsel have

considered the terms of this Stipulation, the numerous risks of continued litigation and other

factors, including but not limited to the following:

a. the financial stability of Defendants’ including Tommie Copper’s inability to pay

in excess of the suspended FTC judgment;

b. the expense and length of time necessary to prosecute the Action through trial;

c. the uncertainty of outcome at trial and the possibility of an appeal by either side

following the trial;

d. the possibility that a contested class might not be certified, and if certified, the

possibility that such certification would be reversed on appeal;

e. the fact that Tommie Copper would file a motion for summary judgment that, if

granted, would dispose of all or many of the claims in this Action; and

f. the benefits being made available to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members

under the terms of this Agreement.

1.21 WHEREAS, weighing the above factors, as well as all other risks and uncertainties

of continued litigation and all factors bearing on the merits of settlement, Plaintiffs and Interim

Class Counsel are satisfied that the terms and conditions of this settlement are fair, reasonable,

adequate, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members.

1.22 WHEREAS, Tommie Copper denies any liability or any wrongdoing of any kind

whatsoever, and stands by its products and advertising. Nevertheless, Tommie Copper considers

it desirable that the Action be resolved upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement


in order to avoid the expense, risk, uncertainty, and interference with ongoing business operations

inherent in any litigation, and to obtain the releases as described herein.

1.23 WHEREAS the Parties have engaged in long and hard-fought settlement

negotiations. The combined result of the extensive negotiations is memorialized in the terms set

forth in this Settlement Agreement.

1.24 NOW, THEREFORE, without any admission or concession whatsoever on the

part of Plaintiffs of the lack of merit of this Action, or any admission or concession of liability or

wrongdoing or the lack of merit of any defense whatsoever by Defendants, it is hereby stipulated

and agreed by the undersigned, on behalf of Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, and Defendants that

the Action and all claims of the Settlement Class be settled, compromised, and dismissed on the

merits and with prejudice, subject to Court approval as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23, on the terms and conditions set forth herein and upon the Effective Date (as defined below).

1.25 Each party affirms that the recitals above as to such party are true and accurate as

to such party and are hereby made a part of this Settlement Agreement.

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT

DEFINITIONS

2.1 As used in this Agreement and the annexed exhibits hereto, the following terms and

phrases have the following meanings, unless a section or subsection of this Agreement or its

exhibits provides otherwise. Unless otherwise indicated, defined terms include the plural as well

as the singular. Other capitalized terms used in this Agreement but not defined above shall have

the meaning ascribed to them in this Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto.

A. “Action” means the consolidated civil action filed in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of New York, styled Lucero, et al. v. Tommie Copper Inc., et al., Case


No. 1:15-cv-6055, including the consolidated Potzner and transferred Herst actions and any

actions transferred or related thereto.

B. “Agreement” or “Settlement Agreement” means this Settlement Agreement,

including all Exhibits thereto.

C. “Authorized Claimant” means any Claimant who has timely and completely

submitted a Proof of Claim Form that has been reviewed and validated by the Claims

Administrator.

D. “Claim” means an assertion of a Class Member who submits a Proof of Claim Form

to be reviewed by the Claims Administrator.

E. “Claims Deadline” means the date set by the Court in the Preliminary Approval

Order by which Settlement Class Members must submit a claim to obtain the Class Benefits

described in Section VI of this Stipulation of Settlement.

F. “Claim Form” or “Proof of Claim Form” means the documents to be submitted by

Claimants seeking payment pursuant to this Stipulation that will be available online at the

Settlement Website, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.

G. “Claimant” means any Class Member who seeks a Settlement Payment that submits

a Claim Form pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.

H. “Claims Administration Expenses” means the fees and expenses incurred by the

Claims Administrator in completing the claims administration process set forth in this Agreement.

I. “Claims Administrator” or “Settlement Administrator” means CLASSAURA LLC

Administration, which will provide the Class Notice and administer the claims process. Plaintiffs

shall select a successor in the event one becomes necessary, subject to initial approval by Tommie

Copper, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.


J. “Claim Deadline” or “Claim Period Close Date” means the date 120 days (not

including the day of the event) following the later of: (i) the last published notice as identified in

the Notice Plan; or (ii) establishment of the Settlement Website.

K. “Class Counsel” means, subject to Court approval to represent the Settlement Class,

the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and Vozzolo LLC and any

attorneys at those firms assisting in the representation of the Class in this Action.

L. “Class Notice” means the Court-approved notices to the Class to be disseminated

by the Claims Administrator as set forth in the Claims Administrator’s Notice Media Plan and in

accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, but which may be modified as necessary

to comply with the provisions of this Settlement, and which are to be provided to the Class

Members pursuant to this Agreement.

M. “Class Period” or “Settlement Class Period” shall mean and refer to the time period

beginning on April 11, 2011 and ending on the date a motion for preliminary approval of the

Settlement Agreement is entered in this Action.

N. “Class Representatives” means named Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs,

Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura.

O. “Class Representative Enhancement” or “Incentive Award” means any award

sought by application to and approved by the Court that is payable to the Class Representatives

and named plaintiffs from the Settlement Fund for their role as the class representatives and/or

named plaintiffs and for the responsibility and work attendant to those roles.

P. “Competent and Reliable Scientific Evidence” means tests, analyses, research,

and/or studies that have been conducted by a qualified person in an objective manner and are

generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results. When that evidence


consists of a human clinical trial, Defendants must maintain all underlying or supporting data and

documents that experts in the field generally would accept as relevant to an assessment of such

testing.

Q. “Court” means the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York.

R. “Defendants” or “Tommie Copper” means Defendant Tommie Copper Inc.,

Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., Thomas Kallish, and Montel Williams.

S. “Defense Counsel” means the law firms of Sidney Austin LLP, Clayman &

Rosenberg, and any attorneys at those firms assisting in the representation of Defendants in the

Action.

T. “Escrow Account” means the escrow account managed by the Escrow Agent, which

shall be the sole escrow account for compensation of Class Members under the Class Action

Settlement Agreement.

U. “Escrow Agent” means the agreed-upon entity to address and hold for distribution

the funds identified in this Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that

CLASSAURA LLC shall serve as Escrow Agent, subject to approval by the Court.

V. “Fee and Expense Award” means the amount of any attorneys’ fees and

reimbursement of litigation expenses awarded to Class Counsel under their Fee Application based

on their work prosecuting the Action and creating the benefits of this Settlement.

W. “Final Approval Date” or “Effective Date” means the first date that is three business

days after all of the following have occurred: (i) the Court has entered an order granting final

approval of the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; (ii) the time for any

challenge to the Settlement, both in the Court and on appeal, has elapsed; and (iii) the Settlement


has become final, either because no timely challenge was made to it or because any timely challenge

has been finally adjudicated and rejected. For purposes of this paragraph, an “appeal” shall not

include any appeal that concerns solely the issue of Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and

expenses and for Incentive Awards to the Class Representatives.

X. “Final Judgment” means the “Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal” to be entered

by the Court, which, among other things, fully and finally approves the settlement and dismisses

the litigation with prejudice, and retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation,

implementation, and enforcement of the settlement. Plaintiffs will submit a proposed Final

Judgment and Order of Dismissal as an exhibit to their Motion for the Final Approval.

Y. “Judgment” means the Court’s order approving the Settlement and dismissing the

Action with prejudice.

Z. “Notice” or “Class Notice” means the Court approved “Notice of Proposed Class

Action Settlement” attached as Exhibits “B”, “C” and “D”).

AA. “Notice Date” or “Notice Deadline” means the date on which the Settlement

Administrator completes the initial emailing of Notice, consistent with the Preliminary Approval

Order, to Settlement Class Members.

BB. “Objection” is the written communication that a Settlement Class Member may file

with the Court in order to object to this Agreement as provided for in Section 4.3 of this Stipulation

of Settlement.

CC. “Objection/Exclusion Deadline” means the first business day on or after ten (10)

calendar days from the filing of the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and application

for Fee and Expense Awards, or such other date as the Court may order in its Preliminary Approval

Order, as referred to in Section 4.2 of this Agreement.


DD. “Party” or “Parties” means Plaintiffs and Defendants in this litigation.

EE. “Plaintiffs” means the Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and each of

the Settlement Class Members.

FF. “Person” means any individual, corporation or any other entity of any nature

whatsoever.

GG. “Preliminary Approval Date” means the date of entry of the Court’s order granting

preliminary approval of the Settlement substantially in the form of the Preliminary Approval Order

attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “E”.

HH. “Preliminary Approval Order” means the Court’s order preliminarily approving the

Settlement Agreement set forth in this Stipulation of Settlement, approving the Settlement Notice

Plan, and conditionally certifying the Settlement Class.

II. “Products” and “Tommie Copper Products” means all Tommie Copper clothing and

compression wear products that are made with copper infused fabric, in any package, size, or

iteration purchased by Class Members during the Class Period for personal or household use and

not for resale, including, but not limited to: Defendants’ Crew Compression Socks, Calf

Compression Socks, Back Braces, Men’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Long Sleeve

Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Tights, Wrist Compression Sleeves, Ankle

Compression Sleeves, Calf Compression Sleeves, Elbow Compression Sleeves, Knee

Compression Sleeves, Men’s Compression Under-Shorts, Women’s Compression Shorts, Men’s

Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Shirts, Half Finger Compression Gloves, and Full

Finger Compression Gloves.

JJ. “Released Claims” or “Class Released Claims” means any claim, cross-claim,

liability, right, demand, suit, matter, obligation, damage, restitution, disgorgement, loss or cost,


attorneys’ fee or expense, action or cause of action, of every kind and description that a Releasing

Party had or has, including assigned claims, whether in arbitration, administrative, or judicial

proceedings, whether as individual claims or as claims asserted on a class basis or on behalf of the

general public, that is, has been, could reasonably have been or in the future might reasonably be

asserted by the Releasing Party in the Action against any of the Released Parties arising out of or

relating to the allegations in the complaints filed in the Action.

KK. “Released Persons” means each of the Defendants, and their parent companies

(including intermediate parents and ultimate parents) and subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors,

successors, and assigns, and each of their respective officers, directors, employees, agents,

attorneys, insurers, stockholders, representatives, heirs, administrators, executors, successors and

assigns, and any other person or entity acting on their behalf.

LL. “Request for Exclusion” means the written communication that must be sent to the

Settlement Administrator and postmarked on or before the Opt-Out Date by a Settlement Class

Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class.

MM. “Settlement Class Member(s)” or “Member(s) of the Settlement Class” or “Class

Members” means: All persons in the United States, its territories, or at any United States military

facility or exchange who purchased the Tommie Copper Products directly from Defendants

through the internet, telephone or at the Tommie Copper retail location in Westchester, New York

on or after April 11, 2011 and ending on the date a motion for preliminary approval of the

Settlement Agreement is entered. Excluded from the Class are: (a) Tommie Copper employees,

officers and directors, (b) persons or entities who purchased the Settlement Class Products for the

purpose of re-sale, (c) retailers or re-sellers of the Settlement Class Products, (d) governmental

entities, (e) persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided


herein, (f) any natural person or entity that entered into a release with Defendant prior to the

Effective Date concerning any of the Settlement Class Products, and (g) the Court, the Court’s

immediate family, and Court staff.

NN. “Settlement Fund” means the total amount to be deposited by Defendants into the

Escrow Account from which the Claims Administrator to pay all expenses associated with

Settlement as approved by the Court including without limitation, Class Notice, administration,

Class Member claims, the Settlement Payment, Class Representative Enhancement or Incentive

awards and Class Counsel legal expenses and attorneys’ fees, as described in Section VI.

OO. “Settlement Hearing” or “Fairness Hearing” means the hearing(s) , to be held after

notice has been provided to the Settlement Class in accordance with this Agreement (1) to determine

whether to grant final approval to (a) the certification of the Settlement Class, (b) the designation

of Class Representatives as the representatives of the Settlement Class, (c) the designation of Class

Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class, and (d) the Settlement; (2) to consider whether to enter

the Final Approval Order; and (3) to rule on Class Counsel’s Fee and Expense Award application.

The Parties shall ask the Court to schedule a date for the Settlement Hearing 120 days after the

Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order, and no sooner than 90 days after the date the Motion

for Preliminary Approval is filed to permit the necessary notices under the Class Action Fairness

Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C. §1715).

PP. “Settlement Notice and Other Administrative Costs” means all fees, costs and

expenses actually incurred by the Settlement Administrator in the creation and dissemination of

Class Notice, establishment of the Settlement Website, and the processing, handling, reviewing,

and paying of claims made by Claimants.


QQ. “Settlement Payment” means the amount to be paid to Authorized Claimants as

described in Section VI.

RR. “Settlement Website” means the website to be created and maintained by the Claims

Administrator to provide the Settlement Class with information relating to the Settlement, including

relevant documents and electronic and printable forms relating to the settlement, including the

Claim Form which can be submitted online through an Internet-based Claim form or printed and

mailed. The Settlement Website shall be activated no later than ten (10) days after the Court enters

the Preliminary Approval Order.

SS. “Stipulation” means this Stipulation of Settlement, including its attached exhibits

(which are incorporated herein by reference), duly executed by Class Counsel and counsel for

Defendant.

2.2 Other capitalized terms used in this Stipulation but not defined above shall have the

meaning ascribed to them in this Stipulation and the exhibits attached hereto.

III. CERTIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT CLASS

3.1 Defendants hereby consent, solely for purposes of the settlement set forth herein,

to the certification of a nationwide Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(3), to the appointment of Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class, and to the

conditional approval of Plaintiffs as suitable representatives of the Class; provided, however, that

if this Stipulation fails to receive Court approval or otherwise fails to be consummated, including,

but not limited to, the Judgment not becoming final as provided in § IX of this Stipulation, then

Defendants retain all rights they had immediately preceding the execution of this Stipulation to

object to the maintenance of this Litigation as a class action, and in that event, nothing in this

Stipulation or other papers or proceedings related to the settlement shall be used as evidence or


argument by any Party concerning whether the Litigation may properly be maintained as a class

action.

IV. APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND RELATED PROVISIONS

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

4.1 Preliminary Approval. As soon as reasonably practicable after the signing of this

Agreement, the Parties shall file with the Court a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class

Settlement that seeks entry of an order, (substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E),

which, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, for settlement purposes only would:

a. Certify a tentative Settlement Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(3) composed of the Settlement Class Members;

b. Preliminarily approve this Settlement Agreement;

c. Approve and authorize the distribution of the Settlement Notice;

d. Approve the Claims Administrator;

e. Approve the claims process;

f. Appoint Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Settlement Class; and

g. Appoint Class Counsel.

4.2 Requests for Exclusion

a. Any Settlement Class Member who does not wish to participate in this

Settlement must submit a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator stating an intention

to be “excluded” from this Settlement. The request for exclusion must contain the Settlement

Class Member’s name, current address, and telephone number. The Request for Exclusion must

be either (i) personally signed by the Settlement Class Member, dated and mailed to the Claims

Administrator and postmarked on or before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline, or (ii) electronically

signed by the Settlement Class Member, and submitted to the Claims Administrator through the


Settlement Website on or before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline. So-called “mass” or “class”

opt-outs shall not be allowed. The date of the postmark on the return mailing envelope and/or the

date of online submission through the Settlement Website shall be the exclusive means used to

determine whether a Request for Exclusion has been timely submitted. Any Settlement Class

Member whose request to be excluded from the Settlement Class is approved by the Court will not

be bound by this Settlement Agreement or have any right to object, appeal or comment thereon.

b. Any Settlement Class Member who does not file a timely written request for

exclusion as provided in the preceding paragraph shall be bound by all subsequent proceedings,

orders, and the Judgment in the Litigation relating to this Settlement Agreement, even if he or she

has pending, or subsequently initiates litigation, arbitration, or any other proceeding against

Defendants relating to the Released Claims.

4.3 Objections to the Settlement

a. Any Settlement Class Member, on his or her own, or through an attorney hired

at his or her own expense, may object to the terms of the settlement or to any of the terms of this

Settlement Agreement or Class Counsel’s application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Expenses and/or the Incentive Awards. Any such objection must be filed with the Court and served

on Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel. To be effective, any such objection must be in writing

and included the contents described in Paragraph (b) below, and must be filed with the Court and

served on counsel for the Parties on or before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline or as the Court

otherwise directs. Any objections not raised properly and timely will be waived. Such papers

must be sent to each of the following persons:

If to Plaintiffs, then to:

(1) Ronald A. Marron Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive


San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Email: [email protected]

Michael Mallow Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone (213) 896-6666 Email: [email protected]

b. To be effective, any objection described in Paragraph (a) must contain all the

following information: (i) a reference at the beginning to this case, In re Tommie Copper Products

Consumer Litigation; (ii) the objector’s full name, address, and telephone number (and your

lawyer’s name, address and telephone number if you are objecting through counsel); (iii) a

statement of his/her membership in the Settlement Class, including a verification under oath as to

the date and location of their purchase of Tommie Copper Product and/or a Proof of Purchase

reflecting such purchase and any other information required by the Claim Form; (iv) a written

statement of all grounds for the objection, accompanied by any legal support for such objection;

(v) copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents upon which the objection is based; (vi) a list

of all persons who will be called to testify in support of the objection; (vii) a statement of whether

the objector intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing (Note, if the objector intends to appear at

the Settlement Hearing through counsel, the objection must also state the identity of all attorneys

representing the objector who will appear at the Settlement Hearing); (viii) a list of the exhibits

that you may offer during the fairness hearing, along with copies of such exhibits; and (ix) your

signature. In addition, Settlement Class Members, if applicable, must include with their objection

(i) the identity of all counsel who represent the objector, including former or current counsel who

may be entitled to compensation for any reason related to the objection; (ii) a detailed list of any


other objections submitted by the Settlement Class Member, or his/her counsel, to any class actions

submitted in any court, whether state or federal, in the United States in the previous five (5) years.

c. The filing of an objection allows “Class Counsel and Defendants Counsel

to take the objector’s deposition consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at an agreed-

upon location, and to seek any documentary evidence or other tangible things that are relevant to

the objection. Failure by an objector to make himself or herself available for a deposition or

otherwise comply with expedited discovery requests may result in the Court striking the objector’s

objection and otherwise denying the objector the opportunity to make an objection or be further

heard.

d. Any Settlement Class Member who fails to file and serve timely a written

objection containing all of the information listed above in the previous paragraphs, including

notice of his/her intent to appear at the final approval hearing, shall not be permitted to object to

the Settlement and shall be foreclosed from seeking any review of the Settlement or the terms of

the Settlement Agreement by any means, including but not limited to an appeal.

COOPERATION

4.4 The Parties and their counsel agree to cooperate fully with one another and to use

their best efforts to effectuate the Settlement, including without limitation, in seeking Preliminary

Approval and Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement embodied herein,

carrying out the terms of this Settlement, and promptly agreeing upon and executing all such other

documentation as may be reasonably required to obtain final approval by the Court of the

Settlement. The Parties shall cooperate in good faith and undertake all reasonable actions and

steps in order to accomplish the events described in this Agreement.

V. CLASS NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

GENERAL TERMS


5.1 The Class Notice shall:

a. Inform Settlement Class Members that, if they do not exclude themselves from

the Class, they may be eligible to receive the relief under the proposed settlement;

b. contain a short, plain statement of the background of the Litigation, the Class

certification and the proposed settlement;

c. describe the proposed settlement relief outlined in this Stipulation; and

d. explain the impact of the proposed settlement on any existing litigation,

arbitration or other proceeding; and

e. state that any relief to Settlement Class Members is contingent on the Court’s

final approval of the proposed settlement.

5.2 Following Preliminary Approval, all activity in the Action shall be stayed

except to the extent necessary to effectuate this Agreement unless and until this Agreement

is terminated pursuant to its terms and conditions.

5.3 Cost of Notice. The costs, fees and expenses of administration and of disseminating

Notice in accord with the Notice plan as described herein shall be paid from the Settlement Fund.

5.4 Notice to State and Federal Officials. In compliance with the attorney general

notification provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §1715,

within ten (10) days after the motion for Preliminary Approval is filed, the Claims Administrator

and/or Tommie Copper shall cause notice of this proposed Settlement to be served on the Attorney

General of the United States, and the attorneys general of each state or territory in which a

Settlement Class Member resides. Tommie Copper shall file with the Court a certification stating

the date(s) on which the CAFA notices were sent. The Claims Administrator and/or Tommie


Copper will provide Class Counsel with any substantive responses received in response to any

CAFA notice served by it.

5.5 Notice to the Settlement Class Members

a. Identification of Settlement Class Members. Defendants shall conduct a

reasonable search of its records to identify the name and the email address of all persons within

the Settlement Class, but shall have no further obligation to locate Persons within the settlement

Class. Within fourteen days (14) of the entry of Preliminary Approval Order, Defendant shall

compile a list of email addresses for Settlement Class Members and provide it to the Settlement

Administrator and Class Counsel.

b. Upon Preliminary Approval of this Agreement, the Claims Administrator

shall cause the Settlement Notice to be made as follows and as set forth below:

c. E-mail Notice. On or before the Notice Deadline, the Claims Administrator

will cause Notice, in the form approved by the Court, to be mailed to Settlement Class Members

at an e-mail address for the Settlement Class Member’s account reflected in Tommie Copper’s

reasonably available computerized records, as of the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval

Order. An additional e-mail will be sent within 30 days of the initial e-mail notice through

Defendant Tommie Copper’s servers. The Claims Administrator may also send reminder notices

to Settlement Class Members. The E-mail Notice will be substantially in the form of Exhibit D.

To ensure a high degree of deliverability of the email notice and to avoid spam filters, the Claims

Administrator must utilize industry-recognized best practices and comply with the Can-Spam Act.

The Email Notice shall have a hyperlink that Class Member recipients may click and be taken to

a landing page on the Settlement Website, prepopulated with Class Member data, if practicable.


d. Publication in the Journal News (Westchester edition), on two separate

occasions, for those consumers who purchased from Tommie Copper’s retail store located in

Westchester, New York.

e. Settlement Website. On or before the Notice Deadline, the Settlement

Administrator shall establish the Settlement Website, from which Settlement Class Members may

download or print the Website Notice, a complete copy of this Agreement and the Preliminary

Approval Order and submit a Claim Form. The Settlement Website shall include the deadlines for

filing claims, requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class, objections and the hearing date for

final approval and other information pertaining to the Settlement, a voice recorded IVR with

FAQ’s and an interactive function that permits Settlement Class Members to download a Claim

Form online and/or to file a Claim Form via the website or by mail and post-marked by the Claims

Deadline. The Claims Administrator shall establish the Settlement Website using a website name

to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The website shall be operative no later than the Notice

Date and shall be accessible for a period of not fewer than five (5) days following the expiration

of the time for submissions of claims.

f. Toll‐Free Interactive Voice Response (“IVR”). On or before the Notice

Deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall establish a Toll‐Free IVR phone number with script

recordings of information about this Settlement, including information about the Claim Form,

utilizing the relevant portions of the language contained in the Notice and Claim Form. The phone

number shall remain open and accessible through the Claim Deadline. The Settlement

Administrator shall make reasonable provision for Class Counsel to be promptly advised of

recorded messages left on the phone number by potential Settlement Class Members concerning

the Action and/or this Settlement, so that Class Counsel may timely and accurately respond to such


inquiries; provided however, the Settlement Administrator shall review the recorded messages

before providing them to Class Counsel, and if one or more of the messages requests a blank Claim

Form or other similar administrative assistance only, then the Settlement Administrator shall

handle such administrative request(s), but the Settlement Administrator shall provide all other

messages to Class Counsel for any further response to the Settlement Class Member.

g. Social Media. On or before the Notice Deadline, Defendants’ shall post

notices to Tommie Copper’s Facebook and Twitter accounts notifying followers of the Settlement

in this case and providing a link to the Settlement website so that they could review the Court-

approved notice and submit claims. The Tommie Copper Facebook account is located at

https://www.facebook.com/tommiecopper/, and the Tommie Copper Twitter account is located at

https://twitter.com/TommieCoppper.

h. Defendants’ Website. On or before the Notice Deadline, Defendants shall

post notices regarding the settlement and will post a link to the Settlement Website URL from

Defendants’ website www.tommiecopper.com.

i. Defendant’s Retail Location. On or before the Notice Deadline,

Defendants’ shall provide posters containing the court-approved notice language for posting at the

point-of-sale at Tommie Copper’s sole retail location in Westchester County, New York.

