Cypanga Sicav SIF v. Fiserv, Inc., Michael P. Lyons, and Robert W. Hau; Sandra Lombard v. Fiserv, Inc., Michael P. Lyons, and Robert W. Hau

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CYPANGA SICAV SIF, Case No. 25-CV-1716-JPS Plaintiff, v.

FISERV, INC., MICHAEL P. LYONS, and ROBERT W. HAU,

Defendants.

SANDRA LOMBARD, Case No. 25-CV-1786-PP Plaintiff,

v.

FISERV, INC., MICHAEL P. LYONS,

and ROBERT W. HAU,

Defendants.

On November 4, 2025, Cypanga Sicav SIF sued Fiserv, Inc., Michael P. Lyons, and Robert W. Hau (“Defendants”), alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Case No. 25-CV-1716, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter “Cypanga Action”). Several days later, on November 14, 2025, Sandra Lombard sued the same Defendants, similarly alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Case No. 25-CV-1786, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter “Lombard Action”). The Cypanga Action is assigned to this branch of the Court; the Lombard Action is assigned to Chief Judge Pamela Pepper. Both are putative class actions. Cypanga Action, ECF No. 1 at 2; Lombard Action, ECF No. 1 at 2. In each case, there is also a pending request to intervene and transfer the action to the Southern District of New York for consolidation with an allegedly similar case pending there. Cypanga Action, ECF No. 4 (motion by ETHENEA Independent Investors S.A., the City of Hollywood Police Officers’ Retirement System, and City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Miami Beach to intervene and to transfer the Cypanga Action for consolidation with City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System v. Fiserv, Inc., Case No. 25-CV-6094 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2025) (hereinafter “Southern District of New York Action”)); Lombard Action, ECF No. 3 (same). Two entities move for appointment as lead plaintiff and counsel in the Cypanga Action and to consolidate the case with the Lombard Action. Cypanga Action, ECF No. 21 (motion by Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds (“NCPTTF”)) and ECF No. 28 (motion by Employees Retirement System of Hawaii (“ERSH”)); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) (providing for appointment of a lead plaintiff). ERSH filed an identical motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and counsel and consolidation in the Lombard Action. Lombard Action, ECF No. 15; see also CIV. L.R. 42(a) (requiring that such motions be filed “in all of the cases sought to be consolidated”). In this Order, the Court addresses these motions insofar as they seek consolidation, leaving for later consideration the matter of appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii) (requiring consolidation to be decided first). Because the lowest-numbered case is assigned to this branch of the Court, it must now decide the motions for consolidation. CIV. L.R. 42(a). The Court has discretion to consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). More specifically, the Court need not “find that common questions of law or fact predominate, only that they exist and that consolidation will prove beneficial.” Habitat Educ. Ctr. Inc. v. Kimbell, 250 F.R.D. 390, 394 (E.D. Wis. 2008). Further, [a]lthough neither Rule 42 nor case law defines “common question of law or fact,” the plain meaning of this phrase indicates that a common question is one that must be answered identically in each case in which it is presented. When common questions of law or fact are present, cases should be consolidated if consolidation will streamline the litigation without causing the parties undue prejudice. . . . In determining whether to consolidate, [the Court] consider[s] such factors as judicial economy, avoiding delay, and avoiding inconsistent or conflicting results. Id. (internal citations omitted). The Court sees no barrier to consolidating these two actions. Both complaints raise substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar relief. In addition, no party or entity that has sought to intervene in this case has opposed consolidation of the two matters. Moreover, the above-identified interests in judicial economy, efficiency, and consistency are well-served by consolidation. Consolidation will facilitate issuance of a single decision addressing the pending requests to intervene and transfer these actions for consolidation with the Southern District of New York Action, requests which are largely identical, as well as opposed and fully briefed. Cypanga Action, ECF Nos. 5, 18, 20; Lombard Action, ECF Nos. 4, 13, 14.1

1The Court will take up the motions to intervene and transfer in due course; if they are not granted, the Court will also invite further briefing on the requests for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel and resolve them as appropriate. Cypanga Action, ECF Nos. 21, 25, 28; Lombard Action, ECF No. 15. Accordingly, the motions to consolidate will be granted, and the Cypanga and Lombard Actions will be consolidated together for all purposes. This consolidated action shall hereafter bear the caption In re Fiserv, Inc. Securities Litigation. The case file for the consolidated action shall be maintained under Case No. 25-CV-1716, the number assigned to the first- filed case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and all papers and pleadings in the consolidated action shall be filed thereunder. As previously ordered in the Cypanga Action, Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint, the parties’ deadline to file a Rule 26(f) report, discovery, and further briefing on the motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel all remain stayed until the Court resolves the pending motions to intervene and transfer. Cypanga Action, Dec. 3, 2025 and Jan. 6, 2026 text orders; supra note 1. The Court’s Comprehensive Protocols and Procedures Order, Cypanga Action, ECF No. 3, also remains in effect. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the unopposed motions to consolidate, Cypanga Action, Case No. 25-CV-1716, ECF Nos. 21 and 28, and Lombard Action, Case No. 25-CV-1786, ECF No. 15, be and the same hereby are GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case Nos. 25-CV-1716 and 25-CV- 1786 be consolidated together for all purposes under the caption In re Fiserv, Inc. Securities Litigation; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case file for the consolidated action shall be maintained under Case No. 25-CV-1716 and all papers and pleadings in the consolidated action shall be filed thereunder and shall bear the caption In re Fiserv, Inc. Securities Litigation. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 5th day of February, 2026. BY THE \ =) — yo Stadttayeller U.S.District Judge

Page 5 of 5