Case 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Transcription

1 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRIT OURT SOUTHERN DISTRIT OF NEW YORK In re LEHMAN BROTHERS SEURITIES AND ERISA LITIGATION This Document Applies To: ase No. 09-MD-2017 (LAK) EF ASE In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, 08-V-5523-LAK REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE STRUTURED PRODUT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF IVIL PROEDURE 54(b)

2 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 12 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In July 2011, this ourt adopted over plaintiffs objection UBS s argument that Article III standing principles required a separate class plaintiff for each of the 80-plus offerings of Lehman-issued structured offerings sponsored by UBS. The ourt dismissed claims based on the structured product offerings in which the representative plaintiffs had not invested. In NEA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & o., 693 F.3d 145 (2d ir. 2012), the Second ircuit reversed a decision premised on the same argument UBS made to this ourt. Given the Second ircuit s ruling, the ourt should reconsider its ruling on the motion to dismiss under Rule 54(b) and reinstate the claims based on those 53 offerings because they raise the same set of concerns as the claims based on the offerings the plaintiffs purchased. UBS offers no persuasive argument to the contrary. Plaintiffs allege that the offering documents contained false and misleading statements and omissions about Lehman s business practices and solvency and about the principal protection feature of many of the notes. The Lehman-related statements appear in twelve SE filings, one or more of which was incorporated into the offering documents for each of the 84 structured product offerings. The existing class representatives allege injuries based on the misrepresentations and omissions in each of the twelve SE filings, so they have class standing to represent investors in the offerings they did not purchase that are based on the identical misrepresentations and omissions. The same is true for the misleading statements about principal protection because the same statements appear in the pricing supplements for both the offerings plaintiffs purchased and those they did not. Reinstating the dismissed offerings will not introduce any new misstatements or omissions to the case or require the jury to consider any additional evidence. In fact, NEA- 1

3 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 12 IBEW simplifies the class certification analysis and enhances the manageability of class treatment of plaintiffs claims because fewer class representatives may be required and subclasses may no longer be necessary. Plaintiffs will demonstrate that the class certification requirements are satisfied for a class of all 84 offerings in supplemental briefing. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the ourt grant their motion for reconsideration and reinstate the 53 offerings it previously dismissed from the case. THE OURT SHOULD REONSIDER ITS PRIOR RULING UBS argues, without citing authority, that NEA-IBEW did not change controlling law because the Second ircuit did not say that it was changing the law and because it relied on Supreme ourt precedent. Opp. at 4, n.3. As other district courts have recognized, a change in the law may occur without an express pronouncement by the Second ircuit. In In re Deutsche Bank AG Securities Litigation, for example, the court granted the defendants motion for reconsideration because in Fait v. Regions Financial orp., 655 F.3d 105 (2d ir. 2011), the Second ircuit, for the first time, held that valuation decisions such as goodwill and statements of loan loss reserves are opinions rather than facts. No. 09 iv (DAB), 2012 WL , at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2012). In Fait, the Second ircuit did not announce that it was changing the law and, as in NEA-IBEW, relied upon Supreme ourt precedent (Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U.S. 1083, 111 S. t (1991)) in reaching its decision. Fait, 655 F.3d at Even when the Second ircuit clarifies, rather than changes, controlling law, courts reconsider their prior decisions if failure to do so would result in clear error given the new precedent. obalt Multifamily Investors I, LL v. Shapiro, No. 06 iv (KMW), 2009 WL , at *1, 5-6 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2009); see also SPL Shipping Ltd. v. Gujarat heminex 2