5.6 Retention of Class Action Settlement Administrator. Subject to Court Approval,

CLASSAURA LLC shall be retained as the Class Action Settlement Administrator to help

implement the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement.

5.7 Responsibilities of Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator will

help implement the terms of this Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall be

responsible for administrative tasks, including, without limitation, (a) arranging, as set forth in this


Section and in the Preliminary Approval Order, for distribution of Class Notice (in the form

approved by the Court) and Claims Forms (in the form approved by the Court) to Settlement Class

Members, (b) answering inquiries from Settlement Class Members and/or forwarding such written

inquiries to Class Counsel or their designee, (c) receiving and maintaining on behalf of the Court

and the Parties any Settlement Class Member correspondence regarding Requests for Exclusion

from the Settlement Agreement, (d) posting notices on the Settlement Website, Claim Forms, and

other related documents, (e) receiving and processing claims and distributing cash payments to

Settlement Class Members, and (f) otherwise assisting with implementation and administration of

the Settlement Agreement terms.

5.8 General Claims Administration and Review of Claims. The Claims Administrator

shall be responsible for reviewing and administering all claims to determine their validity. The

Claims Administrator shall reject any claim that does not comply in any material respect with the

instructions on the Claim Form or the terms of this Agreement, or is submitted after the Claim

Period Close Date.

5.9 Claims Process. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all claims

submitted and all documentation of claims approved or denied and all payments made. The Claims

Administrator agrees to be subject to the direction and authority of the Court with respect to the

administration of the Settlement and the payment of refunds for Accepted Claims pursuant to the

terms of this Agreement. Upon determining that a claim submitted pursuant to this Agreement is

valid and determining the cash or voucher amount payable, the Claims Administrator shall notify

Defendants and Class Counsel of that determination. Defendants shall have 30 days following

this notice to challenge the claim. Defendants shall be permitted to submit to the Claims

Administrator, with a copy to Class Counsel, any information demonstrating that the submitted


claim is not valid. The Claims Administrator may then contact the Settlement Class Member who

submitted the claim to request any further information. The Claims Administrator shall then make

a final determination that is not challengeable by any Party.

5.10 The contract with the Class Action Settlement Administrator shall obligate the

Class Action Settlement Administrator to abide by the following performance standards:

i. the Class Action Settlement Administrator shall accurately and neutrally describe,

and shall train and instruct its employees and agents to accurately and objectively

describe, the provisions of this Settlement Agreement in communications with

Settlement Class Members;

ii. the Class Action Settlement Administrator shall provide prompt, accurate, and

objective responses to inquiries from Class Counsel, Defendants, or Defendants’

Counsel.

5.11 All disputes relating to the Settlement Administrator’s ability and need to perform

its duties shall be referred to the Court, if necessary, which will have continuing jurisdiction over

the terms and conditions of this Agreement, until all payments and obligations contemplated by

the Agreement have been fully carried out.

5.12 Declaration of Compliance. Within five (5) calendar days of the Claims Deadline,

the Settlement Administrator shall provide the Parties with a declaration attesting to completion

of the notice process set forth in this section.

VI. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION

6.1 Class Benefits. Class Counsel and Class Representatives believe the Settlement

confers substantial benefits upon the Class, as identified below, particularly as weighed against the

risk associated with the inherent uncertain nature of a litigated outcome; the complex nature of the

Action in which Class Counsel have reviewed internal and confidential documents; the FTC


Action and implications thereof; the difficulty and complexity of calculating actual economic harm

attributable to allegedly false representations related to the benefits of the Products in contrast to

benefits of Defendants’ products that are not challenged in this litigation; and the length and

expense of continued proceedings through additional fact depositions, expert depositions, third

party document productions and depositions, summary judgment briefing, trial and appeals. Based

on their evaluation of such factors, Class Counsel and Class Representatives have determined that

the Settlement, based on the following terms, is in the best interests of the Class.

6.2 The settlement relief includes cash payments or monetary relief and non-monetary

relief as set forth below.

A. Cash Payments

1. Class Members’ Cash Recovery

a. With Proof of Purchase: Settlement Class Members may seek

reimbursement of $10.00 per Product for every Product purchased during the Settlement Class

Period, for which they can present written proof of purchase in the form of a receipt or a retail

rewards submission or whose purchases appear in Defendants’ records.

b. Without Proof of Purchase: For those Settlement class members who

neither return the Settlement Class Products nor provide a valid receipt or a retail rewards

submission, nor whose purchases appear in Defendants’ records, but who substantiate their claims

through a submission of an Affidavit attesting to their purchase of the Settlement Class Products

under penalty of perjury, together with additional information requested by the Settlement

Administrator on the Claim Form, a total of $5.00.

B. Cash Recovery Enhancement. Alternatively and in lieu of receiving a cash payment

under both Paragraphs 6.2.A.(1)a. and b. , Settlement Class Members may apply their cash


recovery to an on-line purchase of Tommie Copper products at www.tommiecopper.com.

Settlement Class Members who apply their cash recovery to a product purchase will receive a 40%

enhancement of the cash recovery good toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products (the

“Cash Recovery Enhancement”). For example, if a Settlement Class Member presents written

proof of purchase for two Products for a total cash recovery of $20.00, the Settlement Class

Member would be entitled to a $28.00 ($20.00 + 40%) credit to apply toward the purchase of

Tommie Copper products.

C. Class Members may obtain relief under both Paragraphs 6.2.A(i) (a) and (b) or

Paragraph 6.2.B with the appropriate paper work and subject to the maximum recovery amounts

permitted for each type of claim.

D. Claimants may seek reimbursement by submitting a Claim Form either by mail or

electronically. Each Claim Form will be signed (electronic or manual) under penalty of perjury.

The actual amount paid to individual Claimants will depend upon the number of valid claims made.

Adequate and customary procedures and standards will be used by the Class Action Settlement

Administrator to prevent the payment of fraudulent claims and to pay only legitimate claims.

2. Settlement Fund

a. Defendant Tommie Copper, on behalf of all Defendants, shall pay

$700,000.00 into an Escrow Account by wire transfer no later than ten (10) days after the Court

enters the Preliminary Approval Order.

b. The Settlement Fund shall be applied to pay in full and in order: (i) any

necessary taxes and tax expenses; (ii) all costs associated with the Class Action Settlement

Administration, including costs of providing notice to the Class Members and processing claims

and all costs relating to providing the necessary notices in accordance with the Class Action


Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715; (iii) any Fee and Expense Award made by the Court to

Class Counsel under § VIII, 8.2; (iv) any class representative Incentive Award made by the Court

to the Class Representatives under § VIII, 8.3; and (v) payments to authorized Claimants and any

others as allowed by this Stipulation and to be approved by the Court.

3. Settlement Fund: Insufficient or Excess Funds

a. If the total amount of eligible claims exceeds the Settlement Fund, then

each claim’s award shall be proportionately reduced.

b. If after all valid claims (plus other authorized fees, costs and expenses) are

paid, and money remains in the Settlement Fund, the remaining amount shall be used to

proportionately increase pro rata the recovery of each eligible claim.

4. Delivery of Payments to Settlement Class Members

a. The Class Action Administrator shall send a correspondence to any

applicable Settlement Class Member explaining the rejection of any claim no later than fifteen (15)

days after the Effective Date. Settlement Class Members’ time to appeal any such rejection

decisions shall expire forty-five (45) days after the Effective Date.

b. The Class Action Administrator will send payment directly to the eligible

Settlement Class Member in accordance with the following schedule:

(i) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the entry of a Final Approval

Order and Judgment and exhaustion of any appeals, the Settlement Administrator will process

direct credit or payment via any of the following options including PayPal, Venmo, Amazon, or

electronic Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) transactions. Additionally, within 30 days,

Settlement Class Members who choose the Cash Recovery Enhancement options will receive an


electronic code number via email that may be used as a credit towards any purchase on Defendants’

website.

(ii) If Settlement Class Members affirmatively opt for physical check

payments, checks will be sent out 120 calendar days after entry of Final Approval.

c. Failure to provide all information requested in the Claim Form will not

result in nonpayment of a claim. Instead, the Class Action Settlement Administrator will take all

adequate and customary steps to determine the Settlement Class Member’s eligibility for payment

and the amount of payment based on the information contained in the Claim Form or otherwise

submitted, the amount of money available to pay all valid claims, and such other reasonably

available information from which eligibility for payment can be determined.

5. Claim Form Availability

The Claim Form will may be completed and submitted online at the Settlement Website,

and the Claim Form will be available for downloading on Class Counsel’s websites, at Class

Counsel’s option. The Claim Form may also be requested by calling the toll-free number provided

by the Class Action Settlement Administrator or by writing to the Class Action Settlement

Administrator.

6. Eligibility for Cash Payment

a. To be eligible for a cash payment, the Settlement Class Member must timely

submit a signed and completed Claim Form containing his or her name, mailing address and email

address. The Settlement Administrator may pay claims that are otherwise valid but untimely filed

if there is sufficient money to pay all valid and timely claims in full plus untimely but otherwise

valid claims from the Settlement Fund, and payment of any such untimely but valid claims is

administratively feasible and otherwise reasonable, taking into account the need to timely pay


claims. The determination of the Class Action Settlement Administrator, after consultation with

Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, concerning the eligibility and amount of payment shall

be final. In the event a Settlement Class Member disagrees with such a determination, the Class

Action Settlement Administrator agrees to reconsider such determination, which includes

consultation with Class Counsel.

b. To be eligible, Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online no

later than 120 days following the later of: (i) the last published notice identified in the Notice Plan;

or (ii) the establishment of the Settlement Website.

B. Other Relief

1. No later than thirty (30) calendar days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall

cease, and shall not recommence, advertising, promoting, distributing, offering for sale, or selling

the Tommie Copper Products with any unsubstantiated claims, any false representations, or

statements (express or implied) that the copper content in Tommie Copper Products will: relieve

pain, including arthritis and other chronic joint and muscular pain; aid in injury management;

accelerate or speed muscle and joint recovery; and improve muscular power, strength, and

endurance. Additionally, Defendants’ marketing and advertising will not feature or provide client

testimonials that misrepresent the above claims. Nothing herein prevents Tommie Copper form

representing truthful statements regarding the benefits of the compressive nature of its Products or

any other claims for which they have Competent and Reliable Scientific Evidence.

VII. RELEASES

7.1 As of the Effective Date, and except as to such rights or claims created by the

Settlement, Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member, and each of their heirs, guardians,

executors, administrators, representatives, agents, attorneys, insurers, partners, successors,

predecessors-in-interest, and assigns, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment


shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims

against the Released Persons.

7.2 In connection with the Released Claims, each Settlement Class Member shall be

deemed to have forever waived any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by §1542 of

the California Civil Code and any statute, rule, and legal doctrine similar, comparable, or

equivalent to California Civil Code § 1542, which provides as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

7.3 The Final Judgment shall further provide for and effect the release of all actions,

causes of action, claims, administrative claims, demands, debts, damages, costs, attorneys’ fees,

obligations, judgments, expenses, compensation, or liabilities, in law or in equity, whether now

known or unknown, contingent or absolute, that Defendants now have against Plaintiffs,

Settlement Class Members, or Class Counsel by reason of any act, omission, harm, matter, cause

or event whatsoever arising out of the initiation, prosecution, or settlement of the Tommie Copper

Litigation or the claims and defenses asserted in the Tommie Copper Litigation.

7.4 Notwithstanding the above, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the

Parties and the Settlement Agreement with respect to the future performance of the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, and to assure that all payments and other actions required of any of the

Parties by the Settlement are properly made or taken. All Parties hereto submit to the jurisdiction

of the Court for purposes of implementing and enforcing the agreements embodied in this

Settlement Agreement


VIII. CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE INCENTIVE AWARDS

8.1 The Parties agree that Class Counsel may apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and

reasonable, actual out-of-pocket expenses from the Settlement Fund not to exceed $233,310.00 or

up to 33% of the Settlement Fund (“Fee and Expense Award”). Subject to the terms and conditions

of this Stipulation and any order of the Court, the Fee and Expense Award awarded by the Court

to Class Counsel shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund within ten (10) days after the Effective

Date. Such payment will be in lieu of any statutory fees Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys might

otherwise have been entitled to recover from Defendants.

8.2 Class Counsel shall have the sole and absolute discretion to allocate and distribute

the Court’s Fee and Expense Award among Plaintiffs’ Counsel and any other attorneys for

Plaintiffs.

8.3 Class Counsel may ask the Court for the award of an Incentive Award from the

Settlement Fund to each of the Class Representatives of $1,000. Any Incentive Awards approved

by the Court shall be paid from the Settlement Fund within ten (10) days after the Effective Date.

IX. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT EFFECT OF DISAPPROVAL CANCELLATION OR TERMINATION

9.1 The Effective Date of this Stipulation shall be the first date after which all of the

following events and conditions have been met or have occurred:

9.2 The Court has preliminarily approved this Stipulation and entered the Preliminary

Approval Order;

9.3 The Court has entered the Final Judgment; and

9.4 Unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing to waive all or any portion of the

following provision, there has occurred: (i) in the event there is a properly and timely filed


objection to entry of the Final Judgment, the expiration (without the filing or noticing of an appeal)

of the time to appeal from the Final Judgment; (ii) the final dismissal of all appeals from the Final

Judgment; (iii) affirmance on appeal of the Final Judgment in substantial form; (iv) if a ruling or

decision is entered by an appellate court with respect to affirmance of the Final Judgment, the time

to petition for rehearing or re-argument, petitions for rehearing en banc and petitions for certiorari

or any other form of review with respect to such ruling or decision has expired; or (v) if a petition

for rehearing or re-argument, petitions for rehearing en banc and petitions for certiorari or any

other form of review with respect to the Final Judgment is filed, the petition has been denied or

dismissed or, if granted, has resulted in affirmance of the Final Judgment in substantial form.

9.5 If all of the conditions specified in §IX of this Stipulation are not met, then this

Stipulation shall be canceled and terminated unless Class Counsel and Defendants mutually agree

in writing to proceed with this Stipulation.

9.6 In the event that this Stipulation is not approved by the Court or the settlement set

forth in this Stipulation is terminated or fails to become effective in accordance with its terms, the

Parties shall be restored to their respective pre-settlement positions in the Litigation, including

with regard to any agreements concerning tolling and similar agreements, and this entire

Stipulation shall become null and void.

9.7 Defendants’ shall bear all reasonable and necessary costs incurred in connection

with the implementation of this Class Action Settlement Agreement up until its termination.

Neither the Class Representatives nor Class Counsel shall be responsible for any such settlement-

related costs.

9.8 In the event that this Stipulation is not approved by the Court or the settlement set

forth in this Stipulation is terminated or fails to become effective in accordance with its terms, any


reasonable costs associated with the Class Action Settlement Administrator or administration

incurred prior to that time will be paid by Tommie Copper.

X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

10.1 The Parties hereto and their undersigned counsel agree to undertake their best

efforts and mutually cooperate to promptly effectuate this Stipulation and the terms of the

settlement set forth herein, including taking all steps and efforts contemplated by this Stipulation

and any other steps and efforts which may become necessary by order of the Court or otherwise.

10.2 The undersigned counsel represent that they are fully authorized to execute and

enter into the terms and conditions of this Stipulation on behalf of their respective clients.

10.3 This Stipulation contains the entire agreement among the Parties hereto and

supersedes any prior agreements or understandings between them. Except for § I, all terms of this

Stipulation are contractual and not mere recitals and shall be construed as if drafted by all Parties.

The presumption found in California Civil Code section 1654 (and equivalent, comparable or

analogous provisions of the laws of the United States of America or any state or territory thereof,

or of the common law or civil law) that uncertainties in a contract are interpreted against the party

causing an uncertainty to exist hereby is waived by all Parties.

10.4 The terms of this Stipulation are and shall be binding upon each of the Parties, their

agents, attorneys, employees, successors and assigns, and upon all other Persons claiming any

interest in the subject matter through any of the Parties, including any Settlement Class Member.

10.5 Whenever this Stipulation requires or contemplates that one Party shall or may give

notice to the other, notice shall be provided by facsimile, email and/or next day (excluding Sunday)

express delivery service as follows:

If to Plaintiffs, then to:

(1) Ronald A. Marron


Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Email: [email protected]

(2) Anthony Vozzolo

Vozzolo, LLC 345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Telephone: (201) 630-8820 Email: [email protected]

If to Defendants, then to:


10.6 The time periods and/or dates described in this Settlement Agreement with respect

to the giving of notices and hearings are subject to approval and change by the Court or by the

written agreement of Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, without notice to Settlement Class

Members. The Parties reserve the right, by agreement and subject to the Court’s approval, to grant

any reasonable extension of time that might be needed to carry out any of the provisions of this

Settlement Agreement.

10.7 All time periods set forth herein shall be computed in business days if seven days

or less, and calendar days if eight days or more, unless otherwise expressly provided. In computing

any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Stipulation or by order of the Court, the day of

the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be

included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a

Sunday or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in Court, a day in


which weather or other conditions have made the Office of the Clerk or the Court inaccessible, in

which event the period shall run until the end of the next day as not one of the aforementioned

days. As used in this subsection, “legal holiday” includes New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King,

Jr.’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus

Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and any other day appointed as a holiday

by the President or the Congress of the United States.

10.8 The Parties, their successors and assigns, and their attorneys undertake to

implement the terms of this Stipulation in good faith and to use good faith in resolving any disputes

that may arise in the implementation of the terms of this Stipulation.

10.9 This Stipulation may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed

by Class Counsel and any of Defendants’ Counsel. Amendments and modifications may be made

without additional notice to the Settlement Class Members unless such notice is required by the

Court.

10.10 Neither this Stipulation nor the Settlement, nor any act performed or document

executed pursuant to or in furtherance of this Stipulation or the Settlement: (i) is or may be deemed

to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim, or of

any wrongdoing or liability of Defendants, or of the propriety of Class Counsel maintaining the

Litigation as a class action; or (ii)is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or

evidence of, any fault or omission of Defendants in any civil, criminal, or administrative

proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal, except that Defendants may file

this Stipulation or the Judgment in any action that may be brought against any Released Person in

order to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel,


Dated: __________, 2017 VOZZOLO LLC

By: _________________________________ Antonio Vozzolo Vozzolo LLC. 345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 074578 Telephone: 201-630-8820 Facsimile: 201-604-8400 Email: [email protected]

Co-Class Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: __________, 2017 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By: ___________________________________

Michal Mallow SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6666 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendants Tommie Copper, Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., and Thomas Kallish

Dated: __________, 2017 CLAYMAN & ROSENBERG By: __________________________

Denis Patrick Kelleher, Jr. 305 Madison Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: 212-922-1080 Facsimile: 212-949-8255 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendant Montel Williams


mmallow

Pencil

mmallow

Pencil

mmallow

Pencil

mmallow

Typewritten Text

November 22

EXHIBIT 2 (Part 2: Exh. A-E)


EXHIBIT A


1




CLAIM FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS In order for you to qualify to receive a payment related to In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation, as described in the Notice of this Settlement (the “Class Notice”), you must file a Claim Form, as described below, to process your claim.

REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING A CLAIM FORM Your claim will only be considered upon compliance with all of the following conditions: 1. Please review the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the “Notice”) and have the Notice with you

when you complete your Claim Form. A copy of the Notice is available at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com 2. You must accurately complete all required portions of this Claim Form. 3. You must sign this Claim Form, which includes the Certification. 4. By signing and submitting this Claim Form, you are certifying under penalty of perjury that you purchased one

or more Tommie Copper Products directly from Defendants at its retail store, from www.tommiecopper.com or by calling a toll free number in response to a television advertisement on or after April 11, 2011 and ending on [date of preliminary approval].

5. In order for you to receive a cash payment or cash recovery enhancement as part of this Settlement, you must complete and submit a completed form online at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com or mail the completed and signed Claim Form and Certification by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, postmarked no later than ______, 2018 to:

Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement

c/o Classaura Class Action Administration 1718 Peachtree St #1080

Atlanta, GA 30309

6. Your failure to complete and submit the Claim Form postmarked by _________, 2018 will preclude you from receiving any payment in this Settlement. So that you will have a record of the date of your mailing of the Claim Form and its receipt by the Claims Administrator, you are advised (but are not required) to use certified mail, return receipt requested.

Submission of this Claim Form does not assure that you will share in the payments related to In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation. If the Claim Administrator denies your Claim, you have the right to present information in a dispute resolution process. For more information about this process, see Paragraph 5.9 of the Settlement Agreement, which is available for review at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com .


2

PART A: CLAIMANT INFORMATION Provide your name and additional information below. It is your responsibility to notify the Claims Administrator of any changes to your contact information after the submission of your Claim Form.

Please Print or type I, ______________________________________________________________, state as follows: ___________________________________________ _____________________________ LAST NAME (Claimant)* FIRST NAME (Claimant)* _____________________________________________________________________________ Current Address* ___________________________________________ ________ _____________ Current City* State* Zip Code* _______________________________ _____________________________________ Telephone Number (Day) Telephone Number (Night) ___________________________________________ IDENTITY OF CLAIMANT (Check Appropriate box) Email Address* Individual Legal Representative (attach information showing

authority to submit claim) Other (specify on separate sheet) Note if your email address at the time of purchase is different from your current email address, please list your old email address:_______________________________________ PART B: PURCHASE INFORMATION

To be eligible for a payment you must not have previously received a refund for your purchase of Class Product. To qualify for a cash award, you must have purchased one or more of Tommie Copper clothing and compression wear

products made with copper infused fabric, in any package, size, or iteration (the “Tommie Copper Products”) between April 11, 2011 and [Date of Preliminary Approval] including: Crew Compression Socks, Calf Compression Socks, Back Braces, Men’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Tights, Wrist Compression Sleeves, Ankle Compression Sleeves, Calf Compression Sleeves, Elbow Compression Sleeves, Knee Compression Sleeves, Men’ s Compression Under-Shorts, Women’s Compression Shorts, Men’s Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Shirts, Half Finger Compression Gloves, and Full Finger Compression Gloves (collectively, the “Class Products”).

You may make a claim for one of the following:

a. For Settlement Class Members who provide a copy of the receipt or a retail rewards submission memorializing the purchase of the Class Products or your purchases appear in Defendant’s records (collectively “Proof of Purchase”), Tommie Copper will issue a monetary refund of $10.00 for every Tommie Copper Product purchased.

b. For Settlement Class Members without Proof of Purchase, valid receipt, or a retail rewards submission memorializing the purchase of the Class Products, or whose purchases do not appear in Defendant’s records, but who complete this Claim Form under penalty of perjury, a total of Tommie Copper will issue a monetary refund of $5.00 in cash. Settlement Class Members without Proof of Purchase can submit a maximum of one (1) claim, with a maximum of two (2) claims per household.

c. Alternatively or in lieu of receiving a cash payment, Settlement Class Members may apply their cash recovery to an on-line purchase of Tommie Copper products at www.tommiecopper.com. Settlement


3

Class Members who apply their cash recovery to a product purchase will receive a 40% enhancement credit on the cash recovery good toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products (the “Cash Recovery Enhancement”). For example, if a Class Member presents written proof of purchase for two products for a total cash payment of $20.00, the Class Member could apply that cash payment, plus $8.00, for a total of $28.00 ($20.00 + 40%), toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products.

