THE LITIGATION. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Schroeder, III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Court”) and was brought on behalf of the certified Class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired JCPenney common stock or call options, or who sold JCPenney put options, between August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The initial complaint was filed on October 1, 2013. On February 28, 2014, the Court appointed NSPF as Lead Plaintiff and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP as Lead Counsel. On June 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed the Revised Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors concerning JCPenney’s liquidity, need for additional financing, sufficiency of inventory, and strength of supplier relationships that artificially inflated JCPenney’s stock price, and those statements resulted in substantial damage to the Class. From the outset of the Action, Defendants have denied all of these allegations and consistently maintained that they never made any statement to the market that was false or misleading, nor did they ever direct anyone to make public statements that were false or misleading. Defendants believed at the time and still believe that, during the Class Period and at all other times, JCPenney’s public statements were truthful, accurate and not misleading. As a result Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of securities fraud, including, but not limited to, falsity, scienter and loss causation. On September 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Xxxxxxxx issued a report recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. On September 29, 2015, Judge Xxxxxxxxx issued an order adopting Judge Xxxxxxxx’x report. Thereafter, Defendants filed an answer denying all material allegations of the Complaint and asserting their defenses. On March 8, 2017, the Court entered an order appointing Plaintiff NSPF as class representative and certifying the Class defined as: “All persons who, between August 20, 2013 and September 26, 2013 (the “Class Period”), purchased or otherwise acquired X.X. Xxxxxx Company, Inc. securities, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are current and former defendants, members of the immediate family of any current or former defendants, directors, officers, subsidiaries and affiliates of X.X. Xxxx...
THE LITIGATION. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx X.X. Xxxxx, III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”) and is brought on behalf of a proposed class of: (i) all persons who held stock in Orbital Sciences Corporation (“Orbital Sciences”) as of December 16, 2014 and exchanged shares of Orbital Sciences stock for shares of Orbital ATK common stock on or around February 9, 2015 in connection with the merger between Alliant Techsystems Inc. (“Alliant”) and Orbital Sciences2; and/or (ii) all persons who purchased Orbital ATK common stock between May 28, 2015 and August 9, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The initial complaint was filed on August 12, 2016. On November 10, 2016, the Court appointed Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP as Lead Counsel. On April 24, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which added Xxxxx County as named plaintiff and alleged violations of §§10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The named defendants in the Complaint were Orbital ATK, X. Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx, and Xxxx X. XxXxxxx. As to the §14(a) claim, the Complaint alleged that the Joint Proxy Statement issued by Alliant and Orbital Sciences and signed by Defendants D. Thompson, Pierce, and XxXxxxx on 2 Orbital Sciences and Alliant merged on February 9, 2015 (the “Merger”), at which time Orbital Sciences shareholders were issued Alliant stock, and Alliant, the surviving entity, changed its name to Orbital ATK. December 17, 2014, which was used to solicit shareholder approval of the Merger, contained materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia: (a) Alliant’s historical financial results, (b) the performance of Alliant’s $2.3 billion Lake City Contract, and (c) Alliant’s internal controls because the statements omitted to disclose, inter alia, that Alliant’s financial results were materially misstated, that the Lake City Contract was operating at an approximately $375 million loss, and that Alliant suffered material weaknesses in internal controls. The Complaint further stated that the alleged false and misleading statements caused Alliant to be overvalued and impacted the exchange ratio to the detriment of Orbital Sciences shareholders, depriving certain members of the Class of their right to a fully informed shareholder vote and inducing them to vote their shares ...
THE LITIGATION. 21 On June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting violations of 22 their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their rights under California 23 state law, arising from a mass arrest which occurred on November 5, 2010. The 150 24 Class Members were arrested during a march protesting police misconduct and the 25 sentencing of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, the BART officer convicted in the death of Xxxxx
THE LITIGATION. The initial complaint in this case, entitled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-05543-WHP, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) on July 20, 2017. On October 11, 2017, the Court appointed District No. 9, I.A. of M & A.W. Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff. On November 28, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. 1 On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) and alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The named defendants in the Complaint are Lexmark and the Individual Defendants. The Complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements and omissions of 1 Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint named Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx as a defendant. With the Court’s approval, Xx. Xxxxxxx was voluntarily dismissed from the Litigation on December 4, 2017. ECF No. 45. material fact in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases, earnings calls, and investor conferences regarding Lexmark’s laser printer supplies business, including demand and the amount of Lexmark’s “channel inventory.” The Complaint further alleges that Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of Lexmark common stock. The Complaint alleges that on July 21, 2015, Lexmark revealed a decline in laser printer supplies revenue stemming from the need to reduce elevated channel inventory, and that this disclosure removed the artificial inflation from the price of Lexmark common stock, which declined in response to the Company’s disclosures. On April 2, 2018, Xxxxxxxxxx moved to dismiss the Complaint. Following briefing and oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, on March 19, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 2, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer and Defenses to the Complaint. ECF No. 86. Defendants denied, and continue to deny, each and all of the Complaint’s allegations of fraud or intentional misconduct. Defendants contend they are not liable for any alleged false or misleading statements and that all information required to be disclosed by the federal securities laws was so disclosed. Defendants also contend that th...