4 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 12 Ltd., No. 06 iv (RJS), 2008 WL , at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2008). When this ourt entered its order on defendants motion to dismiss on July 27, 2011, there was no Second ircuit (or Supreme ourt) decision that addressed whether a class plaintiff has standing to assert claims on behalf of investors in securities the plaintiff did not purchase. Now that the Second ircuit has disapproved of the analysis this ourt relied upon when it held that a plaintiff does not suffer injury in fact and therefore has no standing to assert claims in consequence of false or misleading statements in offering materials for securities that it did not purchase, 1 the ourt should reconsider its ruling. UBS also argues that the Second ircuit misapplied Supreme ourt precedent in reaching its decision. But whether or not UBS agrees with its outcome, NEA-IBEW is controlling authority. See, e.g., Heffernan v. Straub, 655 F. Supp. 2d 378, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ( ontrolling decisions include decisions from the United States ourt of Appeal for the Second ircuit. ). District courts cannot ignore Second ircuit precedent unless it is expressly or implicitly overruled. Newton v. ity of New York, No. 07 iv (SAS), 2010 WL , at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2010) (citing World Wrestling Entm t, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); U.S. v. Russotti, 780 F. Supp. 128, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). THE FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS ABOUT LEHMAN IMPLIATE THE SAME SET OF ONERNS At the core of plaintiffs claims are alleged misrepresentations and omissions in twelve of Lehman s SE filings concerning (1) Lehman s use of Repo 105 transactions to artificially reduce its net leverage ratio at the end of quarterly reporting periods; (2) Lehman s routine disregard of its risk limits, its use of stress testing to evaluate risks associated with its real estate 1 In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 799 F. Supp. 2d 258, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 3

5 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 12 portfolio, and the number of days on which Lehman exceeded its Value-at-Risk limits; and (3) Lehman s significant concentrations of credit risk in global real estate and mortgages. 2 One or more of the twelve SE filings are incorporated into the offering documents for each of the structured product offerings. Appendix A is a chart that shows the SE filings that are incorporated into the offering documents for each of the offerings. Appendix B identifies the offerings by USIP number and name and lists the plaintiffs who purchased each offering. 3 UBS does not refute that the claims for all 84 offerings are based on the same misrepresentations and omissions in these twelve SE filings. Each plaintiff contends that he or she suffered injury as a result of the false and misleading statements and omissions in the SE filings that were incorporated into the offering (or offerings) he or she purchased. Under NEA- IBEW, a plaintiff whose offering documents incorporated Lehman s for the third quarter of 2007 has class standing to represent investors in other offerings with offering documents that incorporated the same, because they were allegedly injured by identical misrepresentations and omissions. 693 F.3d at ( Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) claims brought by a purchaser of debt from one of a series of corporate debt offerings, issued over the course of a year, all of which contained an identical misrepresentation about the issuing company s impending insolvency would raise a set of concerns nearly identical to that of a purchaser from another offering ). The same is true for each of the other SE filings. 2 UBS incorrectly asserts that plaintiffs do not allege that Lehman misstated its use of Repo 105 transactions prior to the second quarter of 2007, or its adherence to its Value-at-Risk limits prior to August Plaintiffs in fact allege that Lehman used Repo 105 in the first quarter of 2007 and misrepresented the company s adherence to its risk policies, including VaR, in its March 14, 2007 Form and April 9, 2007 Form. See TA These charts omit the security identified by USIP 52522L368, which, as UBS noted, was called prior to Lehman s bankruptcy. 4

6 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 12 Despite UBS s efforts to complicate it, the analysis in this case is far more straightforward than in NEA-IBEW, where the alleged misrepresentations were about the underwriting practices of the lenders who originated the mortgage loans backing the securities. Id. at 163. There, the nature and content of the nearly identical misrepresentations differed because the distinct set of loans backing each offering was issued by a distinct set of originators, and each originator had different underwriting guidelines and acted in different ways that may or may not have constituted an abandonment of its underwriting guidelines. Id. at At trial, the proof would focus on each mortgage originator s differing guidelines and conduct and it would therefore differ from offering to offering if the originators were not the same. Id. at 163. As a result, the same set of concerns was raised only as to those certificates that were backed by mortgages originated by the same lenders that originated the mortgages backing the plaintiffs certificates. Id. at 165. Unlike NEA-IBEW, no new or different proof will be required if the ourt reinstates the structured product offerings it previously dismissed. Plaintiffs evidence will still focus on whether there were false or misleading statements or omissions in the twelve SE filings incorporated into the offering documents and whether those misstatements and omissions were material to a reasonable investor. See In re Morgan Stanley Info. Fund Sec. Litig., 592 F.3d 347, 360 (2d ir. 2010) ( In many cases including this one two issues are central to claims under sections 11 and 12(a)(2): (1) the existence of either a misstatement or an unlawful omission; and (2) materiality. ). Because the proof will be the same for the statements and omissions in each of the SE filings, the establishment of the named plaintiffs claims [will] necessarily establish[] those of other class members. Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Nomura Asset Acceptance orp., 632 F.3d 762, 770 (1st ir. 2011). 5