Please fill out this chart identifying the purchase transaction(s) for which you are making a claim:

TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBJECT PRODUCTS

Write the total number of each of the Class Products you purchased on or after April 11, 2011 and [Date of Preliminary Approval] next to the name(s) of the Subject Products you purchased in the chart below:

Name/Type of Product Purchased

Purchased Online or by Toll-Free Telephone Number (Yes/No)

Number of Products Purchased

Approximate Date of Purchase

State of Purchase

Place of Purchase (Name of Retailer)

Please choose one of the following:

(a) Check here if you are requesting a $10.000 payment by enclosing Proof of Purchase

documentation with this claim form or if you claim your purchases appear in Defendant’s records:

If you are making a claim with a Proof of Purchase, you can either: (1) e-mail a copy of your receipt(s) or retail rewards submission memorializing the purchase of the Class Products along with this Claim Form to _______________.com; or (2) mail the receipts or other Proof of Purchase along with this Claim Form to: Tommie Copper Products Litigation Administrator, P.O. Box _________________.

You purchases may appear in Defendant’s records if you purchased Class Product directly from the website at www.tommie copper.com, ____________________ or by calling a toll free number in response to a television advertisement

(b) Check here if you are requesting a $5.00 payment:

(c) Check here if you are requesting a 40% enhancement credit on the cash recovery good toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products (the “Cash Recovery Enhancement”). You will be provided a one time purchase code to be used on Tommie Copper’s website :

*Failure to include Proof of Purchase for claims will result in the reduction of your claims.


4

*Submission of false or fraudulent information may result in the claim being rejected in its entirety.

PART C: CERTIFICATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

I have read and am familiar with the contents of the Instructions accompanying this Claim Form and I certify under penalty of perjury that the information I have set forth in the foregoing Claim Form and in documents attached by me are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the Claimant purchased Tommie Copper Products on or after April 11, 2011 to [Date of preliminary approval], directly from Defendant at www.tommiecopper.com or by calling a toll free number in response to a television advertisement or in person at the following location: ______________________________________________________________________

(Name of Retailer(s) and State(s) of purchase) The number of Tommie Copper Products purchased directly from Defendants between April 11, 2011 and [Date of Preliminary Approval] is ____________. [Insert Quantity] The Claimant is not an officer, director, agent, servant or employee of the Tommie Copper, Inc. or any related entity thereof; a judge in this lawsuit; or an immediate family member of such persons; the Claimant did not purchase Tommie Copper Products for resale or distribution to others; the Claimant has not received a refund for the Tommie Copper Product(s) indicated on this Claim Form; and the Claimant has not requested exclusion from the Settlement. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that all of the information provided on this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge this ____day of ___________________, 2017. _________________________________________ Signature Print name here: ________________________________________________ If the Claimant is other than an individual, or if the Claimant is not the person completing this form, the following must also be provided: Name of person signing: __________________________________________ Capacity of person signing: _______________________________________

(Executor, President, Trustee, etc.) ACCURATE CLAIMS PROCESSING TAKES TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. Reminder Checklist: 1. Please sign the above Claim Form. 2. Enclose a copy of your proof(s) of purchase, if you have them, along with the Claim Form. 3. Keep a copy of your Claim Form and supporting documentation for your records. 4. If you move or your name changes, please send your new address, new name or contact information to the Claim Administrator via the Settlement Website, mail or by calling the Claims Administrator’s toll-free telephone number, each listed in the Notice. *Fields or Sections are Required to be Completed.

REMINDER

If you don’t postmark this Claim Form on or before ________, 2018, your claim for payment will be rejected.


EXHIBIT B


Questions? Call 1-800-683-9359 or visit www.TommieCopperSettlement.com

1

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE

THE MATTERS DISCUSSED HEREIN MAY AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL RIGHTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation


NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If You Purchased a Tommie Copper Product, You May Benefit From A Proposed Class Action Settlement

Tommie Copper Products sold in the United States on or after April 11, 2011 are affected

The Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not solicitation from a lawyer.

YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. THIS IS NOT A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU.

Please read this notice carefully. A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges violations of consumer protection and warranty laws, and claims that Tommie Copper Inc., Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., Thomas Kallish, and Montel Williams (“Tommie Copper”) misrepresented the ability of copper-infused compression fabric sold under the “Tommie Copper” brand name to provide pain relief, accelerate recovery, and improve muscular power, strength, endurance, and injury management. Tommie Copper denies all of these allegations. The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiffs or Tommie Copper. Instead the parties agreed to a proposed settlement in order to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit.

You are a Class Member if you purchased a Tommie Copper product, including: Crew Compression Socks, Calf Compression Socks, Back Braces, Men’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Tights, Wrist Compression Sleeves, Ankle Compression Sleeves, Calf Compression Sleeves, Elbow Compression Sleeves, Knee Compression Sleeves, Men’ s Compression Under-Shorts, Women’s Compression Shorts, Men’s Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Shirts, Half Finger Compression Gloves, and Full Finger Compression Gloves (collectively, the “Tommie Copper Products”) in the United States between April 11, 2011 and [Date of Preliminary Approval].



2

The Settlement provides cash payments to Class Members between $5.00 and $10.00. In lieu of a cash payments, Class members may also may apply their cash recovery to an on-line purchase of Tommie Copper products and receive a 40% enhancement credit on the value of the cash payment. .

Please read this Notice carefully and in its entirety.

Your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Lawsuit,

and you have a choice to make now about how to act:

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A CLAIM

FORM POSTMARKED

BY [DATE]

This is the only way to receive a cash payment or voucher.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

FROM THE CLASS BY

[DATE]

If you opt out of the settlement, you will not be eligible to receive the Settlement Benefits, but you will keep your right to sue on your own regarding any claims that are part of the settlement.

OBJECT OR

COMMENT BY [DATE]

You may write to the Court about why you do, or do not, like the Settlement. You must remain in the class to comment in support of or in opposition to the settlement.

APPEAR IN THE

LAWSUIT OR ATTEND

A HEARING ON [DATE]

You may ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. You may enter your appearance in Court through an attorney at your own expense if you so desire.

DO NOTHING

If you do nothing, you will receive no reimbursement. You also give up your right to sue Tommie Copper on your own regarding any claims that are part of the settlement.

These rights and options, and the deadlines to exercise them, are further explained in this

notice.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. The settlement benefits will be made available if the Court approves the settlement and after any appeals are resolved.

If you have any questions, then please read on and visit www.TommieCopperSettlement.com.



3

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BASIC INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................... 4 1. Why did I get this Notice? 2. What is this lawsuit about? 3. Why is this a class action and who is involved? 4. Why is there a Proposed Settlement?

WHO IS IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................... 5 5. How do I know if I’m part of the Proposed Settlement?

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BENEFITS ....................................................................................... 5 6. What does the Proposed Settlement provide?

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT — SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM ...................................................... 6 7. How can I get a payment from this settlement? 8. What do I do if I didn’t get a Claim Form in the mail or by e-mail?

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES - EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ... 7 9. How do I exclude myself from the settlement? 10. If I don’t exclude myself, can I sue Tommie Copper for the same things later? 11. If I exclude myself, can I get Settlement Benefits from the settlement?

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES - OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ............................. 8 12. How do I tell the Court that I don’t like the Proposed Settlement? 13. What’s the difference between objecting and excluding?

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES – APPEARING IN THE LAWSUIT ...................................................... 9 14. Can I appear or speak in this lawsuit and Proposed Settlement? 15. How can I appear in this lawsuit?

IF YOU DO NOTHING .................................................................................................................... 10 16. What happens if I do nothing at all?

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU ........................................................................................... 10 17. Do I have a lawyer in this case? 18. How will the lawyers be paid?

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING .............................................................................................. 11 19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? 20. Do I have to come to the hearing?

FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL .................................................................................................. 11 21. What is the effect of final settlement approval?

GETTING MORE INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 12 22. Are there more details about the settlement?



4

BASIC INFORMATION

If you purchased one or more of Tommie Copper Products between April 11, 2011, and [Prelim. Approval Date], as described on page 1 of this Notice, you have a right to know about a proposed settlement or a class action lawsuit and your options. If you have received this Notice by e-mail, you have been identified from available records as a purchaser of the Class Products. You also may have received this Notice because you requested more information after reading the Summary Notice.

The Court ordered that you be given this Notice because you have a right to know about a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit, and about your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves it, and after objections and appeals are resolved, an administrator approved by the Court will oversee the settlement benefits that the settlement allows. You will be informed of the progress of the settlement. This Notice explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the case is known as In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation, Case Number 7:15-cv-03183-AT. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs, and the company and/or individuals they sued, Tommie Copper Inc., Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., Thomas Kallish, and Montel Williams, are called the Defendants.

The lawsuit alleges violations of consumer protection and warranty laws, and claims that Defendants misrepresented the ability of Tommie Copper Products to relieve pain, including arthritis and other chronic joint and muscular pain; aid in injury management; accelerate or speed muscle and joint recovery; and improve muscular power, strength, and endurance.

Tommie Copper denies it did anything wrong, and the Court has not made any ruling on the merits of the allegations of the lawsuit. Tommie Copper, however, has chosen to provide its customers with a cash payment and/or vouchers for Tommie Copper Products rather than spending additional money on litigation.

In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs, Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura) represent the interests of people who have common claims that are more important than the issues that affect only individuals. All of these people are a Class or Class members. The named plaintiffs who sued are called the Plaintiffs. The company or persons they sued (in this case, Tommie Copper Inc., Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., Thomas Kallish, and Montel Williams) are called the Defendants. One court resolves the issues for everyone in the Class – except for those people who choose to exclude themselves from the Class.

2. What Is This Lawsuit About?

3. What Is A Class Action and Who Is Involved?

1. Why Did I Get This Notice? 1. Why did I get this Notice?



5

The Court has not decided in favor of either side in the case. Tommie Copper denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability against it, and contends that its conduct was lawful. Defendants are settling to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and inherent risk of litigation, as well as the related disruption of its business operations. The Class Representatives and their attorneys assert that the settlement is in the best interests of the Class, because it provides an appropriate recovery now while avoiding the risk, expense, and delay of pursuing the case through trial and any appeals.

WHO IS IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

To see if you will be entitled to the Settlement Benefits from this settlement, you first have to decide if you are a Class member.

You are a Class Member if you purchased any Tommie Copper Products between April 11, 2011 and [Date of Preliminary Approval], including: Crew Compression Socks, Calf Compression Socks, Back Braces, Men’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Tights, Wrist Compression Sleeves, Ankle Compression Sleeves, Calf Compression Sleeves, Elbow Compression Sleeves, Knee Compression Sleeves, Men’ s Compression Under-Shorts, Women’s Compression Shorts, Men’s Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Shirts, Half Finger Compression Gloves, and Full Finger Compression Gloves.

Excluded from this definition are the following: (a) Tommie Copper employees, officers and directors, (b) persons or entities who purchased the Settlement Class Products for the purpose of re-sale, (c) retailers or re-sellers of the Settlement Class Products, (d) governmental entities, (e) persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided herein, (f) any natural person or entity that entered into a release with Defendant prior to the Effective Date concerning any of the Settlement Class Products, and (g) the Court, the Court’s immediate family, and Court staff.

If you are still not sure whether you are included in the Settlement Class, you can go to www.TommieCopperSettlement.com, or you can call (800) 683-9359, and ask for free help.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

Tommie Copper has agreed to create a cash settlement fund of $700,000. The fund will be used to pay class notice and administration costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses, Class Representative Incentive Awards, and cash payments to Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form. The specific amount of cash that you may receive depends on the quantity of Tommie Copper Products you purchased, whether you have receipts, and the number of valid claims submitted.

4. Why Is There a Proposed Settlement?

5. How Do I Know If I Am Part of the Proposed Settlement?

6. What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide?



6

You can choose to receive cash payments based on Tommie Copper product you purchased between April 11, 2011 and [Preliminary Approval Date], 2017, as follows:

For Settlement Class Members who provide a copy of the receipt or a retail rewards

submission memorializing the purchase of the Class Products or your purchases appear in Defendant’s records (collectively “Proof of Purchase”), Tommie Copper will issue a monetary refund of $10.00 for every Tommie Copper Product purchased.

For Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form without Proof of Purchase, Tommie Copper will issue a monetary refund of $5.00 in cash. Settlement Class Members without Proof of Purchase can submit a maximum of one (1) claim, with a maximum of two (2) claims per household.

Alternatively or in lieu of receiving a cash payment, Settlement Class Members may apply their cash recovery to an on-line purchase of Tommie Copper products at www.tommiecopper.com. Settlement Class Members who apply their cash recovery to a product purchase will receive a 40% enhancement of the cash recovery good toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products (the “Cash Recovery Enhancement”). For example, if a Settlement Class Member presents written proof of purchase for two Products for a total cash recovery of $20.00, the Settlement Class Member would be entitled to a $28.00 ($20.00 + 40%) credit to apply toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products.

Subject to Court approval, Tommie Copper will also pay an incentive award not to exceed $1,000 to each of the five Class Representatives in this lawsuit.

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT — SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM

Class members who wish to receive a payment must submit claims. To submit a claim, you must complete a Claim Form. You can get complete and/or obtain a Claim Form on the Internet at http:// www.TommieCopperSettlement.com. Read the instructions carefully, and submit it online on or before [____________], 2018. Alternatively, you may also submit your Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta GA 30309. It must be postmarked no later than [____________], 2018. Settlement Class Members will be paid in accordance with the following schedule:

(i) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the entry of a Final Approval Order and Judgment

and exhaustion of any appeals, the Settlement Administrator will process direct credit or payment via any of the following options including either PayPal, Amazon, Venmo, or

7. How Can I Get a Payment From This Settlement?



7

electronic Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) transactions. (ii) If Settlement Class Members affirmatively opt for physical check payments, checks will

be sent out 120 calendar days after entry of a Final Approval Order. TO BE VALID, ALL CLAIMS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN

[____________, ___] 2018.

If you did not receive a Claim Form in e-mail, you can obtain the Claim Form in one of three ways:

(1) Online: You can download the Claim Form at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com. You can also submit a Claim Form online though the same website.

(2) By Phone: Call toll-free, (800) 683-9359. (3) By Mail: Write to Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action

Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta GA 30309. Be sure to include your name and mailing address.

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES - EXCLUDING YOURSELF

FROM THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT If you do not want to receive the settlement benefits from this settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue Tommie Copper, on your own, about the subject matter of this lawsuit, then you must take steps to get out of the settlement. This is called excluding yourself – or is sometimes referred to as opting out of the Class.

To exclude yourself from the settlement, which is sometimes call “opting-out” of the Class, you must send a letter by mail or submit a form through the Settlement Website saying that you want to be excluded from this lawsuit. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must either (i) send a written request for exclusion that is received no later than [__________], 2018, to: Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta GA 30309, or (ii) submit a form online through the Settlement Website no later than [__________,] 2018. Your request for exclusion must contain: (1) the name of this lawsuit, “In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation, Case Number 7:15-cv-03183-AT; (2) your full name and current address; (3) a clear statement of intention to exclude yourself such as “I wish to be excluded from the Class”; and (4) your signature. You may also get an Exclusion Request Form at http://www.TommieCopperSettlement.com.

8. What Do I Do If I Didn’t Get a Claim Form in the Mail or By E-mail?

9. How Do I Get Out or Exclude Myself From the Settlement?



8

You cannot exclude yourself on the phone or by e-mail. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement benefits, and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue (or continue to sue) Tommie Copper in the future.

No. If you do not properly and timely submit a request for exclusion, you waive your right to opt out and will be deemed to be a member of the Class. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Defendants for the claims that this settlement resolves, and you will be bound by the terms of this settlement. If you have a pending lawsuit against Defendants, other than this class action, speak to your lawyer in that lawsuit immediately. You must exclude yourself from this Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, any exclusion request must be signed, mailed, and postmarked by [____________, ___] 2018.

No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a claim form to ask for any money. But, you may sue, continue to sue, or be part of a different lawsuit against Tommie Copper.

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES - OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the settlement or some part of it.

If you are a Class member, you can object to the settlement if you do not like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter that contains the following:

1) The name of this lawsuit, In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation, Case Number 7:15-cv-03183-AT;

2) Your full name, address, and telephone number; 3) a statement of your membership in the Settlement Class, including all information

required by the Claim Form; 4) a written statement of your objection and the reasons for each objection, accompanied

by any legal support for such objection; 5) copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents upon which your objection is based; 6) a list of all persons or witnesses you want to call to testify;

7) If you (or your lawyer) want to appear and speak at the Fairness Hearing, a statement

10. If I Don’t Exclude Myself, Can I Sue Tommie Copper for the Same Things Later?

11. If I exclude myself, can I get the Settlement Benefits from this settlement?

12. How Do I Tell the Court That I Don’t Like the Proposed Settlement?



9

that you wish to appear and speak;

8) a list of the exhibits that you may offer during the fairness hearing, along with copies of such exhibits; and

9) your signature.

In addition, you include with your objection (i) the identity of all counsel who represent you, including former or current counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any reason related to the objection; (ii) a detailed list of any other objections submitted by you, or your counsel, to any class actions submitted in any court, whether state or federal, in the United States in the previous five (5) years.

Your objection must be signed, mailed along with any supporting documents, that is received no later than [__________], 2018 to the Court at:

Clerk of Court U.S. District Court

Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007 Copies of your objection must also be signed, mailed along with any supporting documents, documents that is received no later than [__________], 2018 to the following two addresses: Counsel for the Class: Ronald A. Marron The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendant Tommie Copper: Michael Mallow Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone (213) 896-6666 Email: [email protected]

If you object through a lawyer, you will have to pay for the lawyer yourself.

Objecting is simply telling the Court you do not like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court you do not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES – APPEARING IN THE LAWSUIT

13. What’s the difference between objecting and excluding?



10

As long as you do not exclude yourself, you can (but do not have to) participate and speak for yourself in this lawsuit and Proposed Settlement. This is called making an appearance. You can also have your own lawyer appear in court and speak for you, but you will have to pay for the lawyer yourself.

If you want yourself or your own lawyer (instead of Class Counsel) to participate or speak for you in this lawsuit, you must give the Court a paper that is titled a “Notice of Appearance.” The Notice of Appearance must contain the title of the lawsuit, a statement that you wish to appear at the Fairness Hearing, and the signature of you or your lawyer. Your Notice of Appearance can also state that you or your lawyer would like to speak at the Court’s Fairness Hearing on the Proposed Settlement. If you submit an objection (see question 12 above) and would like to speak about the objection at the Court’s Fairness Hearing, both your Notice of Appearance and your objection should include that information. Your Notice of Appearance must be signed, mailed and postmarked by [__________], 2018, to the Court at:

Clerk of Court U.S. District Court

Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

Copies of your Notice of Appearance must also be mailed to the same three addresses appearing on page 8 of this Notice, in question 12.

IF YOU DO NOTHING

If you do nothing, you will get no settlement benefits from this settlement. But, unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Tommie Copper about the subject matter of this lawsuit, ever again.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

The Court has appointed Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and Vozzolo LLC as legal counsel for the Class. Together, the law firms are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers.

14. Can I Appear or Speak In This Lawsuit and Proposed Settlement?

15. How Can I Appear in This Lawsuit?

16. What Happens If I Do Nothing At All?

17. Do I Have a Lawyer In This Case?

18. How Will The Lawyers Be Paid?



11

From the inception of the litigation in 2015 to the present, Class Counsel has not received any payment for their services in prosecuting the case or obtaining settlement, nor have they been reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses they have incurred. When they ask the Court to approve the settlement, Class Counsel will also make a motion to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, in a total amount of up to 33.3% of the Settlement Fund. No matter what the Court decides with regard to the requested attorneys’ fees, Class members will never have to pay anything toward the fees or expenses of Class Counsel. Class Counsel will seek final approval of the settlement on behalf of all Class members. You may hire your own lawyer to represent you in this case if you wish, but it will be at your own expense. Class Counsel may also request that an amount be paid to each of the Class Representatives who helped the lawyers on behalf of the whole Class (known as an “incentive award”).

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to attend or speak.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) will hold a hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) at the Federal Courthouse located at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 on [__________], 2018 to decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and costs and incentive fee awards. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court may also discuss Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement and whether to grant Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and expenses. We do not know how long these decisions will take.

No. Class Counsel is working on your behalf and will answer any questions the Court may have, but, you are welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.

FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, all members of the Class will release and forever discharge any and all claims or causes of action that have been, might have been, are now,

19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?

20. Do I have to come to the hearing?

21. What is the effect of final settlement approval?



12

or could have been brought relating to the transactions, actions, conduct and events that are the subject of this action or settlement, arising from or related to the allegations in the complaint filed in the Action or Defendants’ marketing, advertising, promoting or distributing of Tommie Copper Products. If the settlement is not approved, the case will proceed as if no settlement had been attempted. There can be no assurance that if the settlement is not approved and litigation resumes, the Class will recover more than is provided for under the settlement, or will recover anything.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

This Notice is only intended to provide a summary of the proposed settlement. You may obtain the complete text of the settlement at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com, by writing to the Claims Administrator (at the address listed above), or from the court file, which is available for your inspection during regular business hours at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, under the Civil Action Number 7:15-cv-03183-AT.

Visit the website, at http:// www.TommieCopperSettlement.com, where you will find the Plaintiff’s Complaint, a Claim Form and an Exclusion Request Form. You may also contact Class Counsel by email at [email protected], or by writing to Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta GA 30309.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR DIRECT ANY INQUIRIES TO THE COURT.

This Notice is given with the approval and at the direction of the Court.

22. Are there more details about the settlement?


EXHIBIT C


LEGAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If You Purchased Tommie Copper Products, You May Benefit From A Proposed Class Action Settlement

If you purchased Tommie Copper Products on or after April 11, 2011 and [Date of Preliminary Approval] this Notice is to inform you of a proposed class action settlement that could affect your legal rights.

