DLA Piper LLP (US)

1251 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020-1104
www.dlapiper.com
John Vukelj
john.vukelj@dlapiper.com
T 212.335.4502
F 212.884.8702

January 20, 2016

VIA ECF
Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re:

In re Finocchiaro, et al. v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al.,

Case No. 1:15 Civ. 6385 (NRB)

Dear Judge Buchwald:

We represent Defendant Omar Khan in the above-referenced action. In accordance with
Section 2.B of Your Honors Individual Practices, we write to request a pre-motion conference in
connection with Mr. Khans anticipated motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint (the Complaint) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and
12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. 78u-4.
Mr. Khan joins in the January 19, 2016, request letter filed by counsel for Defendants NQ
Mobile, Inc. (NQ or the Company) and Matthew Mathison, and adopts the arguments set
forth therein. As summarized in that letter, Mr. Khans bases for moving to dismiss the
Complaint include:
(1)
Plaintiffs have failed to publish notice advising members of the purported plaintiff
class of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period, as
required pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
(2)
The Complaint fails to allege any actionable misstatement or omission by Mr.
Khan, who formerly served as NQs co-Chief Executive Officer. Tellingly, the Complaint
contains just three allegations that even mention Mr. Khan. The first alleges that between July
31, 2014 and November 1, 2014, Messrs. Khan and Mathison were both telling investors the
Company was worth much more than $9.80 per share, and the Company would not accept [a]
buyout offer that had been made. The Complaint is devoid of any detail on these supposed
representations (i.e., who they were made to, when, and how), and it contains no explanation for
why they were material or false. The Complaints second reference to Mr. Khan simply
identifies him as a former NQ executive. The final reference notes that he resigned from NQ.

Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald

January 20, 2016
Page 2
These sparse allegations present no actionable misstatements or omissions by Mr. Khan, and
they lack the particularity required by Rules 9(b) and 8(a).
(3)
The Complaint fails to plead scienter by Mr. Khan. Indeed, Plaintiffs present no
allegations whatsoever regarding Mr. Khans knowledge or state of mind. This deficiency is
fatal to Plaintiffs claims.
Accordingly, Mr. Khan respectfully requests a pre-motion conference and permission to
proceed with filing a motion to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
Respectfully,
DLA Piper LLP (US)

Caryn G. Schechtman
John Vukelj
Attorneys for Omar Sharif Khan
cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)