7 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 7 of 12 UBS argues that the misstatements vary by offering because Lehman s financial condition and the prevailing market conditions constantly changed over the pertinent 16-month period as the credit crisis deepened. Opp. at 8. But UBS ignores that the additional offerings are interspersed among the offerings that plaintiffs purchased. In fact, of the 53 additional offerings, 27 occurred on the same day as one of the offerings purchased by plaintiffs, 17 occurred within a week of an offering purchased by plaintiffs, and the remaining 9 occurred within a month of one of the offerings purchased by plaintiffs. See Appendix B. 4 Finally, UBS insists that each reinstated offering must be the mirror image of an offering purchased by one of the plaintiffs in that it incorporates the same SE filings and its pricing supplement includes the same purported disclosures. But the Second ircuit did not impose a perfect symmetry requirement, and UBS cites no authority to support its contention. Instead, the Second ircuit required only that the misconduct that caused the plaintiffs injuries here, the false and misleading statements about Lehman s use of Repo 105, disregard of its risk limits, use of stress testing, and concentrations of credit risk raise the same set of concerns as the conduct alleged to have injured the other potential class members. NEA-IBEW, 693 F.3d at 162. That requirement is satisfied because the dismissed offerings incorporate the same twelve SE filings, and therefore turn on the very same false and misleading statements, as the offerings plaintiffs did purchase. 4 ourts have rejected this argument in the context of class certification. See, e.g., Public Employees Retirement System of Miss. v. Merrill Lynch & o., 277 F.R.D. 97, (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (rejecting the argument that the falsity and materiality of the misrepresentations had to be determined on an individual basis because the offerings occurred over a 17-month period while the mortgage finance market was undergoing dramatic changes ); see also In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litig., No. 09 iv (LAK), 2012 WL , at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012) ( ourts in this and other districts have found that such substantial similarity of the allegedly misleading statements in Offering Documents is sufficient for class certification, even where class members purchased different offerings at different times. ). 6

8 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 8 of 12 THE PRINIPAL PROTETION STATEMENTS IMPLIATE THE SAME SET OF ONERNS UBS also tries to complicate the analysis of the principal protection statements. But the pricing supplements for the principal protection offerings are all very similar. They featured the terms principal protection, 100% principal protection, or partial protection three or more times on the first page. They included several additional statements that highlighted the principal protection feature and said that investors would receive at least their principal (either in full for the 100% principal protection notes or in part for partial protection notes) if they held the notes to maturity. See Plaintiffs lass ert. Br. (Dkt. No. 691) at 3-4. UBS has pointed to a couple of statements in the pricing supplements that it contends constitute sufficient disclosures to offset the repeated representations about principal protection. One appears in a footnote and references the creditworthiness of the issuer, and the other is a statement at or near the end of a list of Key Risks that references the actual and perceived creditworthiness of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. See id. at 4-5. Some of the pricing supplements contain both of these statements, some contain neither, and some contain only one of them. Despite this minor variation, the central issue common to all of the principal protection statements is whether the repeated and emphasized statements about principal protection were offset sufficiently by the inconspicuous and scattered warnings about Lehman s solvency. In re Lehman, 799 F. Supp. 2d at 315. The analysis can be broken down into four categories for the fact finder: (1) whether the pricing supplements that contain neither the footnote nor the Key Risk were misleading to a reasonable investor; (2) whether the pricing supplements that contain only the footnote were misleading to a reasonable investor; (3) whether the pricing supplements 7