In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer Litigation, Case No. 7:15-cv-03183-AT What Is This Notice About? A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of consumer protection and warranty laws, and claims that Tommie Copper, Inc. (“Tommie Copper”) misrepresented the pain relieving benefits of its “copper-infused” and/or “copper and zinc-infused” fabric sold under the “Tommie Copper” brand name in the United States. Tommie Copper denies all of these allegations. The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiffs or Tommie Copper. Instead the parties agreed to a proposed settlement in order to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit. Am I A Member Of The Class? You are a Class Member if you purchased a Tommie Copper product, including: Crew Compression Socks, Calf Compression Socks, Back Braces, Men’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Long Sleeve Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Tights, Wrist Compression Sleeves, Ankle Compression Sleeves, Calf Compression Sleeves, Elbow Compression Sleeves, Knee Compression Sleeves, Men’ s Compression Under-Shorts, Women’s Compression Shorts, Men’s Compression Shirts, Women’s Compression Shirts, Half Finger Compression Gloves, and Full Finger Compression Gloves (collectively, the “Tommie Copper Products”) in the United States between April 11, 2011 and [Date Of Preliminary Approval]. Excluded from the membership are Tommie Copper and its parents, past and present, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, assignors, predecessors, successors and assigns; the past or present partners, shareholders, managers, members, directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, accountants and representatives of any and all of

the foregoing entities; any government entities; and persons who purchased Tommie Copper Products for the purpose of resale. What Does The Settlement Provide? A fund of $700,000 will be created to pay notice and administrative costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses, plaintiff Incentive Awards, and to provide a cash payment to Class Members who purchased the Tommie Copper Products. What Benefits Could I Receive? If the settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members will be able to recover: (1) a cash payment of $10.00 for each Product purchased during the Settlement Class Period, with no limitation (with proof of purchase); and (2) up to a maximum of $5 (without proof of purchase). Alternatively, Class Members may apply their cash recovery to an on-line purchase of Tommie Copper products and receive a 40% enhancement credit to the value of the recovery. For example, if a Class Member presents written proof of purchase for two products for a total cash payment of $20.00, the Class Member could apply that cash payment, plus $8.00, for a total of $28.00 ($20.00 + 40%), toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products. If the total amount of claims exceeds the available proceeds in the respective settlement funds, benefits will be reduced proportionally so that all eligible Class Members can be partially reimbursed. What Are My Rights? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Tommie Copper as part of any other lawsuit involving the


same claims that are in this lawsuit. This is true even if you do nothing by not submitting a claim. 1. You can accept the Settlement. If you wish to receive the benefits under the Settlement, you MUST submit a Claim Form by [DATE]. You can obtain and/or submit a Claim Form: (1) on the Internet at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com ; or (2) by calling the Claims Administrator at (800) 683-9359, or (3) mailing a written request for a Claim Form including your name and mailing address by regular mail to: Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080 Atlanta GA 30309. If you fail to timely submit a Claim Form and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by the Settlement but will not receive any benefits of the Settlement. 2. You can object to the Settlement. If you believe the Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may file a written objection with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and Tommie Copper: Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ronald A. Marron The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92103 Tommie Copper’s Counsel: Michael Mallow Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Your written objection must be received no later than __________, 2018. 3. You can “opt out” of the Settlement. If you do not wish to participate in this Settlement, you must provide written notice so indicating. Such notice must include your name, address,

and telephone number. You must deliver the request for exclusion from settlement to the Settlement Administrator at Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080 Atlanta GA 30309, or submit a valid exclusion form online through the Settlement Website. The request must be postmarked or submitted online no later than [Date]. Please be advised that if you request exclusion from or “opt out” from the Settlement, you will not receive any benefits under the Settlement, and will be responsible for any attorneys’ fees and costs you incur if you choose to pursue your own lawsuit. The Fairness Hearing On [_____________], 2018, at [____] a.m., the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should receive final approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses should be granted. Objections to the proposed Settlement by Class Members will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are filed in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs’ and Tommie Copper’s counsel by ___________, 2018, as explained above. Class Members who support the proposed Settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval. How Can I Get More Information? If you have questions or want a detailed notice of other documents about this lawsuit and your rights, visit www.TommieCopperSettlement.com. You may also contact Class Counsel by emailing [email protected], or by writing to: Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080 Atlanta GA 30309, or by calling 1 (800) 683-9359. Please do not contact the Court or Clerk for information. By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York


EXHIBIT D


ACTIVE 226602892

Subject Line: Tommie Copper - Notice of Class Action Settlement

LEGAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

IF YOU PURCHASED TOMMIE COPPER PRODUCTS BETWEEN APRIL 11, 2011 AND [Date of Preliminary Approval], YOU COULD RECEIVE A CASH PAYMENT OR AN ENHANCED CREDIT TOWARDS YOUR NEXT PURCHASEFROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

Dear XXX,

You are receiving this notice because records show that you purchased a Tommie Copper product and you are likely eligible for a settlement payment under the terms of a recent class action settlement.

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of consumer protection and warranty laws, and claims that Tommie Copper, Inc. (“Tommie Copper”) misrepresented the pain relieving benefits of its “copper-infused” and/or “copper and zinc-infused” fabric sold under the “Tommie Copper” brand name in the United States. Tommie Copper denies all of these allegations. The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiffs or Tommie Copper. Instead the parties agreed to a proposed settlement in order to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit.

The terms of the settlement require the establishment of a $700,000 fund to pay notice and administrative costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses, plaintiff Incentive Awards, and to reimburse Class Members for the Tommie Copper Products they purchased. If the settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members will be able to recover: (1) a cash payment of $10.00 for each Product purchased during the Settlement Class Period, with no limitation (with proof of purchase); and (2) up to a maximum of $5 (without proof of purchase). Alternatively, Class Members may apply their cash recovery to an online purchase of Tommie Copper products and receive an additional 40% enhancement credit on the value of the cash payment. For example, if a Class Member presents written proof of purchase for two products for a total cash payment of $20.00, the Class Member could apply that cash payment, plus $8.00, for a total of $28.00 ($20.00 + 40%), toward the purchase of Tommie Copper products.

To qualify, you must have purchased a qualifying Tommie Copper in the United States, between April 11, 2011 and [Date Of Preliminary Approval]. For full eligibility criteria see here.

Button: File Claim

Your Options and Important Deadlines

File a Claim: To take part in the settlement and receive a payment, you must file your claim before [XX/XX/2018].

Object: To object to the settlement you must file a written objection with the court by [XX/XX/2018]. Details on how to file an objection are available here.


ACTIVE 226602892

Exclude Yourself /Opt Out: If you do not wish to participate in the settlement you must request exclusion by [XX/XX/2018]. Details on how to opt out of the settlement are available here.

Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will not receive any settlement payment and will give up your right to sue Tommie Copper and affiliated entities.

On [_____________], 2018, at [____] a.m., the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should receive final approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses should be granted. Objections to the proposed Settlement by Class Members will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are filed in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs’ and Tommie Copper’s counsel by __________, 2018. This notice is just a summary. For full details on the settlement, and to file a claim, please go to the Tommie Copper Settlement website at www.TommieCopperSettlement.com. You may also call (800) 279-1455 for details. You may also request a paper copy of the Settlement Notice and a claim form by writing to:

Tommie Copper Class Action Settlement c/o Classaura Class Action Administration 1718 Peachtree St #1080 Atlanta GA 30309

Email: [email protected]

Or Phone: (800) 683-9359


EXHIBIT E





[Proposed] ORDER PRELIMINARILY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS, GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, AND

APPROVING CLASS NOTICE

This matter having been submitted to the Court by plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda

Boggs, Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class defined

below (hereafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,

APLC, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and Vozzolo LLC (together, “Class Counsel”) on behalf of the

Plaintiffs and by Defendants Tommie Copper Inc., Tommie Copper Holdings, Inc., Thomas

Kallish, and Montel Williams (“Tommie Copper” or “Defendants”) by their Counsel, by way of

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the above captioned

action;

WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

approval and supporting materials filed by Class Counsel and Tommie Copper’s Counsel; and

WHEREAS, this Court has fully considered the record and the requirements of law; and

good cause appearing;

IT IS THIS __ DAY OF _________, 2017

ORDERED that the Settlement (including all terms of the Settlement Agreement and

exhibits thereto) is hereby PRELIMINARILY APPROVED. The Court further finds and orders as

follows:


2

1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and venue is

proper in this district.

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Class Representatives, Settlement

Class Members and Tommie Copper.

3. The Settlement is the product of arm’s length bargaining conducted by experienced

legal counsel after extensive discovery. The Settlement Agreement is not the result of collusion.

4. The proceedings that occurred before the parties reached the Settlement Agreement

gave counsel opportunity to adequately assess this case’s strengths and weaknesses, and thus to

structure the Settlement in a way that adequately accounts for those strengths and weaknesses.

5. The Settlement falls well within the range of reason. The Settlement has no obvious

deficiencies.

6. Because the Settlement meets the standards for preliminary approval, the Court

preliminarily approves all terms of the Settlement, including the Settlement Agreement and all of

its exhibits.

7. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that all requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied. The Court certifies a Settlement Class of All persons in the

United States, its territories, or at any United States military facility or exchange who purchased

the Tommie Copper Products directly from Defendants through the internet, telephone or at the

Tommie Copper retail location in Westchester, New York on or after April 11, 2011 and ending

on the date a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement is entered. Excluded

from the Class are: (a) Tommie Copper employees, officers and directors, (b) persons or entities

who purchased the Settlement Class Products for the purpose of re-sale, (c) retailers or re-sellers

of the Settlement Class Products, (d) governmental entities, (e) persons who timely and properly


3

exclude themselves from the Class as provided herein, (f) any natural person or entity that entered

into a release with Defendant prior to the Effective Date concerning any of the Settlement Class

Products, and (g) the Court, the Court’s immediate family, and Court staff.

8. The Court conditionally certifies the proposed Settlement Class, and finds that the

requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, for settlement purposes only, as follows:

(a) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the members of the Settlement Class

are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

(b) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and 23(c)(1)(B), the Court determines

that there are common issues of law and fact for the Settlement Class.

(c) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), the claims of the Class Representatives

are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class that they represent.

(d) The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs,

Jerome Jeffy, and Sandy Kontura as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class.

(e) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), the Class Representatives

will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of all members of the Settlement

Class. The interests of the Class Representatives are not antagonistic to those of the Settlement

Class. The Class Representatives are represented by counsel who are experienced and competent

in the prosecution of complex class action litigation.

9. The Court further finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied, for

settlement purposes only, as follows:

(a) Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement Class

predominate over questions that may affect only individual members; and


4

(b) A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy.

10. The Court finds that the content of the Notice and the Claim Form satisfy the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), and due process and

accordingly approves the Notice and Claim Form.

11. This Court further approves the proposed methods for giving notice of the

Settlement to the Members of the Settlement Class, as reflected in the Stipulation of Settlement

and Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval. The Court has reviewed the notice, and the notice

procedures, and finds that the Members of the Settlement Class will receive the best notice

practicable under the circumstances. This Court also approves the parties’ proposal to: (1) send

direct notice through an e-mail address for the Settlement Class Member’s account reflected in

Tommie Copper’s reasonably available computerized records, which constitute approximately

94% of the Settlement Class Members transactions; (2) publish the notice twice in the Journal

News (Westchester edition); (3) publish notices to Tommie Copper’s social media websites,

including Facebook and Twitter accounts; (4) publish notice on Defendants’ website at

www.tommiecopper.com; and (5) provide posters containing the court-approved notice language

at the point-of-sale at Tommie Copper’s sole retail location in Westchester County, New York,

with a link to the Settlement website URL from. The Court also approves payment of notice costs

as provided in the Settlement. The Court finds that these procedures, carried out with reasonable

diligence, will constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances and will satisfy the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), and due process.


5

12. The Court preliminarily finds that the following counsel fairly and adequately

represent the interests of the Settlement Class and hereby appoints Ronald A. Marron, APLC,

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and Vozzolo LLC as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

13. The Court further approves the appointment of CLASSAURA, LLC, or equivalent

class action administrator identified by the Parties to administer and oversee, among other things,

the processing, handling, reviewing, and approving of claims made by Claimants; communicating

with Claimants; and distributing payments to qualified Claimants.

14. The Court directs that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) a hearing will be held

on [____________], 2018, to consider final approval of the Settlement (the “Final Approval

Hearing” or “Fairness Hearing”), including, but not limited to, the following issues: (a) whether

the Class should be finally certified, for settlement purposes only; (b) the fairness, reasonableness,

and adequacy of the Settlement; (c) Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees

and costs; and (d) approval of an award of service payments to the Class Representative. The Final

Approval Hearing may be adjourned by the Court and the Court may address the matters set out

above including final approval of the Settlement, without further notice to the Settlement Class

other than notice that may be posted at the Court and on the Settlement Website.

15. Persons wishing to object to the proposed Settlement and/or be heard at the

Fairness Hearing shall follow the following procedures:

(a) To object, a member of the Settlement Class, individually or through

counsel, must file a written objection with the Court, with a copy delivered to Class Counsel and

Tommie Copper’s Counsel at the addresses set forth below, by:

Settlement Class Counsel:


6

Ronald A. Marron The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Tommie Copper:


(b) Any objection regarding or related to the Stipulation of Settlement shall

contain: (i) a reference at the beginning to this case, In re Tommie Copper Products Consumer

Litigation, Case Number 7:15-cv-03183-AT; (ii) the objector’s full name, address, and telephone

number (and your lawyer’s name, address and telephone number if you are objecting through

counsel); (iii) a statement of his/her membership in the Settlement Class, including a verification

under oath as to the date and location of their purchase of Tommie Copper Product and/or a Proof

of Purchase reflecting such purchase and any other information required by the Claim Form; (iv)

a written statement of all grounds for the objection, accompanied by any legal support for such

objection; (v) copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents upon which the objection is based;

(vi) a list of all persons who will be called to testify in support of the objection; (vii) a statement

of whether the objector intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing (Note, if the objector intends

to appear at the Settlement Hearing through counsel, the objection must also state the identity of

all attorneys representing the objector who will appear at the Settlement Hearing); (viii) a list of

the exhibits that you may offer during the fairness hearing, along with copies of such exhibits; and

(ix) your signature. In addition, Settlement Class Members, if applicable, must include with their

objection (i) the identity of all counsel who represent the objector, including former or current


7

counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any reason related to the objection; (ii) a detailed

list of any other objections submitted by the Settlement Class Member, or his/her counsel, to any

class actions submitted in any court, whether state or federal, in the United States in the previous

five (5) years.

(c) Any member of the Settlement Class who files and serves a timely written

objection in accordance with this Order may also appear at the Fairness Hearing, to the extent

permitted by the Court, either in person or through an attorney hired at the Settlement Class

member’s expense, to object to the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of the proposed

Settlement. Any attorney representing a member of the Settlement Class for the purpose of making

objections must also file a Notice of Appearance with the Clerk, and must also serve copies by

mail to the counsel listed above.

(d) Members of the Settlement Class or their attorneys intending to appear at

the Fairness Hearing must, by [____________], 2018, serve on Settlement Class Counsel and

counsel for Tommie Copper, and file with the Court, a notice of Intent to Appear, which includes:

(i) the name, address and telephone number of the Settlement Class member and, if applicable, the

name, address and telephone number of the Settlement Class member’s attorney (who must file a

Notice of Appearance); (ii) the objection, including any papers in support thereof; and (iii) the

name and address of any witnesses to be presented at the Fairness Hearing, together with a

statement as to the matters on which they wish to testify and a summary of the proposed testimony.

(e) Any member of the Settlement Class who does not timely file and serve a

Notice of Intent to Appear, and any witness not identified in the Notice of Intent to Appear, shall

not be permitted to appear at the Fairness Hearing, except for good cause shown.


8

16. Members of the Settlement Class who elect not to participate in the Settlement (i.e.,

“opt-out”) must submit a written request for exclusion that is postmarked no later than

[____________], 2018. Tommie Copper shall compile a list of all Opt-Outs to be filed with the

Court no later than the Fairness Hearing.

17. Any member of the Settlement Class failing to properly and timely mail such a

written notice of exclusion shall be automatically included in the Settlement Class and shall be

bound by all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement and the Settlement, including

the Release, and Order of Final Judgment. The Court shall resolve any disputes concerning the

Opt-Out provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement.

18. In order to participate in the Settlement and receive a refund or reimbursement from

Tommie Copper, members of the Settlement Class must properly complete a Claim Form (online

or in paper format) and submit to the Claims Administrator. To be effective, any such Claim Form

must be postmarked no later than [____________], 2018, and must otherwise comply with the

procedures and instructions set forth in the Claim Form.

19. The following are the deadlines for the following events:

EVENT DATE Deadline for publishing Notice Filing of papers in support of Final Approval and Class Counsel’s Application for Attorneys’ Fee and Expenses

Deadline for submitting exclusion requests or objections

Filing of response to objections Final Approval Hearing Deadline for submitting claims forms

20. To the extent not otherwise defined herein, all defined terms in this order shall have

the meaning assigned in the Stipulation of Settlement.


9

21. In the event that the Settlement does not become effective for any reason, this

Preliminary Approval Order shall be rendered null and shall be vacated, and all orders entered in

connection herewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the

Agreement. If the Settlement does not become effective, Tommie Copper and any other released

persons shall have retained any and all of their current defenses and arguments thereto (including

but not limited to arguments that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) are not

satisfied for purposes of continued litigation). This action shall thereupon revert immediately to

its respective procedural and substantive status prior to the date of execution of the Settlement

Agreement and shall proceed as if the Settlement Agreement and any related order had not been

executed.

22. Nothing in this Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement, or any

documents or statements related thereto, is or shall be deemed or construed to be an admission or

evidence of any violation of any statute or law or of any liability or wrongdoing by Tommie

Copper, or an admission of the propriety of class certification for any purposes other than for

purposes of the current proposed Settlement.

23. All other proceedings in the Action are hereby stayed until such time as the Court

renders a final decision regarding approval of the proposed Settlement. No discovery with

regards to this Action, or with respect to this Settlement, shall be permitted other than as may be

directed by the Court upon a proper showing by the party seeking such discovery by motion

properly noticed and served in accordance with this Court’s Local Rules. In addition, pending a

determination on final approval of the Settlement, all Settlement Class Members are hereby

barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any action involving any Released Claims.


10

24. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Action, the Parties and the

Settlement Class, and the administration, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement. Any

disputes or controversies arising with respect to the Settlement shall be presented by motion to the

Court, provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall restrict the ability of the parties to

exercise their rights under Paragraphs 21 and 23 above.

25. SO ORDERED this ____ day of ____________________, 2017.

HON. ANALISA TORRES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


EXHIBIT 3


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


Lead Case No.: 7:15-cv-03183-AT DECLARATION OF GAJAN RETNASABA

I, Gajan Retnasaba, declare:

1. I am a Partner at Classaura LLC, a class action administration firm, located at 1718

Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta, Georgia. I am over 21 years of age and am not a party to this action.

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and

would testify competently thereto.

2. Classaura LLC handles the administration of a variety of notice programs and

settlements related to class action settlements, including various consumer class actions. Recent

cases include, Carroll v. HealthSouth, No. GIC806908 (California Superior Ct., San Diego Cty.

2003) (medical malpractice case involving $5,000,000 common fund), Allen v. Similasan, No.

3:12-cv-00376 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012)(nutraceutical false marketing case involving $700,000

common fund), and Mason v. Heel, No. 3:12-cv-03056 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) (nutraceutical

false marketing case involving $1,000,000 common fund).


2

SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES

3. I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action

Settlement, and it is my understanding that the above-caption case involves the following

administration activities: (i) receive class data, including the names and email addresses of all

members of the class; (ii) consolidate the class data by removing duplicate records; (iii) prepare

and send email notice to all Class Members contained in Defendant’s databases; (iv) implement

the Publication Notice program; (v) file with the Court and serve on all counsel a declaration

confirming the dissemination of the Notice to the Class has taken place in accordance with any

preliminary approval order; (vi) establish and maintain a website dedicated to this administration,

which shall include documents and information concerning the Settlement and the litigation,

electronic or printable version of the Claim Form, instructions for filing a claim, opting out of

the Settlement, or objecting to the Settlement, deadlines related to the Settlement, and other court

related filings; and (vii) establishing and maintaining a Toll-Free number which Class Members

can call for information about the lawsuit or to request information.

DIRECT NOTICE CAMPAIGN

4. I am informed that the vast majority of sales during the class period were direct

sales, with such direct sales accounting for approximately 94% of U.S. sales. Defendant has

informed me that there exist approximately 1,500,000 email records of direct purchase class

members. Where adequate records exist, direct notice is the preferred form of notice as it

provides the most effective and most cost-efficient notice to class members.

5. Prior to sending the Email Notice, Classaura LLC will analyze the data to identify

duplicate records and consolidate the data to reduce the likelihood that multiple Email Notices

will be sent to a single Class Member. The Email Notice providing a brief summary of the class


3

settlement, deadlines, their options, and directing class members to the Settlement website for

more information or to file a claim.

6. Moreover, to ensure a high degree of deliverability of the email notice and to avoid

spam filters, Classaura LLC will contact major Internet Service Providers and provide them

notice of the upcoming Email Notice campaign, which will include a copy of the Email Notice,

dates of the Email Notice campaign, and the IP addresses from which the Email Notices will be

sent. Additionally, we will utilize a number of industry-recognized best practices and comply

with the Can-Spam Act. For example, to maximize the open rate of the email, the emails will

be sent from reputable mail servers to avoid the emails being erroneously classified as spam

emails. The sending of the emails will also be timed to reach the recipients during times of the

day when they are most receptive to the opening emails and where possible this timing adjusted

to account for the recipient’s time zone. Classuara will further monitor the reaction to the email

campaign and make any necessary adjustments to the delivery schedule in order to avoid SPAM

filters preventing transmission.

7. Additionally, the email will be designed and presented in a way that asserts

credibility and avoids the email being discarded by the recipient as fraudulent or spam. And the

email will be responsively designed so that it is easily viewed on a variety of devices.

8. A follow-up reminder email will be sent to class members whom did not respond

to the initial email – reminding them of the settlement, their options, and pending deadlines.

Depending on the response rate to the first two rounds of emails, further rounds of emails can be

sent. In subsequent rounds of email, messaging can be improved based on feedback from class

members on the initial email, and marketing techniques such as A/B testing can be used to find

messaging that is most effective for class members.


4

CAFA NOTICE

9. Classaura LLC will also provide notification of the Attorney General of the

United States, and the attorneys general of each state or territory in which a Settlement Class

Member resides in accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.

§ 1715(b).

PUBLICATION NOTICE/SOCIAL MEDIA

10. I am also informed that Tommie Copper additionally operated a single store in

Westchester County, New York. Since email records may not be available for class member

who made an in-store purchase at the Tommie Copper retail store, notice will be published in

the Journal News (Westchester edition) on two separate occasions. The advertisement would

provide a summary of the settlement, and direct potential class members to the settlement website

for more information. Additionally, banner ads with links to the Settlement Website posted on

Tommie Copper’s social media sites

POINT-OF-SALE NOTICE/RETAIL WEBSITE

11. Banner ads with links to the Settlement Website posted on Tommie Copper’s retail

website. Additionally, notice will also be posted in Tommie Copper’s retail store outlet in

Westchester County, New York. Thus point-of-sale notice informing potential class members

of the settlement (and directs potential class members to the Settlement Website for more

information) is designed to reach their consumers whom are visiting (or returning product)

Tommie Copper’s retail and online locations.

DEDICATED SETTLEMENT WEBSITE

12. Classaura LLC, a will design and publish a dedicated information website, using

the following URL (www.tommiecoppersettlement.com), which will provide detailed


5

information to class members, and to enable class members to file claims online. The website

will provide information concerning the Settlement and the litigation, electronic or printable

version of the Claim Form, instructions for filing a claim, opting out of the Settlement, or

objecting to the Settlement, deadlines related to the Settlement, and other information as agreed

to by the Parties.

13. Monetary claims may be made entirely online with a form where class members

will affirm, under penalty of perjury, their best recollection of the number of each eligible

product they purchased. The claim form will be secured using 128-bit encryption, which is the

commercial standard. Claim data will be stored in a secure database. The website will also allow

class members to download claim forms that can be printed and submitted by mail.

14. The website will provide email, phone, and postal contacts for class members to

request further information, hard copies of information, or request help in the claim filing

process. The website will be updated as needed. The website will be Americans with Disabilities

Act compliant. The website will also follow the accessibility guidelines provided by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services in Section 508 Reference Guide 1194.22 Web-Based

Intranet and Internet Information Application for maximum usability. For class members who

are unwilling or unable to make claims online, the Judgment Notice, in both its long and

summary forms, will be provided via a toll-free telephone number by which class members can

request claim forms be mailed to them.

