The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.

Mr. Weiser, a founding member of the firm, received his law degree from the Villanova University School of Law. While in law school, he also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Clarence J. Newcomer, U.S.D.J. for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Weiser's practice is focused on shareholder derivative litigation and ERISA class action litigation. Mr. Weiser has been involved in some of the most successful shareholder derivative actions in history. While employed at his prior firm, Mr. Weiser managed the firm's shareholder derivative litigation practice, with a particular focus on corporate governance matters. Some of the notable cases in which Mr. Weiser has served as lead or co-lead counsel include:

• In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig., 824 A.2d 917 (Del. Ch. 2003)
  Mr. Weiser was co- lead counsel in the Oracle action. In that case, plaintiffs challenged certain multi-million dollar stock sales made by Oracle’s senior officers, including Larry Ellison, Oracle’s founder. Oracle’s board of directors appointed a “special litigation committee” to investigate plaintiffs’ claims, and after a lengthy investigation, the committee moved to dismiss the case, having concluded that plaintiffs’ claims lacked merit. Among other things, plaintiffs’ challenged the independence of the committee members, their good faith, and their ultimate conclusion. The court denied the committee’s motion, which allowed the action to proceed to trial. The Oracle decision is one of four reported Delaware cases where a special litigations committee’s motion to dismiss was denied by a Delaware chancellor and many commentators view the Oracle case as a landmark decision for shareholders. For example, the Wall Street Journal called the seminal decision “one of the most far-reaching ever on corporate governance.” This case eventually settled for $100 million. Mr. Weiser believes that the $100 million recovery is the second largest derivative settlement ever. The Oracle case, and its impact on corporate governance matters nationwide, is the subject of numerous scholarly articles and treatises.
  