9 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 9 of 12 that contain only the Key Risk were misleading to a reasonable investor; and (4) whether the pricing supplements that contain both statements were misleading to a reasonable investor. No new proof will be required if the ourt reinstates the previously dismissed offerings, because the pricing supplements for those offerings also fall into these four categories. The offerings therefore raise the same set of concerns and, under NEA-IBEW, plaintiffs have class standing to represent investors in the offerings the plaintiffs did not purchase. LASS ERTIFIATION NEA-IBEW simplifies this case for trial on a class basis and reinstating the dismissed offerings will increase the efficiencies of proceeding with these claims on a class wide basis. More investors claims can be tried using the same evidence that would be required for the offerings the plaintiffs purchased. The case may be able to proceed with fewer plaintiffs because a class representative may not be required for each offering. And some of UBS s challenges to class certification would be eliminated, such as UBS s argument that a class action is not superior because some plaintiffs and class members also purchased notes that were not part of the proposed class. See UBS lass ert. Opp. (Dkt. No. 863) at 32. In addition, the need for subclasses, while still a possibility, is greatly reduced. Plaintiffs proposal that the ourt could establish a subclass for each offering preceded the Second ircuit s ruling that class standing allows a plaintiff to represent investors in different offerings. Now that the law has changed, the focus will be squarely on the twelve SE filings that allegedly contain misstatements and omissions and the four categories of principal protection disclosures. The jury will not have to consider plaintiffs claims on an offering-by-offering basis. 8

10 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 10 of 12 Plaintiffs will demonstrate in supplemental briefing that the requirements for class certification are satisfied for a class consisting of investors in all 84 of the structured product offerings. 5 ONLUSION Plaintiffs request that the ourt grant their motion and order the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing class certification or order plaintiffs to file a new motion for class certification. Dated: October 19, 2012 Respectfully submitted, GIRARD GIBBS LLP By: /s/ Daniel. Girard Daniel. Girard Jonathan K. Levine Amanda M. Steiner Dena. Sharp 601 alifornia Street, Floor 14 San Francisco, A Tel: (415) Fax: (415) ounsel for Plaintiffs Mohan Ananda, Richard Barrett, Neel Duncan, Nick Fotinos, Stephen Gott, Karim Kano, Barbara Moskowitz, Ronald Profili, Lawrence Rose, Joe Rottman, Grace Wang and Miriam Wolf, and proposed lass ounsel 5 UBS says that plaintiffs should begin the class certification process anew (Opp. at 14), and plaintiffs are prepared to file a new motion if the ourt is so inclined. Plaintiffs believe that supplemental briefing will be sufficient and will avoid the delay of completely re-briefing class certification. 9

11 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 11 of 12 ZWERLING, SHAHTER & ZWERLING, LLP Susan Salvetti Justin M. Tarshis 41 Madison Avenue New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) ounsel for Plaintiffs Ed Davis, Rick Fleischman, J. Harry Pickle, Trustee Gastroenterology Associates, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan FBO harles M. Brooks M.D., Arthur Simons, Juan Tolosa LAW OFFIES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, P.. James V. Bashian 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700 New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) ounsel for Plaintiff David Kotz BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.. Andrew Friedman 2901 North entral Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona Telephone: (602) Facsimile: (602) TIFFANY & BOSO P.A. Richard G. Himelrick 2525 East amelback Road Phoenix, Arizona Telephone: (602) Facsimile: (602) ounsel for Plaintiff Shea-Edwards Limited Partnership 10

12 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document 1020 Filed 10/19/12 Page 12 of 12 ERTIFIATE OF SERVIE I, Daniel. Girard, hereby certify that on October 19, 2012, I caused the following document(s) to be filed electronically with the United States District ourt for the Southern District of New York through the ourt s mandated EF service: REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE STRUTURED PRODUT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF IVIL PROEDURE 54(b) ounsel of record are required by the ourt to be registered e-filers, and as such are automatically e-served with a copy of the document(s) upon confirmation of e-filing. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of October, 2012 at San Francisco, alifornia. /s/ Daniel. Girard Daniel. Girard 11

13 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 6 APPENDIX A

14 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 6 APPENDIX A: False or Misleading Statements About Lehman stands for common misrepresentations, which includes: Repo 105s as sales; Repo 105 not in net leverage; failure to disclose Repo 105s; exceeding risk limits; exclusion of risky assets from stress testing; exceeding VaR limits stands for concentration of credit risk in global real estate, and applies only to the K Alt A stands for concentration of credit risk in Alt A mortgages, and applies only after February 20, 2008 Offering Q Q Q K Q