TOLL-FREE NUMBER

15. Classaura LLC, will establish and maintain a dedicated Toll-Free number (800-

683-9359) that will provide class Members with direct access to information regarding this

lawsuit. An Interactive Voice response (“IVR”) system will be employed to direct callers


6

through basic information on the case and provide the option to request a copy of the Full Notice

and related documents. Additionally, Class Members can request a call from a Classaura LLC,

representative familiar with the case to address any specific questions they may have.

METHODS FOR PREVENTING PAYMENT OF ERRONEOUS, DUPLICATIVE, AND FRAUDULENT CLAIMS

16. Erroneous, duplicative, and fraudulent claims will likely be only a small

percentage of total claims because of the relatively low amounts involved in this settlement and

the relatively high amount of direct-purchaser information. Nonetheless, I would undertake

several methods of preventing payment of these invalid claims.

17. To prevent duplication, all online claims would be loaded into an electronic

database. Claims received by mail would be manually entered into the same database. An

algorithm would then be run to identify duplicate entries, including those that are not exact

duplicates, but involve small variations in names or addresses.

18. One type of erroneous claim is incomplete claims. To the extent possible, the

information contained within the incomplete claims will be used to notify the submitter of the

incomplete claim.

19. Fraudulent claims are less significant in cases such as this involving an

inexpensive retail product, because the per-person or per-unit recovery tends to be small

commensurate with the price of the subject product. Moreover, merely requiring claims forms

be submitted under “penalty of perjury” substantially deters fraud. Nonetheless, fraud can be

further reduced by utilizing fraud detection techniques and rejecting fraudulent claims. The

claims database will be queried to report signs of fraud such as: (1) multiple online claims made

from the same Internet Protocol (“IP”) address; (2) claims made by known submitters of

fraudulent claims, whose information is shared within the class action administration


EXHIBIT 4


NEW YORK CALIFORNIA DELAWARE PENNSYLVANIA GEORGIA

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP focuses on complex civil litigation, including securities, antitrust, wage and

hour, consumer, and pharmaceutical class actions as well as shareholder derivative and merger and

transactional litigation. The firm is headquartered in New York, and maintains offices in California,

Delaware, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

Since its founding in 1995, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous

high-profile cases which have provided significant recoveries to investors, consumers and employees.

PRACTICE AREAS

SECURITIES FRAUD LITIGATION

From its inception, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has devoted a substantial portion of its practice to class

action securities fraud litigation. In In re PurchasePro.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. CV-S-01-0483

(JLQ) (D. Nev.), as co-lead counsel for the class, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP secured a $24.2 million settlement

in a securities fraud litigation even though the corporate defendant was in bankruptcy. As noted by Senior

Judge Justin L. Quackenbush in approving the settlement, “I feel that counsel for plaintiffs evidenced

that they were and are skilled in the field of securities litigation.”

Other past achievements include: In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 97-CV-5056 (RDH) (E.D.N.Y.)

(recovered $24.1 million dollars for class members) (Judge Hurley stated: “The quality of representation

here I think has been excellent.”), In re Tellium, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-CV-5878 (FLW) (D.N.J.) (recovered

$5.5 million dollars for class members); In re Mitcham Indus., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-98-1244 (S.D. Tex.)

(recovered $3 million dollars for class members despite the fact that corporate defendant was on the verge

of declaring bankruptcy), and Ruskin v. TIG Holdings, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 1068 LLS (S.D.N.Y.) (recovered $3

million dollars for class members).

Recently, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as sole lead counsel, won a historic appeal in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Inc. Int’l, Ltd., Civ. No. 13-2730

(2015), where the Court reversed a trial court’s scienter ruling for the first time since the enactment of the

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). The Court remanded the case to the district

court, where Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss and subsequently obtained

final approval of a $5.5 million settlement for the class. McIntyre v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int’l, LTD, No.

12-CV-213 (MOC) (DCK) (W.D.N.C.). In In re Geron Corp., Sec. Litig., No. 14-CV-1424 (CRB) (N.D.

Cal.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as sole lead counsel for the class, defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss

and, on July 21, 2017, secured final approval of a settlement awarding $6.25 million to the class. Also, in

In re Dynavax Techs. Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 13-CV-2796 (CRB) (N.D. Cal.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as sole

lead counsel for the class, defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on February 6, 2017, secured



2

final approval of a $4.5 million settlement on behalf of the class. In In re L&L Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.

13-cv-6704 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel, obtained final approval on July 31,

2015 of a $3.5 million settlement for the class. In In re Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 11-cv-2400

(RWS) (N.D. Ga.), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as sole lead

counsel, obtained final approval on June 13, 2014 of a $6.5 million settlement for the class. In Shapiro v.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., No. CV-09-1479 (PHX) (ROS) (D. Ariz.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel

for the class, defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss, succeeded in having the action certified as a class

action, and secured final approval of a $4.5 million settlement for the class. See also In re Longwei

Petroleum Inv. Holding Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 13 Civ. 214 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) (as sole lead counsel, obtained

final approval of a $1.34 million settlement on behalf of the class); Simmons v. Spencer, et al., No. 13 Civ.

8216 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.) (as co-lead counsel obtained final approval of settlement awarding $1.5 million to

the class).

Additionally, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is serving as court-appointed lead counsel in the following cases:

Rihn v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00575-BTM-DHB (S.D. Cal.) (as sole lead counsel, obtained preliminary approval of a $2.95 million settlement on behalf of the class);

In re Avalanche Biotechnologies Sec. Litig., No. 3:15-cv-03185-JD (N.D. Cal.) (appointed as sole lead counsel for the class in the federal action and currently awaiting preliminary approval of global $13 million settlement of federal and state class actions);

Markette v. XOMA Corporation, No. 3:15-cv-03425-HSG (N.D. Cal.) (appointed sole lead counsel for the class);

Loftus v. Primero Mining Corp., No. 16-01034-BRO (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.) (appointed sole lead counsel for the class); and

Bielousov v. GoPro, Inc., et al., No. 4:16-CV-06654-CW (N.D. Cal.) (as sole lead counsel for the class, defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss).

SHAREHOLDER MERGER AND TRANSACTIONAL LITIGATION

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is nationally recognized for its excellence in prosecuting shareholder class

actions brought nationwide against officers, directors and other parties responsible for corporate

wrongdoing. Most of these cases are based upon state statutory or common law principles involving

fiduciary duties owed to investors by corporate insiders as well as Exchange Act violations.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has obtained significant monetary and therapeutic recoveries, including

millions of dollars in increased merger consideration for public shareholders; additional disclosure of

significant material information so that shareholders can intelligently gauge the fairness of the terms of

proposed transactions and other types of therapeutic relief designed to increase competitive bids and

protect shareholder value. As noted by Judge Timothy S. Black of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio in appointing lead counsel Nichting v. DPL Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-14 (S.D. Ohio),



3

"[a]lthough all of the firms seeking appointment as Lead Counsel have impressive resumes, the Court is

most impressed with Faruqi & Faruqi.”

For example, in Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., No. 8476-VCG (Del. Ch.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as

sole lead counsel was credited by the Delaware Chancery Court with contributing to an increase in

exchange ratio in an all-stock transaction that provided Berry Petroleum Co. stockholders with an additional

$600 million in consideration for their shares as well as the disclosure of additional material information

regarding the transaction. The court noted at the settlement hearing “[t]he ability of petitioning counsel

[Faruqi] is known to the Court, and plaintiff's counsel [Faruqi] are well versed in the prosecution of corporate

law actions.” Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP achieved a similar result in In Re Energysolutions, Inc. Shareholder

Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 8203-VCG (Del. Ch.), in which the Faruqi Firm, as co-lead counsel, was credited

in part with an increase in the merger consideration from $3.75 to $4.15 in cash per Energysolution share

by the acquirer Energy Capital, and credited with additional material disclosures distributed to stockholders.

In approving the settlement of the case and noting that the price increase amounted to an extra $36 million

for stockholders, the Delaware Court stated that the standing and ability of the stockholders’ counsel,

including Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and its co-counsel, is “…among the highest in our bar.” See In Re

Energysolutions, Inc. S’holder Litig., Cons. C.A. No. 8203-VCG (Del. Ch. Feb. 11, 2014). In In Re Jefferies

Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8059-CB (Del. Ch.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP acted as co-lead

counsel representing Jeffries Group, Inc. stockholders in challenging the transaction with Leucadia National

Corporation. After years of vigorous litigation, the parties reached a settlement that recovered $70 million

additional consideration for the former Jeffries Group Inc. stockholders.

In In re Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 5632-VCN (Del. Ch.),

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP achieved a substantial post close settlement of $5.25 million. In In re Cogent, Inc.

Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 5780-VC (Del. Ch.) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel,

obtained a post-close cash settlement of $1.9 million after two years of hotly contested litigation; In Rice v.

Lafarge North America, Inc., et al., No. 268974-V (Montgomery Cty., Md. Circuit Ct.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP,

as co-lead counsel represented the public shareholders of Lafarge North America (“LNA”) in challenging

the buyout of LNA by its French parent, Lafarge S.A., at $75.00 per share. After discovery and intensive

injunction motions practice, the price per share was increased from $75.00 to $85.50 per share, or a total

benefit to the public shareholders of $388 million. The Lafarge court gave Class counsel, including Faruqi

& Faruqi, LLP, shared credit with a special committee appointed by the company’s board of directors for a

significant portion of the price increase.

Similarly, in In re: Hearst-Argyle Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 09-Civ-600926 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)

as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP litigated, in coordination with Hearst-Argyle’s special

committee, an increase of over 12.5%, or $8,740,648, from the initial transaction value offered for Hearst-



4

Argyle Television Inc.’s stock by its parent company, Hearst Corporation. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, in In re

Alfa Corp. Shareholder Litig., Case No. 03-CV-2007-900485.00 (Montgomery Cty, Ala. Cir. Ct.) was

instrumental, along with the Company’s special committee, in securing an increased share price for Alfa

Corporation shareholders of $22.00 from the originally-proposed $17.60 per share offer, which represented

over a $160 million benefit to class members, and obtained additional proxy disclosures to ensure that Alfa

shareholders were fully-informed before making their decision to vote in favor of the merger, or seek

appraisal.

Moreover, in In re Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. S'holders Litig., Consolidated C.A. No. 1033-N

(Del. Ch. 2005), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a member of the three (3) firm executive committee, and in

coordination with Fox Entertainment Group’s special committee, created an increased offer price from the

original proposal to shareholders, which represented an increased benefit to Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.

shareholders of $450 million. Also, in In re Howmet Int’l S’holder Litig., Consolidated C.A. No. 17575 (Del.

Ch. 1999) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, in coordination with Howmet’s special committee, successfully obtained

an increased benefit to class members of $61.5 million dollars).

Recently, in In re Orchard Enterprises, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7840-VCL (Del. Ch.),

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP acted as co-lead counsel with two other firms. That action involved the approval of a

merger by Orchard’s Board of Directors pursuant to which Dimensional Associates LLC would cash-out the

stock of Orchard’s minority common stockholders at a price of $2.05 per share and then take Orchard

private. On April 11, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to settle their claims for a payment of $10.725

million to be distributed among the Class, which considerably exceeded the $2.62 per share difference

between the $2.05 buyout price and the $4.67 appraisal price determined in In re Appraisal of The Orchard

Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 5713-CS, 2012 WL 2923305 (Del. Ch. July 18, 2012).

Faruqi also has noteworthy successes in achieving injunctive or declaratory relief pre and post

close in cases where corporate wrongdoing deprives shareholders of material information or an opportunity

to share in potential profits. In In re Harleysville Group, Inc. S’holders Litigation, C.A. Bo. 6907-VCP (Del.

Ch. 2014), Faruqi as sole lead counsel obtained significant disclosures for stockholders pre-close and

secured valuable relief post close in the form of an Anti-Flip Provision providing former stockholders with

25% of any profits in Qualifying Sale. In April 2012, Faruqi as sole lead obtained an unprecedented

injunction in Knee v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., No. 1-12-CV-220249, slip op. at 2 (Cal.

Super. Ct. Apr. 10, 2012) (Kleinberg, J.). In Brocade, Faruqi, as sole lead counsel for plaintiffs, successfully

obtained an injunction enjoining Brocade’s 2012 shareholder vote because certain information relating to

projected executive compensation was not properly disclosed in the proxy statement. (Order After Hearing

[Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Motions to Seal]). In Kajaria v. Cohen, No. 1:10-CV-03141

(N.D. Ga., Atlanta Div.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, succeeded in having the district court order Bluelinx Holdings



5

Inc., the target company in a tender offer, to issue additional material disclosures to its recommendation

statement to shareholders before the expiration of the tender offer.

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has extensive experience litigating shareholder derivative actions on behalf

of corporate entities. This litigation is often necessary when the corporation has been injured by the

wrongdoing of its officers and directors. This wrongdoing can be either active, such as the wrongdoing by

certain corporate officers in connection with purposeful backdating of stock-options, or passive, such as the

failure to put in place proper internal controls, which leads to the violation of laws and accounting

procedures. A shareholder has the right to commence a derivative action when the company’s directors

are unwilling or unable, to pursue claims against the wrongdoers, which is often the case when the directors

themselves are the wrongdoers.

The purpose of the derivative action is threefold: (1) to make the company whole by holding those

responsible for the wrongdoing accountable; (2) the establishment of procedures at the company to ensure

the damaging acts can never again occur at the company; and (3) make the company more responsive to

its shareholders. Improved corporate governance and shareholder responsiveness are particularly

valuable because they make the company a stronger one going forward, which benefits its shareholders.

For example, studies have shown the companies with poor corporate governance scores have 5-year

returns that are 3 .95% below the industry average, while companies with good corporate governance

scores have 5-year returns that are 7.91 % above the industry-adjusted average. The difference in

performance between these two groups is 11 .86%. Corporate Governance Study: The Correlation

between Corporate Governance and Company Performance, Lawrence D. Brown, Ph.D., Distinguished

Professor of Accountancy, Georgia State University and Marcus L. Caylor, Ph.D. Student, Georgia State

University. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has achieved all three of the above stated goals of a derivative action.

The firm regularly obtains significant corporate governance changes in connection with the successful

resolution of derivative actions, in addition to monetary recoveries that inure directly to the benefit of the

company. In each case, the company’s shareholders indirectly benefit through an improved market price

and market perception.

In In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Derivative Litig., Case No. 27 CV 06-8065 (Minn. 4th

Judicial Dist. 2009) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, obtained a recovery of more than

$930 million for the benefit of the Company and corporate governance reforms designed to make

UnitedHealth a model of corporate responsibility and transparency. At the time, the settlement reached

was believed to be the largest settlement ever in a derivative case. See "UnitedHealth's Former Chief



6

to Repay $600 Million," Bloomberg.com, December 6, 2007 ("the settlement . . . would be the largest ever

in a 'derivative' suit . . . according to data compiled by Bloomberg.").

As co-lead counsel in Weissman v. John, et al., Cause No. 2007-31254 (Tex. Harris County 2008)

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, diligently litigated a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Key Energy Services,

Inc. for more than three years and caused the company to adopt a multitude of corporate governance

reforms which far exceeded listing and regulatory requirements. Such reforms included, among other

things, the appointment of a new senior management team, the realignment of personnel, the institution of

training sessions on internal control processes and activities, and the addition of 14 new accountants at the

company with experience in public accounting, financial reporting, tax accounting, and SOX compliance.

More recently, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP concluded shareholder derivative litigation in The Booth Family

Trust, et al. v. Jeffries, et al., Lead Case No. 05-cv-00860 (S.D. Ohio 2005) on behalf of Abercrombie &

Fitch Co. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, litigated the case for six years through an

appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where it successfully obtained reversal of the district

court’s ruling dismissing the shareholder derivative action in April 2011. Once remanded to the district

court, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP caused the company to adopt important corporate governance reforms narrowly

targeted to remedy the alleged insider trading and discriminatory employment practices that gave rise to

the shareholder derivative action.

The favorable outcome obtained by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP in In re Forest Laboratories, Inc.

Derivative Litigation, Lead Civil Action No. 05-cv-3489 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) is another notable achievement for

the firm. After more than six years of litigation, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel, caused the

company to adopt industry-leading corporate governance measures that included rigorous monitoring

mechanisms and Board-level oversight procedures to ensure the timely and complete publication of clinical

drug trial results to the investing public and to deter, among other things, the unlawful off-label promotion

of drugs.

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The attorneys at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP represent direct purchasers, competitors, third-party payors,

and consumers in a variety of individual and class action antitrust cases brought under Sections 1 and 2 of

the Sherman Act. These actions, which typically seek treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act,

have been commenced by businesses and consumers injured by anticompetitive agreements to fix prices

or allocate markets, conduct that excludes or delays competition, and other monopolistic or conspiratorial

conduct that harms competition.

Actions for excluded competitors. Faruqi & Faruqi represents competitors harmed by

anticompetitive practices that reduce their sales, profits, and/or market share. One representative action is



7

Babyage.com, Inc., et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., et al. where Faruqi & Faruqi was retained to represent three

internet retailers of baby products, who challenged a dominant retailer's anticompetitive scheme, in concert

with their upstream suppliers, to impose and enforce resale price maintenance in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of

the Sherman Act and state law. The action sought damages measured as lost sales and profits. This case

was followed extensively by the Wall Street Journal. After several years of litigation, this action settled for

an undisclosed amount.

Actions for direct purchasers. Faruqi & Faruqi represents direct purchasers who have paid

overcharges as a result of anticompetitive practices that raise prices. These actions are typically initiated

as class actions. A representative action on behalf of direct purchasers is Rochester Drug Co-Operative,

Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, et al., No. 12-3824 (E.D. Pa.), in which Faruqi & Faruqi

was appointed co-lead counsel for the proposed plaintiff class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

Faruqi & Faruqi’s attorneys are counsel to direct purchasers (typically wholesalers) in multiple such class

actions.

Actions for third-party payors. Faruqi & Faruqi represents, both in class actions and in individual

actions, insurance companies who have reimbursed their policyholders at too high a rate due to

anticompetitive prices that raise prices. One representative action is In re Tricor Antitrust Litigation, No.

05-360 (D. Del.), where Faruqi & Faruqi represented PacifiCare and other large third-party payors

challenging the conduct of Abbott Laboratories and Laboratories Fournier in suppressing generic drug

competition, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Tricor litigation settled for undisclosed

amount in 2010.

Results. Faruqi & Faruqi’s attorneys have consistently obtained favorable results in their antitrust

engagements. Non-confidential results include the following: In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig.,

No. 12-md-2343, (E.D. Tenn.) ($73 million settlement); In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., No. 08-2431 (E.D.

Pa.) ($37.5 million partial settlement); In re Iowa Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation, No. C 10-4038

(N.D. Iowa) ($18.5 million settlement); In re Metoprolol Succinate Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 06-

52 (D. Del.) ($20 million settlement); In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-979 (S.D. Ind.)

($40 million settlement); Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., et al. v. Braintree Labs, Inc., No. 07-142-SLR

(D. Del.) ($17.25 million settlement).

A more complete list of Faruqi & Faruqi's active and resolved antitrust cases can be found on its

web site at www.faruqilaw.com.

CONSUMER PROTECTION LITIGATION

Attorneys at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP have advocated for consumers’ rights, successfully challenging

some of the nation’s largest and most powerful corporations for a variety of improper, unfair and deceptive



8

business practices. Through our efforts, we have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars and other

significant remedial benefits for our consumer clients.

For example, in Bates v. Kashi Co., et al., Case No. 11-CV-1967-H BGS (S.D. Cal. 2011), as co-

lead counsel for the class, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP secured a $5.0 million settlement fund on behalf of

California consumers who purchased Kashi products that were deceptively labeled as “nothing artificial”

and “all natural.” The settlement provides class members with a full refund of the purchase price in addition

to requiring Kashi to modify its labeling and advertising to remove “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” from

certain products. As noted by Judge Marilyn L. Huff in approving the settlement, “Plaintiffs’ counsel has

extensive experience acting as class counsel in consumer class action cases, including cases involving

false advertising claims.” Moreover, in Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Case No. RG-03091195

(California Superior Ct., Alameda Cty.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP served as co-lead counsel in a consumer

class action lawsuit against Global Vision Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the Avacor hair restoration

product and its officers, directors and spokespersons, in connection with the false and misleading

advertising claims regarding the Avacor product. Though the company had declared bankruptcy in 2007,

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, along with its co-counsel, successfully prosecuted two trials to obtain relief for the

class of Avacor purchasers. In January 2008, a jury in the first trial returned a verdict of almost $37 million

against two of the creators of the product. In November 2009, another jury awarded plaintiff and the class

more than $50 million in a separate trial against two other company directors and officers. This jury award

represented the largest consumer class action jury award in California in 2009 (according to VerdictSearch,

a legal trade publication).

Additionally, in Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-04718-PGG-DCF (S.D.N.Y. 2011),

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead class counsel, reached a significant settlement with CitiMortgage related

to improper foreclosure practices of homes owned by active duty servicemembers. The settlement was

recently finalized pursuant to a Final Approval Order dated October 6, 2015, which provides class members

with a monetary recovery of at least $116,785.00 per class member, plus the amount of any lost equity in

the foreclosed property.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of settlements where Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and its partners have

served as lead or co-lead counsel:

In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig., Case No. 1:12-cv-02429-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. 2012). The firm represented a nationwide class of purchasers of assorted cold, flu and sinus products. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a cash refund up to $10 and requiring defendant to discontinue the marketing and sale of certain products.

In re: Alexia Foods, Inc. Litigation., Case No. 4:11-cv-06119 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The firm represented a proposed class of all persons who purchased certain frozen potato products that were deceptively advertised as “natural” or “all natural.” A settlement was obtained, providing class members with the



9

cash refunds up to $35.00 and requiring defendant to cease using a synthetic chemical compound in future production of the products.

In re: Haier Freezer Consumer Litig., Case No. 5:11-CV-02911-EJD (N.D. Cal. 2011). The firm represented a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain model freezers, which were sold in violation of the federal standard for maximum energy consumption. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with cash payments of between $50 and $325.80.

Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co., Case No. 11-3977 SDW-MCA (D.N.J. 2011) The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of people who purchased stainless steel knives and multi-tools that were of a lesser quality than advertised. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a full refund of the purchase price.

Rossi v Procter & Gamble Company., Case No. 11-7238 (D.N.J. 2011). The firm represented a nationwide class of consumers who purchased deceptively marketed “Crest Sensitivity” toothpaste. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a full refund of the purchase price.

In re: Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litig., Case No. 1:11-CV-03350 CPK (N.D. Ill. 2011). The firm represented a nationwide class of persons against Michaels Stores, Inc. for failing to secure and safeguard customers’ personal financial data. A settlement was obtained, which provided class members with monetary recovery for unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses incurred in connection with the data breach, as well as up to four years of credit monitoring services.

Kelly, v. Phiten, Case No. 4:11-cv-00067 JEG (S.D. Iowa 2011). The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased Defendant Phiten USA’s jewelry and other products, which were falsely promoted to balance a user’s energy flow. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with up to 300% of the cost of the product and substantial injunctive relief requiring Phiten to modify its advertising claims.

In re: HP Power-Plug Litigation, Case No. 06-1221 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased defective laptops manufactured by defendant. A settlement was obtained, which provided full relief to class members, including among other benefits a cash payment up to $650.00 per class member, or in the alternative, a repair free-of-charge and new limited warranties accompanying repaired laptops.

Delre v. Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. No. 3232-02 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2002). The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers (approximately 170,000 members) who purchased, HP dvd-100i dvd-writers (“HP 100i”) based on misrepresentations regarding the write-once (“DVD+R”) capabilities of the HP 100i and the compatibility of DVD+RW disks written by HP 100i with DVD players and other optical storage devices. A settlement was obtained, which provided full relief to class members, including among other benefits, the replacement of defective HP 100i with its more current, second generation DVD writer, the HP 200i, and/or refunds the $99 it had charged some consumers to upgrade from the HP 100i to the HP 200i prior to the settlement.