• David, et al., v. Wolfen, et al., Lead Case No. 01-CC-03930 (the ABroadcom Derivative Action)
  Mr. Weiser was co-lead counsel in the Broadcom Derivative Action. Like the Oracle case, the Broadcom Derivative Action was also produced a ground-breaking settlement. In connection with the eventual settlement of the Broadcom Derivative Action, plaintiffs were able to compel Broadcom to make sweeping, substantial changes to its corporate governance practices which included a provision which allows Broadcom=s shareholders to nominate directors to Broadcom=s Board. In particular, the shareholder-nominated director provision was thought to be a highly significant and unusual achievement for Broadcom=s shareholders. As the Associated Press reported in commenting on the settlement: A[in contrast to the Broadcom settlement] the Securities and Exchange Commission has met fierce resistance to a proposal just to allow shareholder nominations under very limited circumstances. This type of corporate governance relief has only been achieved in a handful of shareholder derivative actions.
• Barry v. Cotsakos, CV 49084 (San Mateo County, CA) (the “Etrade Derivative Litigation”)
  Mr. Weiser was co-lead counsel in the Etrade Derivative Litigation. Mr. Weiser believes that the Etrade Derivative Litigation is one of the most successful executive compensation cases ever brought against a publicly traded corporation’s board of directors. In that case, the plaintiff challenged the payment of excessive compensation awarded to Etrade’s then-current Chief Executive Officer. As a result of the settlement of the case, Etrade’s Chief Executive Officer returned approximately $25 million to the Company, and he also agreed to forego other valuable financial benefits. The Etrade settlement also provided for sweeping changes to the company’s corporate governance practices and the structure of its Board. These measures, and the resulting change in the public’s perception of Etrade, were profiled in a September 8, 2003 Wall Street Journal article entitled “How One Firm Uses Strict Governance To Fix Its Troubles.” Since the time of the Etrade settlement, Etrade has added independent directors to its Board, who have since forced out the company’s Chief Executive Officer. In response to these changes, the Company’s stock increased more than 300% in the 18 months following the settlement and the “new” Etrade has been the subject of several positive media reports.
• Klotz v. Parfet, et al., Case No. 03-06483-CK (In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Michigan) (the “CMS Derivative Litigation”)
  Mr. Weiser was co-lead counsel in the CMS Derivative Litigation. In that case, plaintiff alleged that CMS’ Board of Directors failed to develop and implement adequate corporate governance practices and internal controls. Plaintiff alleged that the Board’s internal control failures caused the Company to suffer enormous damages to its reputation and prestige. In settling the CMS Derivative Litigation, the Weiser Firm was able to recover $12 million for the Company, and the Board agreed to adopt what one commentator called “some of the most substantial corporate governance reforms” ever undertaken by a publicly traded corporation.
• Gebhardt v. Allumbaugh, et al., Case No. 2002-13602 (Harris County, Texas)(the “El Paso Derivative Litigation”)
  Mr. Weiser was lead counsel in the El Paso Derivative Litigation. This action centered on the Company’s alleged anti-competitive conduct in California during that the state’s energy crisis of 2001-02. In addition to making sweeping changes to the Board’s structure and the Company’s corporate governance practices, Mr. Weiser was able to secure a $16.75 million recovery for the Company. Mr. Weiser believes that the El Paso Derivative Litigation is either the first or second largest derivative settlement in Texas history.
• Eliasoph v. Johnson, C.A. No. 05BCVS-3698 (North Carolina General Civil Litigation Court)(the “SPX Derivative Litigation”)
  Mr. Weiser was lead counsel in the SPX Derivative Litigation. Like the Etrade Derivative Litigation, Mr. Weiser believes that the SPX Derivative Litigation is among the most successful executive compensation cases ever brought against a publicly traded corporation’s board of directors. In this case, the plaintiff challenged the fairness of the Company’s entire executive compensation structure. In connection with the settlement of the SPX action, the Company’s board of directors agreed to adopt a new executive compensation plan which was designed in part, with plaintiff’s counsel and her expert. The new compensation plan more closely aligned shareholder and management interests and it was estimated that the new plan would save the Company at least $25 million.
• In Re Staples, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, 792 A.2d 934 (Del. Ch. June 5, 2001)
  Mr. Weiser was one of three lead counsel in the Staples action. In that case, plaintiffs secured a financial benefit worth at least $12 million to Staples by winning an injunction preventing Staples from holding a shareholder vote on an improperly disclosed recapitalization plan that would have unfairly benefitted Staples’ insiders at the expense of the Company and its stockholders.
• Wanstrath v. Doctor R. Crants, et al., C.A. No. 99-1719-III (Tenn. Chan. Ct., 20th Judicial District, 1999)(the “Prison Realty Derivative Litigation”)
  In the Prison Realty Derivative Litigation, plaintiff challenged the transfer of assets from Prison Realty to a private entity owned and controlled by several of the Company's top executives. Plaintiffs also alleged that the proposed transaction, would have crippled the Company’s liquidity. Plaintiffs were able to halt the planned transaction, which prevented the Company from suffering a $120 million loss, which was a highly significant victory in light of the Company’s then-precarious financial position. As a result of the settlement of the case, the members of the Company's top management were removed, the composition of the Board of Directors was significantly altered and important corporate governance provisions were also put in place to prevent future abuse. Notably, all of these corporate benefits occurred at a time when the Company was facing near-certain bankruptcy which would have wiped out shareholders’ equity in the Company. Because the Company had adopted these significant changes, it was able to renegotiate the terms of its credit facility with its lenders and it never had to file for bankruptcy protection. Since the time the case was settled, the Company’s new management has led the Company, now-named Corrections Corporation of America, to profitability, and the price of the common stock increased more than 400% in the two years following the settlement.
• Huscher v. Curley, et. al., No. 00 Civ. 21379 (Mich. Cir. Ct., 2000) (the “Sotheby's Derivative Litigation”)
  In the Sotheby’s Derivative Litigation, plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer had entered into illegal price-fixing agreements with the Company’s leading purported competitor, Christie’s International PLC. As a result of the settlement of this case, the Company received the return of certain monetary benefits which had been provided to the Chief Executive Officer that were worth approximately $12 million to the Company. In addition, significant changes in the Company's top management and Board of Directors were achieved in conjunction with the settlement of the case.