15 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 6 APPENDIX A: False or Misleading Statements About Lehman stands for common misrepresentations, which includes: Repo 105s as sales; Repo 105 not in net leverage; failure to disclose Repo 105s; exceeding risk limits; exclusion of risky assets from stress testing; exceeding VaR limits stands for concentration of credit risk in global real estate, and applies only to the K Alt A stands for concentration of credit risk in Alt A mortgages, and applies only after February 20, 2008 Offering Q Q Q K Q

16 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 6 APPENDIX A: False or Misleading Statements About Lehman stands for common misrepresentations, which includes: Repo 105s as sales; Repo 105 not in net leverage; failure to disclose Repo 105s; exceeding risk limits; exclusion of risky assets from stress testing; exceeding VaR limits stands for concentration of credit risk in global real estate, and applies only to the K Alt A stands for concentration of credit risk in Alt A mortgages, and applies only after February 20, 2008 Offering Q Q Q K Q

17 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 6 APPENDIX A: False or Misleading Statements About Lehman stands for common misrepresentations, which includes: Repo 105s as sales; Repo 105 not in net leverage; failure to disclose Repo 105s; exceeding risk limits; exclusion of risky assets from stress testing; exceeding VaR limits stands for concentration of credit risk in global real estate, and applies only to the K Alt A stands for concentration of credit risk in Alt A mortgages, and applies only after February 20, 2008 Offering Q Q Q K Q

18 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A: False or Misleading Statements About Lehman stands for common misrepresentations, which includes: Repo 105s as sales; Repo 105 not in net leverage; failure to disclose Repo 105s; exceeding risk limits; exclusion of risky assets from stress testing; exceeding VaR limits stands for concentration of credit risk in global real estate, and applies only to the K Alt A stands for concentration of credit risk in Alt A mortgages, and applies only after February 20, 2008 Offering Q Q Q K Q

19 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 10 APPENDIX B

20 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 Security (USIP) Plaintiff(s) 1 March 30, % Principal Protection Notes Linked to a Global Index Basket (52520W564/524908VP2) 2 March 30, 2007 Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Index Basket (52520W556/524908VQ0) 3 April 30, April 30, April 30, April 30, May 31, May 31, May 31, June 22, June 29, % Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517PY21) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517PX63) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to a urrency Basket (52520W549) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Index Basket (52520W515) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517PY62) 100% Principal Protection allable Daily Range Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the 10-Year onstant Maturity U.S. Treasury Rate (52517PY70) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to a urrency Basket (52520W440) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to a Global Index Basket (52522L202) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread DailyAccrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517P2P5) Mohan Ananda Lawrence Rose Ronald Profili Grace Wang Lawrence Rose Stephen Gott 1 The issue date identified for the structured notes is the settlement date. The pricing date for the structured notes is typically a few days before the settlement date. 1

21 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 12 June 29, July 31, July 31, August 31, August 31, August 31, August 31, August 31, September 18, September 28, September 28, September 28, 2007 Security (USIP) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52520W390) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517P3H2) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Index Basket (52520W358) Performance Securities with ontingent Protection linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L129) Performance Securities with ontingent Protection linked to the Dow Jones EURO STOXX 50 Index (52522L137) Performance Securities with ontingent Protection linked to the Nikkei 225 SM Index (52522L145) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an International Index Basket (52522L186) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to a Global Index Basket (52522L889) Autocallable Optimization Securities with ontingent Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Financials Index (52522L251) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an International Index Basket (52522L236) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Index Basket (52522L244) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517P5K3) Plaintiff(s) Stephen Gott Mohan Ananda Mohan Ananda Juan Tolosa Stephen Gott 2