In addition, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and its partners are currently serving as lead or co-lead counsel

in the following class action cases:

Dei Rossi et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-00125-TLN-JFM (E.D. Cal. 2012) (representing a certified class of people who purchased mislabeled KitchenAid brand refrigerators from Whirlpool Corp.)

In re: Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 7:12-cv-04727-VB (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (representing a certified class of purchasers of mulch grass seed products advertised as a superior grass seed product capable of growing grass in the toughest conditions and with half the water.)

Forcellati et al., v Hyland’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01983-GHK-MRW (C.D. Cal. 2012) (representing a certified nationwide class of purchasers of children’s cold and flu products.)



10

Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-06973 KM-MCA (D.N.J. 2011) (representing a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for misrepresenting the energy efficiency of certain refrigerators.)

Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp., et al., Case No. 12-CIV-0089 SRC-MAS (D.N.J. 2011) (representing a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag brand washing machines for misrepresenting the energy efficiency of such washing machines.)

In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 4:12-md-02380-YK (M.D. Pa. 2012) (representing a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased vacuums or Shop Vac’s with overstated horsepower and tank capacity specifications.)

In re: Oreck Corporation Halo Vacuum And Air Purifiers Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2317 (the firm was appointed to the executive committee, representing a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased vacuums and air purifiers that were deceptively advertised effective in eliminating common viruses, germs and allergens.)

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a recognized leader in protecting the rights of employees. The firm’s

Employment Practices Group is committed to protecting the rights of current and former employees

nationwide. The firm is dedicated to representing employees who may not have been compensated

properly by their employer or who have suffered investment losses in their employer-sponsored retirement

plan. The firm also represents individuals (often current or former employees) who assert that a company

has allegedly defrauded the federal or state government.

Faruqi & Faruqi represents current and former employees nationwide whose employers have failed

to comply with state and/or federal laws governing minimum wage, hours worked, overtime, meal and rest

breaks, and unreimbursed business expenses. In particular, the firm focuses on claims against companies

for (i) failing to properly classify their employees for purposes of paying them proper overtime pay, or (ii)

requiring employees to work “off-the-clock,” and not paying them for all of their actual hours worked.

In prosecuting claims on behalf of aggrieved employees, Faruqi & Faruqi has successfully defeated

summary judgment motions, won numerous collective certification motions, and obtained significant

monetary recoveries for current and former employees. In the course of litigating these claims, the firm has

been a pioneer in developing the growing area of wage and hour law. In Creely, et al. v. HCR ManorCare,

Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-cv-02879 (N.D. OH), Faruqi & Faruqi, along with its co-counsel, obtained one of the first

decisions to reject the application of the Supreme Court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certification analysis in Wal-

Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et. al., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) to the certification process of collective actions

brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”). The firm, along with its co-counsel,

also recently won a groundbreaking decision for employees seeking to prosecute wage and hour claims on

a collective basis in Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp. et al., No. 10-3178 (3d Cir. 2011). In Symczyk,

the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that an offer of judgment mooted a named plaintiff’s claim

in an action asserting wage and hour violations of the FLSA. Notably, the Third Circuit also affirmed the



11

two-step process used for granting certification in FLSA cases. The Creely decision, like the Third Circuit’s

Genesis decision, will invariably be relied upon by courts and plaintiffs in future wage and hour actions.

Some of the firm’s notable recoveries include Bazzini v. Club Fit Management, Inc., C.A. No. 08-

cv-4530 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), wherein the firm settled a FLSA collective action lawsuit on behalf of tennis

professionals, fitness instructors and other health club employees on very favorable terms. Similarly, in

Garcia, et al., v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc., et al., C.A. No. GIC 841120 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2008), Faruqi &

Faruqi served as co-lead counsel and recovered $1.6 million on behalf of delivery workers who were

unlawfully treated as independent contractors and not paid appropriate overtime wages or benefits.

The firm’s Employment Practices Group also represents participants and beneficiaries of employee

benefit plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1874 (“ERISA”). In particular

the firm protects the interests of employees in retirement savings plans against the wrongful conduct of

plan fiduciaries. Often, these retirement savings plans constitute a significant portion of an employee’s

retirement savings. ERISA, which codifies one of the highest duties known to law, requires an employer to

act in the best interests of the plan’s participants, including the selection and maintenance of retirement

investment vehicles. For example, an employer who administers a retirement savings plan (often a 401(k)

plan) has a fiduciary obligation to ensure that the retirement plan’s assets (including employee and any

company matching contributions to the plan) are directed into appropriate and prudent investment vehicles.

Faruqi & Faruqi has brought actions on behalf of aggrieved plan participants where a company

and/or certain of its officers breached their fiduciary duty by allowing its retirement plans to invest in shares

of its own stock despite having access to materially negative information concerning the company which

materially impacted the value of the stock. The resulting losses can be devastating to employees’

retirement accounts. Under certain circumstances, current and former employees can seek to hold their

employers accountable for plan losses caused by the employer’s breach of their ERISA-mandated duties.

The firm’s Employment Practices Group also represents whistleblowers in actions under both

federal and state False Claims Acts. Often, current and former employees of business entities that contract

with, or are otherwise bound by obligations to, the federal and state governments become aware of

wrongdoing that causes the government to overpay for a good or service. When a corporation perpetrates

such fraud, a whistleblower may sue the wrongdoer in the government’s name to recover up to three times

actual damages and additional civil penalties for each false statement made. Whistleblowers who initiate

such suits are entitled to a portion of the recovery attained by the government, generally ranging from 15%

to 30% of the total recovery.

False Claims Act cases often arise in context of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, pharmaceutical

fraud, defense contractor fraud, federal government contractor fraud, and fraudulent loans and grants. For

instance, in United States of America, ex rel. Ronald J. Streck v. Allergan, Inc. et al., No. 2:08-cv-05135-



12

ER (E.D. Pa.), Faruqi & Faruqi represents a whistleblower in an un-sealed case alleging fraud against

thirteen pharmaceutical companies who underpaid rebates they were obliged to pay to state Medicaid

programs on drugs sold through those programs.

Based on its experience and expertise, the firm has served as the principal attorneys representing

current and former employees in numerous cases across the country alleging wage and hour violations,

ERISA violations and violations of federal and state False Claims Acts.

ATTORNEYS NADEEM FARUQI

Mr. Faruqi is Co-Founder and Managing Partner of the firm. Mr. Faruqi oversees all aspects of the

firm’s practice areas. Mr. Faruqi has acted as sole lead or co-lead counsel in many notable class or

derivative action cases, such as: In re Olsten Corp. Secs. Litig., C.A. No. 97-CV-5056 (E.D.N.Y.) (recovered

$25 million dollars for class members); In re PurchasePro, Inc., Secs. Litig., Master File No. CV-S-01-0483

(D. Nev. 2001) ($24.2 million dollars recovery on behalf of the class in securities fraud action); In re Avatex

Corp. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 16334-NC (Del. Ch. 1999) (established certain new standards for preferred

shareholders rights); Dennis v. Pronet, Inc., C.A. No. 96-06509 (Tex. Dist. Ct.) (recovered over $15 million

dollars on behalf of shareholders); In re Tellium, Inc. Secs. Litig., C.A. No. 02-CV-5878 (D.N.J.) (class action

settlement of $5.5 million); In re Tenet Healthcare Corp. Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 01098905 (Cal.

Sup. Ct. 2002) (achieved a $51.5 million benefit to the corporation in derivative litigation).

Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Faruqi was associated with a large corporate legal

department in New York. In 1988, he became associated with Kaufman Malchman Kirby & Squire,

specializing in shareholder litigation, and in 1992, became a member of that firm. While at Kaufman

Malchman Kirby & Squire, Mr. Faruqi served as one of the trial counsel for plaintiff in Gerber v. Computer

Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 91-CV-3610 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). Mr. Faruqi actively participated in cases such as: Colaprico

v. Sun Microsystems, No. C-90-20710 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (recovery in excess of $5 million on behalf of the

shareholder class); In re Jackpot Secs. Enters., Inc. Secs. Litig., CV-S-89-805 (D. Nev. 1993) (recovery in

excess of $3 million on behalf of the shareholder class); In re Int’l Tech. Corp. Secs. Litig., CV 88-440 (C.D.

Cal. 1993) (recovery in excess of $13 million on behalf of the shareholder class); and In re Triangle Inds.,

Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 10466 (Del. Ch. 1990) (recovery in excess of $70 million).

Mr. Faruqi earned his Bachelor of Science Degree from McGill University, Canada (B.Sc. 1981),

his Master of Business Administration from the Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada (MBA

1984) and his law degree from New York Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1987). Mr. Faruqi was Executive

Editor of New York Law School’s Journal of International and Comparative Law. He is the author of “Letters



13

of Credit: Doubts As To Their Continued Usefulness,” Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1988.

He was awarded the Professor Ernst C. Stiefel Award for Excellence in Comparative, Common and Civil

Law by New York Law School in 1987.

LUBNA M. FARUQI

Ms. Faruqi is Co-Founder of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. Ms. Faruqi is involved in all aspects of the firm’s

practice. Ms. Faruqi has actively participated in numerous cases in federal and state courts which have

resulted in significant recoveries for shareholders.

Ms. Faruqi was involved in litigating the successful recovery of $25 million to class members in In

re Olsten Corp. Secs. Litig., C.A. No. 97-CV-5056 (E.D.N.Y.). She helped to establish certain new

standards for preferred shareholders in Delaware in In re Avatex Corp. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 16334-NC

(Del. Ch. 1999). Ms. Faruqi was also lead attorney in In re Mitcham Indus., Inc. Secs. Litig., Master File

No. H-98-1244 (S.D. Tex. 1998), where she successfully recovered $3 million on behalf of class members

despite the fact that the corporate defendant was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

Upon graduation from law school, Ms. Faruqi worked with the Department of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, Bureau of Anti-Trust, the Federal Government of Canada. In 1987, Ms. Faruqi became

associated with Kaufman Malchman Kirby & Squire, specializing in shareholder litigation, where she

actively participated in cases such as: In re Triangle Inds., Inc. S’holders Litig., C.A. No. 10466 (Del. Ch.

1990) (recovery in excess of $70 million); Kantor v. Zondervan Corp., C.A. No. 88 C5425 (W.D. Mich. 1989)

(recovery of $3.75 million on behalf of shareholders); and In re A.L. Williams Corp. S’holders Litig., C.A.

No. 10881 (Del. Ch. 1990) (recovery in excess of $11 million on behalf of shareholders).

Ms. Faruqi graduated from McGill University Law School at the age of twenty-one with two law

degrees: Bachelor of Civil Law (B.C.L.) (1980) and a Bachelor of Common Law (L.L.B.) (1981).

PETER KOHN

Mr. Kohn is a partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s Pennsylvania office.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Kohn was a shareholder at Berger & Montague, P.C., where he

prepared for trial several noteworthy lawsuits under the Sherman Act, including In re Buspirone Patent &

Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1410 (S.D.N.Y.) ($220M settlement), In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation,

No. 99-MD-1278 (E.D. Mich.) ($110M settlement), Meijer, Inc. v. Warner-Chilcott, No. 05-2195 (D.D.C.)

($22M settlement), In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, No. 01-12239 (D. Mass.) ($175M settlement), In re

Remeron Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-cv-0085 (D.N.J.) ($75M settlement), In re Terazosin

Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, No. 99-MDL-1317 (S.D. Fla.) ($72.5M settlement), and In re Tricor Direct

Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 05-340 (D. Del.) ($250M settlement). The court appointed him as co-lead



14

counsel for the plaintiffs in In re Pennsylvania Title Ins. Antitrust Litig., No. 08cv1202 (E.D. Pa.) (pending

action on behalf of direct purchasers of title insurance alleging illegal cartel pricing under § 1 of the Sherman

Act).

A sampling of Mr. Kohn’s reported cases in the antitrust arena includes In re Solodyn (Minocycline

Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litig., Civil Action No. 14-md-02503-DJC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125999 (D. Mass.

Aug. 14, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss reverse payment claims under the Sherman Act); King Drug Co.

of Florence v. Cephalon, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 402 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (reverse payment claims under the

Sherman Act survived summary judgment); In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone)

Antitrust Litig., 64 F. Supp. 3d 665 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss product hopping claims

under the Sherman Act); In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., 74 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying

motion to dismiss reverse payment claims under the Sherman Act); Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott

Pub., No. 12-3824, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152467 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss

product hopping claims under the Sherman Act); In re Hypodermic Prods. Antitrust Litig., 484 Fed. Appx.

669 (3d Cir. 2012) (issue of direct purchaser standing under Illinois Brick); Wallach v. Eaton Corp., 814 F.

Supp. 2d 428 (D. Del. 2011) (application of the Third Circuit’s “complete involvement” exception to the in

pari delicto doctrine); Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.

2008) (issue of direct purchaser standing under Illinois Brick); Babyage.com, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 558

F. Supp.2d 575 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss following the Supreme Court’s

decisions in Twombly and Leegin, and for the first time in the Third Circuit adopting the Merger Guidelines

method of relevant market definition); J.B.D.L. Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., 485 F.3d 880 (6th

Cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment in exclusionary contracting case); and Babyage.com, Inc. v. Toys

“R” Us, Inc., 458 F. Supp.2d 263 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (discoverability of surreptitiously recorded statements

prior to deposition of declarant).

Mr. Kohn is a 1989 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.A., English) and a 1992 cum

laude graduate of Temple University Law School, where he was senior staff for the Temple Law Review

and received awards for trial advocacy. Mr. Kohn was recognized as a “recommended” antitrust attorney

in the Northeast in 2009 by the Legal 500 guide (www.legal500.com) and was chosen by his peers as a

“SuperLawyer” in Pennsylvania in 2009 - 2013, and 2016. Mr. Kohn was an invited speaker at the ABA

Section of Antitrust Law’s 2016 Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., for the Health Care & Pharmaceuticals

and State Enforcement Committee’s program, “Exclusionary or Not? Product Hopping and REMS.” He was

also invited to speak for the ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s program "Product Hopping Cases: Where Are

We and Where Are We Headed" in December 2015, as well as Harris Martin Publishing’s Antitrust Pay-for-

Delay Litigation Conference in 2014 and 2015. In 2011, Mr. Kohn was selected as a Fellow in the Litigation

Counsel of America, a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of



15

American lawyers. He is a member of the bars of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1992-present), the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1995-present), the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (2010-present), the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit (2000-present), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2005-present), the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2016-present), and the United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit (2011-present).

RICHARD W. GONNELLO

Richard W. Gonnello is a partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Gonnello was a partner at Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and an associate

at Latham & Watkins LLP. He began his career representing large corporations in litigation, arbitration, and

governmental investigations. Mr. Gonnello now represents shareholders in securities fraud cases and other

investment disputes.

Mr. Gonnello has represented institutional and individual investors in obtaining substantial

recoveries in numerous class actions, including In re Royal Ahold Sec. Litig., No. 03-md-01539 (D. Md.

2003) ($1.1 billion) and In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, No. 08-cv-11117

(S.D.N.Y. 2011) ($100 million+). Mr. Gonnello has also obtained favorable recoveries for institutional

investors pursuing direct securities fraud claims, including cases against Qwest Communications

International, Inc. ($175 million+) and Tyco Int’l Ltd ($21 million).

Mr. Gonnello has successfully argued numerous cases, including Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int’l,

Ltd., Civ. No. 13-2370 (2015), which was before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and resulted in the

Court’s first reversal of a district court’s dismissal in the twenty years since the Private Securities Litigation

Reform Act was enacted in 1995.

Mr. Gonnello has co-authored the following articles: "'Staehr’ Hikes Burden of Proof to Place

Investor on Inquiry Notice, "New York Law Journal, December 15, 2008; and "Potential Securities Fraud:

'Storm Warnings' Clarified," New York Law Journal, October 23, 2008.

Mr. Gonnello attended the University of Chicago, where he was named to the Dean’s List every

quarter, and thereafter graduated summa cum laude from Rutgers University in 1995, where he was named

Phi Beta Kappa. He received his law degree from UCLA School of Law (J.D. 1998), and was a member of

the UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy.

T. TALYANA BROMBERG

Ms. Bromberg is a partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s Pennsylvania office.



16

Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Bromberg practiced law at Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. where she

represented whistleblowers in pharmaceutical, financial, health care, and government contractor cases,

with settlements totaling over $4.5 billion. Among these settlements was a $1.6 billion settlement against

Abbott Laboratories related to off-label promotion and payment of kickbacks for anti-seizure drug Depakote,

and a $3 billion settlement against GlaxoSmithKline related to unlawful marketing tactics and kickbacks for

GSK drugs. During her tenure at Grant & Eisenhofer, Ms. Bromberg, among others, also represented

sophisticated institutional investors in complex international securities class actions, including In re

Parmalat Securities Litigation and In re Vivendi Universal S.A. Securities Litigation.

Ms. Bromberg previously served as partner at a prominent law firm in Riga, Latvia, where she

focused on commercial litigation. She also served as in-house counsel for a U.S.-Latvian joint venture in

the exporting and manufacturing sector. Ms. Bromberg received her L.L.M. degree from the University of

Pennsylvania Law School and her J.D. equivalent from the University of Latvia School of Law in Riga, Latvia

in 1989. Ms. Bromberg is a member of the New York Bar and is admitted to practice in the United States

District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.

JOSEPH T. LUKENS

Mr. Lukens is a partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s Pennsylvania office.

Mr. Lukens was a shareholder at the Philadelphia firm of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &

Schiller, where he represented large retail pharmacy chains as opt-out plaintiffs in numerous lawsuits under

the Sherman Act. Among those lawsuits were In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation

(MDL 897, N.D. Ill.), In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1317, S.D. Fla.), In re TriCor

Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (05-605, D. Del.), In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation (MDL1515,

D.D.C.), In re OxyContin Antitrust Litigation (04-3719, S.D.N.Y), and In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust

Litigation (MDL 1935, M.D. Pa.). While the results in the opt-out cases are confidential, the parallel class

actions in those matters which are concluded have resulted in settlements exceeding $1.1 billion.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Lukens concentrated in commercial and civil rights litigation at the

Philadelphia firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis. The types of matters that Mr. Lukens handled

included antitrust, First Amendment, contracts, and licensing. Mr. Lukens also worked extensively on

several notable pro bono cases including Commonwealth v. Morales, which resulted in a rare reversal on

a second post-conviction petition in a capital case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Mr. Lukens graduated from LaSalle University (B.A. Political Science, cum laude, 1987) and

received his law degree from Temple University School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1992) where he

was an editor on the Temple Law Review and received several academic awards. After law school, Mr.

Lukens clerked for the Honorable Joseph J. Longobardi, Chief Judge for the United States District Court



17

for the District of Delaware (1992-93). Mr. Lukens is a member of the bars of the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania (1992-present), the United States Supreme Court (1996-present); the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1993-present), the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit (1993-present), and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of New Jersey (1994-

present).

Mr. Lukens has several publications, including: Bringing Market Discipline to Pharmaceutical

Product Reformulations, 42 Int'l Rev. Intel. Prop. & Comp. Law 698 (September 2011) (co-author with Steve

Shadowen and Keith Leffler); Anticompetitive Product Changes in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 41 Rutgers

L.J. 1 (2009) (co-author with Steve Shadowen and Keith Leffler); The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three

Strikes and You’re Out of Court — It May Be Effective, But Is It Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471

(1997); Pennsylvania Strips The Inventory Search Exception From Its Rationale – Commonwealth v. Nace,

64 Temp. L. Rev. 267 (1991).

STUART J. GUBER

Stuart J. Guber is a Partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s Pennsylvania office.

Mr. Guber focuses his practice on representing institutional and individual investors in class actions

under the federal securities laws, shareholder derivative suits and mergers and acquisitions litigation, as

well as other complex litigation representing consumers. During his 25-year career as a securities and

complex litigator, Mr. Guber, as one of the lead attorneys, has successfully litigated numerous shareholder

cases to settlement and verdict including In re Rite Aid Pharmacy Sec. Litig., No. MDL 1360 (E.D. Pa) ($320

Million settlement of securities class action); In re Tycom Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 03-CV-03540 (D. Conn.) ($79

million settlement in securities class action); In re Providian Financial Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 01-CV-3952

(N.D. Cal.) ($65 million settlement in securities class action); In re Bell South Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 02-CV-

2142 (N.D. Ga.) ($35 million settlement in securities class action); In re Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities

Fund Sec. Litig., No. 1:08-CV-11064 (D. Mass.) ($25 million class action securities settlement in which

participating class members will recover over 65% of their losses); Robbins v. Koger Properties, No. 90-

896-civ-J-10 (M.D. Flo.) (plaintiffs’ trial counsel in jury verdict awarding $81.3 million in damages); Maiocco,

et al. v. Greenway Capital Corp., et al., NASD No. 94-04396 (Lead trial counsel for plaintiffs in securities

arbitration awarding $227,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages); Solomon v.

T.F.M., Inc. (achieved defense verdict as lead trial counsel in securities arbitration representing Philadelphia

Stock Exchange options trading firm); Minerva Group LP v. Keane, Index No. 800621 (Sup. Ct. NY)

(mergers and acquisitions case settled for amendments to merger agreement, additional disclosures and a

price bump per share to be paid shareholders from $8.40 per share to $9.25 per share in merger

consideration). Mr. Guber has successfully litigated consumer class actions (for e.g., Nepomuceno v.



18

Knights of Columbus, No. Civ. A. 96 C 4789 (N.D. Ill.), settled for $22 million in life insurance vanishing

premium consumer fraud case) and successfully defended at trial a union health and welfare fund being

sued by a healthcare provider (Centre for Neuro Skills, Inc.-Texas v. Specialties & Paper Products Union

No. 527 Health and Welfare Fund, No. CC-07-10150-A (Cty. Ct. Dallas, Tex.), lead trial defense counsel

securing a directed verdict in favor of defendant).

Mr. Guber has also been involved as lead or co-lead counsel in litigation producing a number of

noteworthy published decisions including: South Ferry LP v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2008); Koehler

v. Brody, 483 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2007); Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.

2006); Garfield v. NDC Health, 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006); In re Cerner Corp. Sec. Litig., 425 F.3d

1079 (8th Cir. 2005); Nevius v. Read-Rite Corp., 335 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Koger Properties,

116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 50 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Evergreen Ultra

Short Opportunities Fund Se. Litig., 275 F.R.D. 382 (D. Mass. 2011) Marsden v. Select Med. Corp., 246

F.R.D. 480 (E.D. Pa. 2007); In re Friedman’s Inc. Securities Litigation, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (N.D. Ga.

2005); In re Bellsouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (N.D. Ga. 2005); Tri-Star Farms Ltd. v.

Marconi, PLC, et al., 225 F. Supp. 2d 567 (W.D. Pa. 2002); In re Campbell Soup Company Securities

Litigation, 145 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.N.J. 2001); In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 146 F. Supp. 2d 706

(E.D. Pa. 2001); In re ValuJet, Inc. Securities Litigation, 984 F. Supp. 1472 (N.D. Ga.1997); Schreiber v.

Kellogg, 194 B.R. 559 (E.D. Pa. 1996); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 839 F. Supp. 1157 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Schreiber

v. Kellogg, 838 F. Supp. 998 (E.D. Pa.1993).

