Scribd

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

-------------------------------------------------------------- x

IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. IPO SECURITIES & DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

: : : MDL NO. ____ -------------------------------------------------------------- x

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN

SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTIONS TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED AND/OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

Richard D. Bernstein (rbernstein@willkie.com) Tariq Mundiya (tmundiya@willkie.com) Todd G. Cosenza (tcosenza@willkie.com) Sameer Advani (sadvani@willkie.com) 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8000 Facsimile: (212) 728-8111

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Andrew B. Clubok (aclubok@kirkland.com) Brant W. Bishop, P.C. (bbishop@kirkland.com) 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4836 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 Thomas D. Yannucci (tyannucci@kirkland.com) Susan E. Engel (seengel@kirkland.com) 655 15th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Attorneys for Defendants Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, and Peter A. Thiel

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

James P. Rouhandeh (rouhandeh@davispolk.com) Charles S. Duggan (charles.duggan@davispolk.com) Andrew Ditchfield (andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com) 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800

Attorneys for Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and Goldman, Sachs & Co.

!"#$ &$'()'* +,- ./ 0,123$'4 565 7)8$( 9/:5;:5< &"*$ 5 ,= <;

-

i

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5

A.

Factual Background .................................................................................................5

B.

Litigation Related To The IPO ..............................................................................10

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................12

I.

THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED IN ONE DISTRICT. ...........................12

II.

THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. .....................................................................................................................14

A.

Transfer To The Southern District Of New York Will Best Facilitate Efficient Discovery In The Actions. ......................................................14

B.

Transfer To The Southern District Of New York Will Ensure Consistent Rulings On Critical Issues....................................................................17

C.

The Southern District Of New York Has Distinct Strengths For Handling Complex Multidistrict Securities Litigation. .........................................18

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................19

!"#$ &$'()'* +,- ./ 0,123$'4 565 7)8$( 9/:5;:5< &"*$ < ,= <;

-

ii

-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

City of Omaha, Neb. Civilian Emps.

’ Ret.

Sys. v. CBS Corp.

, No. 11-2575, 2012 WL 1624022 (2d Cir. May 10, 2012) .................................................17

Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo

, 544 U.S. 336 (2005) ...........................................................................................................14

In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp

., 273 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (J.P.M.L. 2003) ...............................................................................18

In re AOL Time Warner Sec. Litig.

, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2002) ...............................................................................12

In re Bank of Am. Corp., Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig.

, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (J.P.M.L. 2009) ...............................................................................18

In re Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. Foreign Exchange Transactions Litig.

, MDL No. 2335, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53533 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 16, 2012) ........................13

In re The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig.

, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2008) ...............................................................................12

In re Cygnus Telecomm. Tech., LLC

, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2001) ...............................................................................13

In re Fannie Mae Sec. & ERISA Litig.

, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2009) ...............................................................................18

In re Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (Freddie Mac) Sec. Litig.

, 643 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2009) .........................................................................12, 18

In re Global Crossing Ltd. Sec. & ERISA Litig.

, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2002) ...............................................................................18

In re IPO Sec. Litig.

, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2003) ...............................................................................18

In re Janus Mut. Funds Inv. Litig.

, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2004) ...................................................................12, 13, 14

In re Mun. Derivatives Antitrust Litig.

, 560 F. Supp. 2d 1386 (J.P.M.L. 2008) .........................................................................16, 18

In re Res. Exploration, Inc. Sec. Litig.

, 483 F. Supp. 817 (J.P.M.L. 1980) ......................................................................................14

!"#$ &$'()'* +,- ./ 0,123$'4 565 7)8$( 9/:5;:5< &"*$ > ,= <;