22 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 24 October 31, October 31, October 31, October 31, October 31, October 31, October 31, October 31, November 7, November 14, November 26, November 30, November 30, 2007 Security (USIP) Medium-Term Notes, Series I, 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52520W341) 100% Principal Protection Barrier Notes Linked to FTSE/Xinhua hina 25 Index (52522L400) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L293) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an Index (52522L301) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an Index (52522L319) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an Index (52522L327) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an Index (52522L335) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Financials Index (52522L384) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L418) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to an International Index Basket (52522L426) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Index Basket (52522L475) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52520W333) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the MSI EAFE Index (52522L376) Plaintiff(s) Neel Duncan Juan Tolosa Nick Fotinos Arthur Simons Arthur Simons Richard Barrett 3

23 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 37 November 30, November 30, December 31, December 31, December 31, January 31, January 31, January 31, February 8, February 13, February 13, February 13, 2008 Security (USIP) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an International Index Basket (52522L392) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L459) Return Optimization Securities Linked to an International Index Basket (52522L483) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L491) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Basket onsisting of Indices and an Index Fund (52522L533) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (52517P4N8) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52520W325) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L525) Autocallable Optimization Securities with ontingent Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Financials Index (52522L657) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52522L673) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52522L699) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52522L707) Plaintiff(s) Lawrence Rose Lawrence Rose Grace Wang Mohan Ananda Nick Fotinos Stephen Gott Shea-Edwards LP Joe Rottman 4

24 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 49 February 13, February 13, February 29, February 29, February 29, February 29, February 29, February 29, February 29, March 7, March 19, March 25, 2008 Security (USIP) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52522L715) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52522L723) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (5252M0Z8) Performance Securities Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52522L632) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Notes Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L574) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52522L582) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the Russell 2000 Index (52522L566) Securities Linked to the Relative Performance of the onsumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund vs. the onsumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (52522L772) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52523J412) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52523J420) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (52523J115) Bearish Autocallable Optimization Securities with ontingent Protection Linked to the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (52523J149) 5 Plaintiff(s) Miriam Wolf Grace Wang Harry Pickle

25 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 7 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 61 March 28, March 31, March 31, March 31, March 31, March 31, March 31, March 31, April 4, April 4, April 23, 2008 Security (USIP) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Global Index Basket (52523J131) 100% Principal Protection allable Spread Daily Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Spread between the 30-year and the 2-year Swap Rates (5252M0EK9) 100% Principal Protection Notes Linked to an Asian urrency Basket (52523J438) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Notes Linked to the S&P 500 Index (52522L806) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Notes Linked to the MSI EM Index (52522L814) Bearish Autocallable Optimization Securities with ontingent Protection Linked to the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (52522L871) 100% Principal Protection Accrual Notes with Interest Linked to the Year-Over-Year hange in the onsumer Price Index (5252M0EV5) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the Russell 2000 Index (52522L798) Return Optimization Securities Linked to a Basket of Global Indices (52522L848) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to a Basket of Global Indices (52522L830) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Basket of Global Indices (52523J172) 6 Plaintiff(s) Shea-Edwards LP Harry Pickle Shea-Edwards LP Barbara Moskowitz Rick Fleischman

26 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 8 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 72 April 30, May 12, May 15, May 16, May 21, May 30, June 16, June 20, June 30, June 30, June 30, 2008 Security (USIP) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes Linked to the Russell 2000 Index (52523J156) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection (52523J503) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Financials Index (52523J206) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to a Portfolio of ommon Stocks (52523J222) Performance Securities with Partial Protection Linked to Global Index Basket (52523J214) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the S&P 500 Financials Index (52523J230) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Notes Linked to the Euro/U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate (52520W283) 100% Principal Protection Notes with Interest Linked to the Year-Over-Year hange in the onsumer Price Index (5252M0FU6) 100% Principal Protection Notes with Interest Linked to the Year-Over-Year hange in the onsumer Price Index (5252M0D7) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection Linked to the PowerShares WilderHill lean Energy Portfolio (52523J263) Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection ( ) 7 Plaintiff(s) Karim Kano David Kotz

27 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 9 of 10 APPENDIX B: UBS-Underwritten Structured Products Issue Date 1 83 June 30, June 30, 2008 Security (USIP) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes (52523J248) 100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Barrier Notes (52523J255) Plaintiff(s) Ed Davis Ed Davis 8

28 ase 1:09-md LAK-GWG Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 10 of 10