Mr. Guber is admitted to practice before the state bars of Pennsylvania and Georgia and is admitted

to numerous federal courts including: United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

Northern District of Georgia, Eastern District of Michigan and District of Colorado; United Sates Circuit Court

of Appeals for the First, Third, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. He graduated with a Juris Doctor

from Temple University School of Law (1990) and with a B.S. in Business Administration, majoring in

accounting from Temple University (1986).

TIMOTHY J. PETER

Timothy J. Peter is a Partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s Pennsylvania office and focuses his practice

on securities law and complex civil litigation.

Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Mr. Peter was an Associate at Cohen Placittella & Roth, P.C. where

he was involved in such high profile litigation as: In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation ($8.25 million

recovery for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) and In re Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund

Securities Litigation ($25 million class action securities settlement in which participating class members will

recover over 65% of their losses). In addition, Mr. Peter played an important role in the resolution of In re



19

Minerva Group LP v. Mod-Pac Corp., et al., in which defendants increased the price of an insider buyout

from $8.20 to $9.25 per share, a significant victory for shareholders. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Peter

worked for one of largest financial institutions in the world where he gained significant insight into the inner

workings of the financial services industry.

Mr. Peter is a 2009 cum laude graduate of the Michigan State University College of Law, where he

served as an associate editor of the Journal of Medicine and Law. He received his undergraduate degree

in Economics from the College of Wooster in 2002.

Mr. Peter is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

JAMES M. WILSON, JR.

James M. Wilson, Jr. is a Partner in Faruqi & Faruqi LLP’s New York office

Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Mr. Wilson was a partner at Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, and a

senior associate with Reed Smith, LLP. Mr. Wilson has represented institutional pension funds,

corporations and individual investors in courts around the country and obtained significant recoveries,

including the following securities class actions: In re ArthroCare Sec. Litig. No. 08-0574 (W.D. Tex.) ($74

million); In re Maxim Integrated Prod. Sec. Litig., No. 08-0832 (N.D.Cal.) ($173 million); In re TyCom Ltd.

Sec. Litig., MDL No. 02-1335 (D.N.H.)($79 million); and In re Providian Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 01-3952

(N.D. Cal.). Mr. Wilson also has obtained significant relief for shareholders in merger suits, including the

following: In re Zoran Corporation Shareholders Litig., No. 6212-VCP (Del. Chancery); and In re The Coca-

Cola Company Shareholder Litigation, No. 10-182035 (Fulton County Superior Ct.).

Mr. Wilson has authored numerous articles addressing current developments including the

following Expert Commentaries published by Lexis Nexis: The Liability Faced By Financial Institutions From

Exposure To Subprime Mortgages; Losses Attributable To Sub-Prime Mortgages; The Supreme Court's

Decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. et al.; Derivative Suite by LLC

Members in New York: Tzolis v. Wolff, 10 N.Y.3d 100 (Feb. 14, 2008).

Mr. Wilson obtained his undergraduate degree from Georgia State University (B.A. 1988), his law

degree from the University of Georgia (J.D. 1991), and Masters in Tax Law from New York University (LL.M.

1992). He is licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York and is admitted to the United States District

Courts for Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia, the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and

the Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eleventh Circuits.

ROBERT W. KILLORIN

Robert W. Killorin is a Partner with the firm, and is based in Atlanta. His practice is focused on



20

shareholder merger and securities litigation. Mr. Killorin is an accomplished trial lawyer with over twenty

years of experience in civil litigation. Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Mr. Killorin was a partner at the firm

of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP where he specialized in complex securities litigation. Mr. Killorin has

represented numerous individual plaintiffs, as well as institutional pension funds, corporations and

individual investors in courts around the country. He has obtained significant recoveries, including the

following securities class actions: In re FireEye, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 14-266866 ($10 million settlement

pending); In re ArthroCare Sec. Litig. No. 08-0574 (W.D. Tex.) ($74 million); In re Maxim Integrated Prod.

Sec. Litig., No. 08-0832 (N.D. Cal.) ($173 million); In re TyCom Ltd. Sec. Litig., MDL No. 02-1335 (D.N.H.)

($79 million); and In re Providian Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 01-3952 (N.D. Cal.). Mr. Killorin has obtained

significant relief for shareholders in merger suits, including the following: In re The Coca-Cola Company

Shareholder Litigation, No. 10-182035 (Fulton County Superior Ct.).

Mr. Killorin authored “Preparing Clients to Testify” – Chapter 19 of Civil Trial Practice, Winning

Techniques of Successful Trial Attorneys, Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company (2000), and has

written articles and lectured on various legal topics. He is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and is an

AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated attorney.

Mr. Killorin obtained his undergraduate degree from Duke University (B.A., cum laude, 1988) and

his law degree from the University of Georgia (J.D. 1983) where he was on the national mock trial team

and a national moot court team. He is licensed to practice law in Georgia and is admitted to the United

States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States District Courts

for Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia.

ADAM STEINFELD

Adam Steinfeld is a Partner in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office. He practices in the area of

antitrust litigation with a focus on competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Steinfeld has litigated successfully with significant contributions in In re Buspirone Patent &

Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1410 (S.D.N.Y.) ($220M settlement); In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation,

No. 99-MD-1278 (E.D. Mich.) ($110M settlement); In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, No. 01-12239 (D.

Mass.) ($175M settlement); In re Remeron Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-cv-0085 (D.N.J.)

($75M settlement); In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, No. 99-MDL-1317 (S.D. Fla.) ($72.5M

settlement); In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 05-340 (D. Del.) ($250M settlement); and

Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott, No. 12-cv-3824 (E.D. Pa.) ($12 million settlement).

Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Mr. Steinfeld was associated with Grant and Eisenhofer, P.A.

(2011-2015) and a partner at Garwin, Gerstein and Fisher, LLP, New York (1997-2009).



21

Mr. Steinfeld is the author of Nuclear Objections: The Persistent Objector and the Legality of the

Use of Nuclear Weapons, 62 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1635 (winter, 1996).

Mr. Steinfeld received his law degree from Brooklyn Law School (J.D., 1997) where he was an

editor on the Brooklyn Law Review and received several academic awards. Mr. Steinfeld is a member of

the bars of the States of New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts; and is admitted to practice before the

United States District Courts for the District New Jersey, Eastern District of New York, Southern District of

New York, and Western District of New York. Mr. Steinfeld graduated from Brandeis University (B.A.,

Politics, 1994).

MICHAEL VAN GORDER

Michael Van Gorder’s practice is focused on securities litigation. Mr. Van Gorder is a Partner in

the firm’s Delaware office.

Prior to joining F&F, Mr. Van Gorder served as a law clerk to the Honorable James T. Vaughn, Jr.

of the Delaware Supreme Court (2015-16). While attending law school, Mr. Van Gorder served as the

Editor-in-Chief of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law and was selected as a Josiah Oliver Wolcott

Fellow with the Delaware Supreme Court. Before law school, Mr. Van Gorder worked in the private bank

of a global financial services firm where he held multiple securities licenses.

Mr. Van Gorder has authored the following article: Boilermakers v. Chevron: Are Board Adopted

Arbitration Bylaws Valid Under Delaware’s General Corporation Law?, 39 Del. J. Corp. L. 443 (2014).

Mr. Van Gorder received his J.D., magna cum laude, from Widener University School of Law

(2015). Mr. Van Gorder received his B.S., Business Management, 2008; M.B.A., Finance, 2011, from

Wilmington University.

Mr. Van Gorder is licensed to practice law in the state of Delaware.

CHRISTINE GOODRICH

Christine Goodrich is a Senior Associate in the New York office of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Ms. Goodrich’s practice is focused in securities arbitration and litigation. Ms. Goodrich represents

financial service professionals in the securities industry in employment-related disputes, regulatory matters,

transition planning and succession planning. Ms. Goodrich also represents investors in disputes against

their broker-dealers.

Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Ms. Goodrich was the resident partner in the New York office of

Eccleston Law, LLC. Ms. Goodrich’s practice focused on representing financial service professionals and

investors in the area of securities arbitration and litigation.

Ms. Goodrich earned her undergraduate degree at Case Western Reserve University (B.S.,



22

Business Management, 2007). Ms. Goodrich earned her Juris Doctor from Pace Law School (J.D. and

International Law Certificate, 2011) and her Master in Business Administration from the Lubin School of

Business (M.B.A., 2011).

Ms. Goodrich is licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey and is admitted to practice

before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Ms. Goodrich is a member of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA), the New

York City Bar Association (NYCBA) and the Financial Planning Association (FPA). Ms. Goodrich also

serves on the Board of Directors of Case Western Reserve University’s New York Alumni Association, as

well as the Allied Professionals Committee of the Financial Planning Association of New York. Ms.

Goodrich has co-authored several articles for the Journal of Practical Management and Risk Compliance

for the Securities Industry.

NINA VARINDANI

Nina Varindani is a Senior Associate in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Varindani practiced commercial litigation at Milber Makris Plousadis &

Seiden, LLP where she represented directors, officers and other professionals and corporations in complex

commercial litigation in federal and state courts. Additionally, Ms. Varindani gained further litigation

experience in law school through internships at Collen IP and the New York State Judicial Institute.

Ms. Varindani is licensed to practice law in New York and is admitted to practice before the United

States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York.

Ms. Varindani graduated from the George Washington University (B.A. in Psychology, 2006) and

Pace Law School (J.D., 2010).

MEGAN SULLIVAN

Megan Sullivan is a Senior Associate in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Sullivan was a litigation associate at Crosby & Higgins LLP where she

represented institutional and individual investors in securities arbitrations before FINRA and counseled

corporate clients in commercial disputes in federal court. Additionally, Ms. Sullivan gained further litigation

experience in law school through internships at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office and the

Adjudication Division of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs.

Ms. Sullivan graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles (B.A., History, 2008) and from

Brooklyn Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2011). While at Brooklyn Law School, Ms. Sullivan served as

Associate Managing Editor of the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law.

Ms. Sullivan is licensed to practice law in the State of New York.



23

INNESSA MELAMED HUOT

Innessa Melamed Huot is a Senior Associate in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Huot practiced complex commercial and securities litigation at Gusrae

Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC. Ms. Huot, along with co-counsel, represented minority shareholders at trial in a

derivative lawsuit captioned Lisa Romita v. Castle Oil Corp., et. al., Index No.: 53145/2011. Ms. Huot was

also an associate at Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, where she represented primary and

excess insurance carriers in complex coverage disputes and insurance defense litigation. Additionally, Ms.

Huot gained further litigation experience in law school through internships at Wilson Elser Moskowitz

Edelman & Dicker, LLP and Citigroup’s Office of the General Counsel.

Ms. Huot graduated from Syracuse University (B.A. in Political Science and International Relations,

summa cum laude, 2007), Pace Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 2011) and Pace Lubin School of

Business (M.B.A. in Finance, summa cum laude, 2011).

Ms. Huot is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and is admitted to

practice before the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District

of New York and the District of New Jersey.

NEILL CLARK

Mr. Clark is an Associate in Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP’s Pennsylvania office.

Before joining the firm, Mr. Clark was an associate at Berger & Montague, P.C. where he was

significantly involved in prosecuting antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers of brand name

drugs and charging pharmaceutical manufacturers with illegally blocking the market entry of less expensive

competitors.

Eight of those cases have resulted in substantial settlements totaling over $950 million: In re

Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2002 for $110 million; In re Buspirone Antitrust Litig.

settled in April 2003 for $220 million; In re Relafen Antitrust Litig. settled in February 2004 for $175 million;

In re Platinol Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2004 for $50 million; In re Terazosin Antitrust Litig. settled

in April 2005 for $75 million; In re Remeron Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2005 for $75 million; In re

Ovcon Antitrust Litig. settled in 2009 for $22 million; and In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig. settled

in April 2009 for $250 million.

Mr. Clark was also principally involved in a case alleging a conspiracy among hospitals and the

Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association to depress the compensation of per diem and traveling nurses,

Johnson et al. v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association et al., No. CV07-1292 (D. Ariz.).



24

Mr. Clark was selected as a “Rising Star” by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and listed as one of the

Top Young Lawyers in Pennsylvania in the December 2005 edition of Philadelphia Magazine. Two cases

in which he has been significantly involved have been featured as "Noteworthy Cases" in the NATIONAL

LAW JOURNAL articles, “The Plaintiffs’ Hot List" (In re Tricor Antitrust Litig. October 5, 2009 and Johnson

v. Arizona Hosp. and Healthcare Ass'n., October 3, 2011).

Mr. Clark graduated cum laude from Appalachian State University in 1994 and from Temple

University Beasley School of Law in 1998, where he earned seven "distinguished class performance"

awards, an oral advocacy award and a "best paper" award.

KATHERINE M. LENAHAN

Katherine M. Lenahan is a Senior Associate in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office.

Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Ms. Lenahan practiced securities litigation at Entwistle & Cappucci

LLP. Ms. Lenahan gained further experience through internships for the Honorable Sherry Klein Heitler,

Administrative Judge for Civil Matters, First Judicial District, and the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

Ms. Lenahan graduated from Fordham University (B.A., Political Science, magna cum laude, 2009)

and Fordham University School of Law (J.D., 2012). While at Fordham Law School, Ms. Lenahan served

as an associate editor of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal and was

a fellow at the Center on Law and Information Policy.

Ms. Lenahan is licensed to practice law in New York.

DAVID CALVELLO

David Calvello is an Associate in Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP’s New York office where his focus is litigating

Antitrust matters.

Mr. Calvello graduated from the University of Richmond (B.S., 2011) with a double major in Finance

and Political Science and Pace Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 2014). He is licensed to practice law

in New York and New Jersey and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for New

Jersey.

Prior to joining Faruqi & Faruqi, Mr. Calvello was as an Associate at Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan,

LLP where he focused primarily on insurance coverage matters with respect to Directors & Officers (D&O),

Errors & Omissions (E&O), and Professional Liability lines of coverage. In law school, Mr. Calvello served

as an editor on the Pace International Law Review and received the New Rochelle Bar Association Award

upon graduation. He was also very active in moot court competitions, and competed in the Willem C. Vis

International Commercial Arbitration Moot held in Vienna, Austria.



25

JOSEPHINE REINA

Josephine Reina’s practice is focused on employment litigation, consumer class actions, and mass

tort litigation. Ms. Reina is an Associate in the firm’s New York office.

Prior to joining F&F, Ms. Reina was an associate with a New York law firm that specializes in

pharmaceutical and medical device mass torts. Her experience includes all aspects of mass torts litigation.

Ms. Reina graduated from Towson University (B.A., Law and American Civilization, 2010) and the

University of Baltimore School Of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 2013), where she was a member of Law

Review.

Ms. Reina is barred in Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey.

SHERIEF MORSY

Sherief Morsy’s practice is focused on securities litigation. Mr. Morsy is an Associate in the firm’s

New York office.

Prior to joining F&F, Mr. Morsy was a litigation associate at a New York law firm where he

specialized in New York State Appellate practice. Mr. Morsy also gained litigation experience as an intern

with the Honorable Shira A. Sheindlin, Southern District of New York (2013). He interned as well with a

New York securities firm, a multinational corporation, and the King’s County DA’s office.

Mr. Morsy received his J.D., cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School, 2014. While at Brooklyn Law

School, Mr. Morsy was a Notes and Comments Editor of the Brooklyn Law Review. He is the author of The

JOBS Act and Crowdfunding: How Narrowing the Secondary Market Handicaps Fraud Plaintiffs, 79 Brook.

L. Rev. (2014), Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 79, Issue 3. Mr. Morsy received his B.A. in Political Science

and Philosophy, Rutgers University, 2010.

Mr. Morsy is licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey.

BENJAMIN HEIKALI

Benjamin Heikali’s practice is focused on securities and consumer litigation. Mr. Heikali is a Partner

in the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Prior to joining F&F, Mr. Heikali interned at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division

of Enforcement, focusing on municipal bond litigation and financial fraud work.

Mr. Heikali graduated U.C.L.A. School of Law (J.D., 2015). During law school, Mr. Heikali was

awarded the Masin Family Academic Excellence Award for outstanding performance; and the 2015

American College of Bankruptcy Law Meet, “Best Term Sheet.” As well, Mr. Heikali served as Staff Editor



26

of the U.C.L.A. Entertainment Law Review. Mr. Heikali received his B.A. in Psychology, with honors, from

University of Southern California, 2012.

Mr. Heikali is licensed to practice law in California and is admitted to practice before the United

States District Courts for the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California.

KRISTYN FIELDS

Kristyn Fields’ practice is focused on antitrust litigation. Ms. Fields is an Associate in the firm’s

New York office.

Prior to joining F&F, Ms. Fields interned for the Honorable Martin Marcus, New York Supreme

Court, Bronx County. As well, Ms. Fields participated in the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic

providing pro bono counsel to emerging start-up companies. While at Brooklyn Law School, Ms. Fields

served as an Executive Articles Editor of the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial

Law. Also, Ms. Fields was a member of the Moot Court Honor Society.

Ms. Fields earned her J.D. from Brooklyn Law School (2016). Ms. Fields earned her undergraduate

degree from Boston College (B.A., Political Science, 2013).

Ms. Fields is licensed to practice law in New York.

NICHOLAS P. STOCKTON

Nicholas Stockton’s practice is focused on securities litigation. Mr. Stockton is a law clerk in the

firm’s New York office.

Prior to joining F&F, Mr. Stockton was a Volunteer Assistant Attorney General in the Office of the

New York State Attorney General. Mr. Stockton gained further experience through internships for the

Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Senior United States District Judge, Eastern District of Missouri, and the

Office of the Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Illinois. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Stockton

spent almost a decade trading equities and futures.

Mr. Stockton earned his J.D. from Washington University School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude,

2016) and his undergraduate degree from Columbia University (B.A., History, cum laude, 2003).

Mr. Stockton successfully sat for the Uniform Bar Examination for New York State in July, 2016.

PATRICK J. COLLOPY

Patrick Collopy’s practice is focused on employment litigation. Mr. Collopy is an Associate in the

firm’s New York office.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Collopy served as a legal intern at a New York law firm. Mr. Collopy

gained experience in employment law while interning on Capital Hill at the Congressional Office of

Compliance. Additionally, gained further litigation experience as a legal intern at the Kings County District



27

Attorney’s Office.

Mr. Collopy earned his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School (2016) and his undergraduate degree from

Fordham University (B.A., History; Minor in Economics, 2009).

Mr. Collopy is licensed to practice law in New York.

DILLON HAGIUS

Dillon Hagius’s practice is focused on securities litigation. Mr. Hagius is an associate in the firm’s

New York office.

Prior to joining F&F, Mr. Hagius served as a judicial clerk in Maryland’s 10th Judicial District. At

UCLA Law School, Mr. Hagius was a research assistant; an Empirical Legal Scholar; a staff editor on the

UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs and travelled to the Eastern Congo to research

gender violence. As well in law school, Mr. Hagius externed at the Securities and Exchange Commission

in the Division of Corporation Finance, Office of the Enforcement Liaison and the Office of International

Affairs.

Mr. Hagius earned his J.D. from UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA (J.D. 2016, Dean’s

Scholarship). Mr. Hagius graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park (B.S. International

Business with honors, 2013).

Mr. Hagius is barred in New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.


EXHIBIT 5


1

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive

San Diego ▪ CA ▪ 92103 Tel.: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665

Firm Resume

FIRM OVERVIEW

The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron is a recognized class action and complex litigation firm based out of San Diego, California, representing clients across the nation. Founded in 1996 with an emphasis in consumer and securities fraud, the firm has expanded its practice to include complex cases such as Ponzi schemes and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has skillfully litigated hundreds of lawsuits and arbitrations against investment advisors and stockbrokers, such as Morgan Stanley, LPL Financial, Merrill Lynch, Banc of America Securities, and Citigroup, who placed clients into unsuitable investments, failed to diversify, and who violated the Securities Act of 1933 and/or 1934. Aptly and competently prepared to represent its clients, the firm has taken on cases against the likes of Shell Oil, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Union Bank of California, American Express Advisors, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. Since 2004, the firm has devoted most of its practice to the area of false and misleading labeling of consumer products and food, drug and over-the-counter products, and has sought to protect consumers from unauthorized and unsolicited telephone calls, SMS or text messages to cellular phones under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The firm currently employs five attorneys, whose qualifications are discussed in brief below.

THE MARRON FIRM’S ATTORNEYS:

Ronald A. Marron, Founder As the founder of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Mr. Marron has been practicing law for 22 years. He was a member of the United States Marine Corps from 1984 to 1990 (Active Duty 1984-1988, Reserves 1988-1990) and thereafter received a B.S. in Finance from the University of Southern California in 1991. While attending Southwestern University School of Law (1992-1994), he interned at the California Department of Corporations with emphasis in consumer complaints and fraud investigations. Mr. Marron has extensive experience in class actions and other complex litigation and has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of consumers as lead counsel. Mr. Marron has represented plaintiffs victimized in Ponzi schemes, shareholder derivative suits, and securities fraud cases. Mr. Marron has assisted two United States Senate Subcommittees and their staff in investigations of financial fraud, plus the Senate Subcommittee on Aging relating to annuity


2

sales practices by agents using proceeds from reverse mortgages. Mr. Marron's clients have testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Investigations relating to abusive sales practices alleged in a complaint he filed against All-Tech Investment Group. The hearings resulted in federal legislation that: (a) raised the minimum capital requirements, and (b) required written risk disclosure signed by consumer. The civil action resulted in return of client funds and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the private attorney general statute and/or Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Mr. Marron conducted the legal research and co-wrote the brief that resulted in the largest punitive damages award (500%) in NASD history for aggrieved investors against Dean Witter Reynolds in securities arbitration. Mr. Marron's opinion on deferred annuity sales practices targeting the elderly has often been sought by major financial news organizations and publications such as Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, the Kiplinger's Retirement Report, CNN, and FOX News affiliates. In addition, he has devoted significant energy and time educating seniors and senior citizen service providers, legislators, and various non-profits (including Elder Law & Advocacy) about deferred annuity sales practices targeting the elderly. Mr. Marron had numerous speaking engagements at FAST (Fiduciary Abuse Specialist Team), which is an organization devoted to the detection of, prevention, and prosecution of elder financial abuse; Adult Protective Services; and Elder Law & Advocacy, a non-profit dedicated to assisting seniors who have been the victims of financial fraud. He has litigated hundreds of lawsuits and arbitrations against major corporations, such as Shell Oil, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. In recent years, Mr. Marron has devoted almost all of his practice to the area of false and misleading labeling of food, dietary supplements, and over-the-counter products. He is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California; the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Alexis M. Wood, Senior Associate Ms. Wood graduated cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2009, where she was the recipient of the Dean’s Merit Scholarship for Ethnic & Cultural Diversity and also Creative Problem Solving Scholarships. In addition, during law school, Ms. Wood was the President of the Elder, Child, and Family Law Society, and participated in the study abroad program on international and comparative human rights law in Galway, Ireland. Ms. Wood interned for the Alternate Public Defender during law school, and also held a judicial externship with the San Diego Superior Court. Upon graduation, Ms. Wood obtained her Nevada Bar license and worked at the law firm Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders in Las Vegas, Nevada where she specialized in medical malpractice. Ms. Wood then obtained her license to practice law in California in 2010 and worked at the bankruptcy firm Pite Duncan, LLP in San Diego, California, in which she represented financial institutions in bankruptcy proceedings. She additionally worked for the national law firm Gordon & Rees, LLP as an associate attorney in the professional liability defense and tort & product liability practice groups. Ms. Wood was also selected to the 2015 and 2016 California Super Lawyers Rising Star list (general category)—a research-driven, peer influenced rating


3

service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. No more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state were selected for the Rising Stars list. Ms. Wood joined the Law Office of Ronald Marron in September of 2012 and has dedicated her practice to consumer advocacy. Ms. Wood is also a foster youth advocate with Voices for Children. She is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California; the State Bar of Nevada; the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the United States District Court of Nevada; and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Kas L. Gallucci, Senior Associate Ms. Gallucci graduated cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2012, where she ranked in the top 12% of her graduating class and was listed on the Dean’s Honor List for four terms. During law school, Ms. Gallucci received the highest grade in her Legal Skills and Advanced Legal Research classes. She also participated in the Capitals of Europe Summer Study Abroad Program, where the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was a Distinguished Guest Jurist. Ms. Gallucci has worked for the firm since 2009 and has a number of years’ experience in consumer fraud cases and is currently prosecuting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Gallucci also regularly assists with the firm’s food, drug, and cosmetic cases. She is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California; the United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Michael Houchin, Associate Mr. Houchin has been with the Marron Firm for approximately six years. Prior to passing the California bar exam, Mr. Houchin worked as a law clerk for the firm while he attended law school courses in the evenings at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. During law school, Mr. Houchin received four Witkin Awards for the highest grade achieved in his Legal Writing, Constitutional Law, American Indian Law, and California Civil Procedure courses. He also served as an editor on the Thomas Jefferson Law Review and was a member of an editing team that prepared a student Note for compliance with publishable quality standards. See I. Suruelo, Harmonizing Section 14(B) with The Policy Goals of the NLRA on the Heels of Michigan's Enactment of Right-To-Work Laws, 36 T. JEFFERSON L. REV. 427 (2014). Mr. Houchin graduated magna cum laude in May of 2015 and ranked in the top 5% of his graduating class. Through his work at the Marron Firm, Mr. Houchin has gained substantial familiarity with multi-district litigation proceedings, solutions for e-discovery management, and false advertising investigations. He is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California; and the United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California. Adam T. Belsey, Associate Mr. Belsey graduated from Santa Clara University School of Law in 2016. During law school, Mr. Belsey received the CALI Excellence for the Future Award, awarded to students


4

who receive the highest grade in a course, for Property Law and Criminal Law. While attending law school part time in the evenings, Mr. Belsey participated in the Northern California Innocence Project Student Law Clinic, dedicated to obtaining freedom for innocent people in prison, and served as an editor for the Santa Clara Law Review. Mr. Belsey was also published in the Santa Clara Law Review Volume 56 for his article: When Innocence is Confidential: A New and Essential Exception to Attorney-Client Confidentiality, discussing alternatives to absolute confidentiality when it only serves to harm the innocent. After Graduating law school, Mr. Belsey began working for the Marron Firm as a law clerk in March of 2017 until he received his California Bar License in June the same year. Mr. Belsey is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. Support Staff The Marron Firm also employs a number of knowledgeable and experienced support staff, including law clerks, paralegals, legal assistants, and other support staff. EXAMPLES OF MARRON FIRM’S SUCCESSES ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS Sanders v. R.B.S. Citizens, N.A., 13-CV-03136-BAS (RBB) (S.D. Cal.) On July 1, 2016, the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant certified a nationwide class, for settlement purposes, of over one million persons receiving cell phone calls from Citizens made with an alleged automatic telephone dialing system. Dkt. 107. The Court appointed the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as class counsel, noting they have “significant experience in handling class actions.” Id. On January 27, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the over $4.5 million dollar settlement. Burton v. Ganeden Biotech, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01471-W-NLS (S.D. Cal.) Action alleging false and deceptive advertising of dietary supplement. On March 13, 2012, my firm settled the case for $900,000 in a common fund plus injunctive relief in the form of labeling changes. Final approval was granted on October 5, 2012. Carr v. Tadin, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-03040-JLS-JMA (S.D. Cal.) An injunctive relief class action settlement, requiring manufacturer of diet teas and other health supplements to re-label their products to avoid alleged consumer confusion, was filed in January 2014 before the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino. The Marron Firm was certified as class counsel and the classwide settlement was granted final approval on December 5, 2014. Clark v. National Western Life Insurance Co., No. BC321681 (L.A. Co. Super. Ct.) Class action involving allegations of elder financial abuse and fraud. After litigating the case for well over six years, including Mr. Marron being appointed class counsel, the case resulted in a settlement of approximately $25 million for consumers. Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-2039-JAH (S.D. Cal.) The firm was class counsel for consumers of homeopathic drug products in an action


5

against Boiron, Inc., the largest foreign manufacturer of homeopathic products in the United States, involving allegations that Boiron’s labeling and advertising were false and misleading. We obtained a nation-wide settlement for the class which provided injunctive relief and restitution from a common fund of $5 million. The settlement was upheld by the Ninth Circuit on February 21, 2015. The case also set an industry standard for homeopathic drug labeling. See www.homeopathicpharmacy.org/pdf/ press/AAHP_Advertising_ Guidelines.pdf. Hohenberg v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB (S.D. Cal.) This case involved false and deceptive advertising of sugary food product as a healthy breakfast food for children. After successfully defeating a motion to dismiss, Hohenberg, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38471, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2011), the Hon. Marilyn Huff certified a class on November 15, 2011, resulting in a published decision, In re Ferrero Litig., 278 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. Cal. 2011). A final settlement consisting of injunctive relief labeling and marketing changes, plus a $550,000 common fund for monetary relief to the class was finally approved on July 9, 2012. In re Quaker Oats Labeling Litigation, No. 5:10-cv-00502-RS (N.D. Cal.) False and deceptive advertising case concerning Instant Oats, Chewy Granola Bars and Oatmeal To Go products, including use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil while also representing the products as healthy snacks. An injunctive relief class action settlement was granted preliminary approval on February 2, 2014, with my firm being appointed Class Counsel. On July 29, 2014, the court granted the settlement final approval. In re Leaf123 (Augustine v. Natrol), Case No. 14-114466 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware) This action involved allegations of false and deceptive advertising of Senna Leaf tea products as dietary aids. Plaintiff alleged Senna Leaf is nothing more than a stimulant laxative which does not aid diets but hinders them. After a strong showing in the district court, and pursuant to other actions against the defendant manufacturer, the defendant filed for bankruptcy. The Marron Firm followed defendant to the federal bankruptcy court and retained bankruptcy counsel to assist. After a full day mediation before a retired federal jurist, and months of follow up negotiations, a settlement was reached. On August 7, 2015, in In re Leaf123 (adversary proceeding of Augustine v. Natrol), the Hon. Brendan L. Shannon approved an injunctive relief-only settlement, finding it “fair, reasonable and adequate.” In re Qunol CoQ10 Liquid Labeling Litigation, No. 8:11-cv-173-DOC (C.D. Cal.) This case involved false and deceptive consumer advertising of a dietary supplement. My firm was appointed class counsel and successfully defeated defendants’ motion to decertify the class following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012). See Bruno v. Eckhart Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30873 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012); see also Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132323 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). The case settled on the eve of trial (originally scheduled for


6

October 2, 2012) for cash payments to the class and injunctive relief. Iorio v. Asset Marketing Systems, Inc., No. 05cv00633-IEG-CAB (S.D. Cal.) This action involved allegations of elder financial abuse and fraud. Mr. Marron was appointed class counsel on August 24, 2006, and certified a class on July 25, 2006. After nearly six years of intensive litigation, including “challenges to the pleadings, class certification, class decertification, summary judgment,…motion to modify the class definition, motion to strike various remedies in the prayer for relief, and motion to decertify the Class’ punitive damages claim,” plus three petitions to the Ninth Circuit, attempting to challenge the Rule 23(f) class certification, a settlement valued at $110 million was reached and approved on March 3, 2011. Iorio, Dkt. No. 480. In granting final approval to the settlement, the Court noted that class counsel were “highly experienced trial lawyers with specialized knowledge in insurance and annuity litigation, and complex class action litigation generally” and “capable of properly assessing the risks, expenses, and duration of continued litigation, including at trial and on appeal.” Id. at 7:18-22. Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01570-MMC (N.D. Cal.) An injunctive relief class action settlement, requiring manufacturer of senna leaf diet teas to re-label their products and remove ingredients based on alleged consumer confusion and harm, was filed in April 2014. The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, Senior U.S. District Court Judge certified the Marron Firm as class counsel and granted final approval to a classwide settlement on November 16, 2015. Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., No. 3:14-CV-01570-MMC, 2015 WL 8943150, at *3, *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) (“Class Counsel has fully and competently prosecuted all causes of action, claims, theories of liability, and remedies reasonably available to the Class Members. The Court hereby affirms its appointment of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC as Class Counsel . . . . Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel are highly experienced civil litigation attorneys with specialized knowledge in food and drug labeling issues, and complex class action litigation generally.”). Martinez v. Toll Brothers, No. 09-cv-00937-CDJ (E.D. Penn.) Shareholder derivative case alleging breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment and insider trading, filed derivatively on behalf of Toll Brothers and against individual corporate officers. Under a joint prosecution agreement, this action was litigated along with other consolidated and related actions against Toll Brothers in a case styled Pfeiffer v. Toll Brothers, No. 4140-VCL in the Delaware Chancery Court. After extensive litigation, the case settled in September 2012 for $16.25 million in reimbursement to the corporation. Mason v. Heel, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-3056-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.) Action alleging false and deceptive advertising of over-the-counter homeopathic drugs. On October 31, 2013, the Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class settlement of $1 million in monetary relief for the class plus four significant forms of injunctive relief. Final approval was granted on March 13, 2014. See Mason v. Heel, Inc.,


7

3:12-CV-03056-GPC, 2014 WL 1664271 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014). Nigh v. Humphreys Pharmacal, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02714-MMA-DHB (S.D. Cal.) Case involving allegations of false and deceptive advertising of homeopathic over-the-counter drugs as effective when they allegedly were not. On October 23, 2013, a global settlement was granted final approved by the Hon. Michael M. Anello, involving a common fund of $1.4 million plus five significant forms of injunctive relief for consumers. Perry v. Truong Giang Corp., Case No. BC58568 (Los Angeles Superior Court) The plaintiff in this case alleged defendant’s Senna Leaf teas, advertised as diet aids, were falsely or misleadingly advertised to consumers. After an all-day mediation, a class wide settlement was reached. In granting final approval to the settlement on August 5, 2015, the Hon. Kenneth Freeman noted that class counsel’s hourly rates were “reasonable” and stated the Marron Firm’s lawyers used skill in securing the positive results achieved on behalf of the class. The court also noted “this case involved difficult legal issues because federal and state laws governing dietary supplements are a gray area, . . . the attorneys displayed skill in researching and settling this case, which provides a benefit not only to Class Members but to the public at large . . . .” Peterman v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance, No. BC357194 (L.A. Co. Super. Ct.), involved allegations of elder financial abuse. This case was litigated for over four years and achieved a settlement of approximately $60 million for consumers. Vaccarino v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-05858-CAS(MANx) (C.D. Cal) This action involved allegations of elder financial abuse and fraud. On June 17, 2013, the Honorable Christina A. Snyder appointed the Marron Firm as Class Counsel, and on February 3, 2014, the Court certified a class of annuities purchasers under various theories of relief, including breach of contract and the UCL. On September 22, 2014, the court granted final approval to a class action settlement that achieved a settlement of approximately $5.55 million for consumers, including cy pres relief to the Congress of California Seniors. CURRENT AND NOTABLE APPOINTMENTS AS CLASS COUNSEL Golden v. American Pro Energy, No. EDCV 16-0891 MWF (C.D. Cal.) On May 11, 2017, the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald certified a TCPA class of all individuals in the United States who were called on a cellular telephone by or on behalf of American Pro Energy, using predictive dialers, between May 3, 2012 and the present and appointed the attorneys at the Marron Firm as class counsel. O’Shea v. American Solar Solution, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB (S.D. Cal.) On March 3, 2017, the Honorable M. James Lorenz certified a TCPA class of all individuals in the United States who were called on or behalf of the defendant, using the ViciDial


8

predictive dialers, on a cellular telephone number, between November 22, 2012 and August 22, 2015, and appointed Ronald Marron, Alexis Wood and Kas Gallucci as class counsel. Thornton v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., No. 16CH 5780 (Cook County) On July 5, 2017, the Honorable Thomas R. Allen appoints attorneys at the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as co-lead class counsel in a TCPA litigation. Akmal v. California Physicians’ Service, dba Blue Shield of California, No. BC540033 (L.A. Co. Super. Ct.) On June 14, 2017, the Honorable Carolyn B. Huhl certified a class of California residents whose claims for excess skin surgery were denied under Blue Shield of California health plans and appointed the attorneys at the Marron Firm as class counsel. Allen v. Similasan Corp., No. 12-cv-376 BAS (JLB) (S.D. Cal.) A California class of consumers alleging false and deceptive advertising of six homeopathic drugs was certified by the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant on March 30, 2015, with the Court noting that the firm was experienced and competent to prosecute the matter on behalf of the Class. Judge Bashant denied summary judgment on the class’ claims that the drug products were not effective, as advertised, and certified claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, breach of express and implied warranty, and violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Lucero v. Tommie Copper, Inc., No. 15-cv-3183-AT (LMS) (S.D. N.Y.) This case involves allegations of false and deceptive advertising and endorser liability for copper fabric compression clothing. On January 4, 2016, the Honorable Analisa Torres appointed the Marron firm as Interim Lead Class Counsel over the opposition and challenge of other plaintiffs’ counsel, noting that the Marron firm’s “detailed” complaint was “more specifically pleaded, . . . assert[ing] a more comprehensive set of theories . . . [and was] more factually developed.” Potzner v. Tommie Copper Inc., No. 15 CIV. 3183 (AT), 2016 WL 304746, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016). Judge Torres also noted that Mr. Marron and his firm’s attorneys had “substantial experience litigating complex consumer class actions, are familiar with the applicable law, and have the resources necessary to represent the class.” Id. In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF (D. N.M.) On May 24, 2016, Ronald A. Marron was appointed to the Executive Committee in a multidistrict litigation.


EXHIBIT 6


VOZZOLO LLC

345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, NJ

Phone: 201-630-8820 Facsimile: 201-604-8400

FIRM RESUME

Vozzolo LLC is a civil litigation firm with offices in New York and New Jersey. The

firm focuses on complex litigation, including consumer protection class actions as well as

securities and shareholder derivative litigation. The firm litigates cases throughout the country,

including both federal and state courts. The firm’s attorneys are experienced in, and thoroughly

familiar with, all aspects of class action litigation, including the underlying substantive law, the

substance and procedure of class certification, and trial. In numerous high-profile matters,

Vozzolo LLC’s founder, Antonio Vozzolo has played a principal or lead role establishing new

law, obtaining groundbreaking rulings and securing substantial recoveries for his clients.

ANTONIO VOZZOLO

Antonio Vozzolo is a civil litigator and trial lawyer who focuses on complex litigation,

class actions and consumer protection. Before creating the firm in 2016, Mr. Vozzolo was a

partner at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, one of the country’s leading securities litigation firms, serving in

various capacities including Chair of the firm’s Consumer Litigation Department, and Chair of the

firm’s Securities Litigation Department. There, he represented aggrieved individuals, consumers

and investors in a wide variety of contexts, including consumer protection and securities litigation,

as well as shareholder derivative, merger and transactional litigation. Over his 16-year career, Mr.

Vozzolo has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars and other significant remedial benefits on

behalf of consumers and investors.


2

VOZZOLO LLC

In Bates v. Kashi Co., et al., Case No. 11-CV-1967-H BGS (S.D. Cal. 2011), Mr. Vozzolo

served as co-lead counsel, securing a $5.0 million settlement fund on behalf of California

consumers who purchased Kashi products that were deceptively labeled as “nothing artificial” and

“all natural.” The settlement provided class members with a full refund of the purchase price in

addition to requiring Kashi to modify its labeling and advertising to remove “All Natural” and

“Nothing Artificial” from certain products. As noted by Judge Marilyn L. Huff in approving the

settlement, “Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience acting as class counsel in consumer class

action cases, including cases involving false advertising claims.”

Moreover, in Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Case No. RG-03091195 (California

Superior Ct., Alameda Cty.), Mr. Vozzolo served as co-lead counsel in a consumer class action

lawsuit against Global Vision Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the Avacor hair restoration

product and its officers, directors and spokespersons, in connection with the false and misleading

advertising claims regarding the Avacor product. Though the company had declared bankruptcy

in 2007, Mr. Vozzolo, along with his co-counsel, successfully prosecuted two trials to obtain relief

for the class of Avacor purchasers. In January 2008, a jury in the first trial returned a verdict of

almost $37 million against two of the creators of the product. In November 2009, another jury

awarded plaintiff and the class more than $50 million in a separate trial against two other company

directors and officers. This jury award represented the largest consumer class action jury award

in California in 2009 (according to VerdictSearch, a legal trade publication).

In In re Purchase Pro Inc. Securities Litig., Master File No. CV-S-01-0483-JLQ (D. Nev.

2001), Mr. Vozzolo served as co-lead counsel for the class, securing a $24.2 million settlement

fund in a case involving federal securities fraud litigation. As noted by Senior Judge Justin L.

Quackenbush in approving the settlement, “I feel that counsel for plaintiffs evidenced that they

were and are skilled in the field of securities litigation.”


3

VOZZOLO LLC

More recently, in Jovel v. I-Health, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-5614 MDG (E.D.N.Y. 2012),

Mr. Vozzolo served as counsel in a consumer class action challenging the marketing of certain

brain health supplements. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a cash refund

of up to the actual purchase price. As noted by Judge Marilyn D. Go in approving the settlement,

“Mr. Vozzolo [and co-lead counsel] are attorneys with substantial experience litigating consumer

class action, and are associated with firms specializing in class actions.”

Below is a non-exhaustive list of settlements where Mr. Vozzolo served as lead or

co-lead counsel:

Inocencio, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., No. BER-L 4378-16 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2016). Vozzolo LLC represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain “Pocket Hose” brand of expandable garden hoses. A settlement was obtained, providing full relief to class members, including cash refunds of up to $50.

Forcellati et al., v Hyland’s, Inc. et al., No. CV 12-1983-GHK (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012). Mr. Vozzolo represented a certified nationwide class of purchasers of children’s homeopathic cold and flu remedies. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with cash refunds of up to the full purchase price.

Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 12-125 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012). Mr. Vozzolo

represented a certified class of consumers who purchased certain KitchenAid refrigerators marketed as Energy Star qualified when they were not. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with cash payments of $55 to recoup the excess energy costs of their appliances.

In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig., Case No. 1:12-cv-02429-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Mr. Vozzolo represented a nationwide class of purchasers of assorted cold, flu and sinus products. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a cash refund up to $10 and requiring defendant to discontinue the marketing and sale of certain products.

In re: Haier Freezer Consumer Litig., Case No. 5:11-CV-02911-EJD (N.D. Cal.

2011). Mr. Vozzolo represented a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain model freezers, which were sold in violation of the federal standard for maximum energy consumption. A settlement was obtained, valued at $4 million, providing class members with cash payments of between $50 and $325.80.

Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co., Case No. 11-3977 SDW-MCA (D.N.J. 2011). Mr.

Vozzolo represented a proposed nationwide class of people who purchased stainless


4

VOZZOLO LLC

steel knives and multi-tools that were of a lesser quality than advertised. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a full refund of the purchase price.

Rossi v Procter & Gamble Company., Case No. 11-7238 (D.N.J. 2011). Mr. Vozzolo

represented a nationwide class of consumers who purchased deceptively marketed “Crest Sensitivity” toothpaste. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a full refund of the purchase price.

In re: Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litig., Case No. 1:11-CV-03350 CPK (N.D. Ill.

2011). Mr. Vozzolo represented a nationwide class of persons against Michaels Stores, Inc. for failing to secure and safeguard customers’ personal financial data. A settlement was obtained, which provided class members with monetary relief for unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses incurred in connection with the data breach, as well as up to four years of credit monitoring services.

In re: HP Power-Plug Litigation, Case No. 06-1221 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Mr. Vozzolo

represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased defective laptops manufactured by defendant. A settlement was obtained, which provided full relief to class members, including, among other benefits, a cash payment of up to $650.00 per class member, or in the alternative, a repair free-of-charge and new limited warranties accompanying repaired laptops.

Delre v. Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. No. 3232-02 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2002). Mr. Vozzolo

represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers (approximately 170,000 members) who purchased, HP dvd-100i dvd-writers (“HP 100i”) based on misrepresentations regarding the write-once (“DVD+R”) capabilities of the HP 100i and the compatibility of DVD+RW disks written by HP 100i with DVD players and other optical storage devices. A settlement was obtained, which provided full relief to class members, including among other benefits, the replacement of the defective HP 100i with its more current, second generation DVD writer, the HP 200i, and/or refunds of the $99 it had charged some consumers to upgrade from the HP 100i to the HP 200i prior to the settlement.

In addition, Mr. Vozzolo, has considerable leadership experience in complex litigation,

serving as lead or co-lead counsel in at least 13 putative consumer class action cases since 2011,

including:

In re: Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litig., Case No. 1:11-CV-03350 CPK (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2011)

In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig., No. C11-02911 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011) Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co., No. 11-3977 (D.N.J. Sep. 8, 2011)


5

VOZZOLO LLC

Avram v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 11-6973 (D.N.J. Jan 3, 2012) Rossi v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 11-7238 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012) Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 2:12-cv-0089 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012) Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 12-125 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012) In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig., No. 7:12-cv-4727 (VB) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2012) Forcellati et al., v Hyland’s, Inc. et al., No. CV 12-1983-GHK (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012) In re Sinus Buster Prods. Consumer Litig., No. 12-2429 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012) In re 5-Hour ENERGY Mktg. and Sales Practice Litig., No. 13-ml-2438 (C.D. Cal.

Nov. 8, 2013) Potzner v. Tommie Copper Inc., et al., No. 7:15-cv-03183 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2015)

Inocencio, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., No. BER-L 4378-16 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2016). Mr. Vozzolo is also experienced in the substance and procedure of class certification,

obtaining class certification in the following contested consumer class actions:

Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., No. CV 2:12-cv-1983-GHK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) Astiana v. Kashi Co., No. 3:11-cv-01967-H BGS (S.D. Cal. 2011)

In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig., No. 7:12-cv-04727 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 2:12-cv-125 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc., et al., No. RG03-091195 (Cal. Super. Ct.

Alameda Cnty. 2003)

In recognition of his outstanding work on behalf of clients, Mr. Vozzolo has been regularly

sought out to comment on important consumer protection matters. For example, Mr. Vozzolo was

quoted in a New York Times article related to recent proposed legislation attempting to ban

consumer class actions related to the Energy Star program. Matthew L. Wald, Whirlpool Wants

Congress to Ban Class-Action Suits Tied to Energy Star Program, Energy&Environment,


6

VOZZOLO LLC

NY TIMES, July 20, 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/business/energy-

environment/whirlpool-wants-congress-to-ban-class-action-suits-tied-to-energy-star

program.html?_r=0. More recently, Mr. Vozzolo was invited to participate in the September 21,

2015 Federal Trade Commission Panel on Homeopathic Medicine & Advertising to discuss the

legal and regulatory implications of the advertising and marketing claims made by manufacturers

of homeopathic products1.

Mr. Vozzolo graduated, cum laude, from Fairleigh Dickinson University in 1992 with a

Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.), where he was on the Dean’s List, and with a Masters in Business

Administration (M.B.A.) in 1995. He is a graduate of Brooklyn Law School (1998). Mr. Vozzolo

served as an intern to the Honorable Ira Gammerman of the New York Supreme Court and the

New York Stock Exchange while attending law school.

He is a member of the bars of the State of New York, the State of New Jersey, the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

York, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, the United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit.

1 See https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/videos/homeopathic-medicine-advertising-part-2/ftc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_-_transcript_segment_2.pdf.