THE LITIGATION. Plaintiff alleges that between July 2020 and January 2021, criminal actors accessed information from Defendant, including the personally identifiable information (collectively, “PII”) of over one hundred thousand consumers, including, but not limited to, their driver’s license numbers (referred to as the “Data Incident”). Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the Data Incident, an unauthorized user or users gained access to Plaintiff’s personally identifiable information, including, but not limited to, his name, and driver’s license number. After the Data Incident, Defendant sent notification letters to approximately 122,170 individuals, including 9,418 California residents and 88,468 New York residents. Defendant offered these individuals two years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Plaintiff and members of the Settlement Class (defined below) received notices of the Data Incident on or about March 5, 2021. On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:21-cv-07676-JSW), through attorney X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx of Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, A Professional Law Corporation. Plaintiff asserted claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) declaratory relief, (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349, et seq. On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff, on behalf of the Settlement Class, filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) through attorneys X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxx of Xxxx Haldenstein Xxxxx Xxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP. In the FAC, Plaintiff asserted claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (iv) violation of New York GBL § 349, et seq.; and (v) declaratory relief relating to the Data Incident (together with the State Court Complaint and proceedings, “the Litigation”). As the Litigation progressed, and over the course of several months between early February 2022 and late May 2022, the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations, including a full day mediation session with Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx, Esq. of Judicate West, and additional negotiations under the mediator’s supervision thereafter. As a result of the mediation and negotiations, the Parties agreed on basic terms of a settlement, which are memorialized in this S...
THE LITIGATION. The initial complaint in this case, entitled Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01016-VM, was filed by Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) on February 10, 2017. After no OneMain shareholders other than Plaintiff moved to be appointed as lead plaintiff, on March 23, 2017, the Court appointed Plaintiff as lead plaintiff. On June 13, 2017, the Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) was filed alleging violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The named defendants in the Complaint are OneMain and the Individual Defendants. Consistent with the Court’s Individual Practices, after Plaintiff filed the Complaint, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter on August 23, 2017, outlining their views on why the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff responded by letter on September 18, 2017, explaining that the Complaint stated actionable claims for each statement challenged therein. Defendants provided this correspondence to the Court on September 29, 2017, along with a letter setting forth Defendants’ arguments in reply. On December 12, 2018, the Court construed the letter briefing as Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and denied Defendants’ motion. On January 3, 2019, Defendants submitted a letter to the Court seeking permission to move for reargument of the Court’s motion to dismiss decision, solely with respect to certain statements made in February 2016. On January 28, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and asserted defenses thereto. In the course of the Litigation, the parties engaged the services of Xxx X. Xxxxxxx, Esq., a nationally recognized mediator. A mediation session with Xx. Xxxxxxx was held on March 20, 2019, which culminated with Plaintiff and Defendants agreeing to settle the Action for $9 million subject to the negotiation of the terms of this Stipulation and approval by the Court.
THE LITIGATION. In approximately April 2022, ACTS experienced a cybersecurity attack that potentially exposed the personally identifiable information (“PII”), including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers, and financial account and routing numbers (the “Data Security Incident”), of a number of individuals, including some of its current and former employees. ACTS began notifying Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class about the Data Security Incident in approximately July 2022. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff Xxxxx, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against ACTS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Corra v.
THE LITIGATION. On and after April 21, 2008, two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) as putative securities class actions on behalf of all Persons who purchased the securities of Credit Suisse Group (“CSG”) during the period between February 15, 2007 and April 14, 2008, inclusive. These actions were consolidated for all purposes into the Action by Order dated June 23, 2008. On July 7, 2008, the Court entered Plaintiffs’ Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) on October 21, 2008. The Complaint alleged violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and §20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, which motion was opposed by Lead 1 Capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in Part IV.1. herein.
THE LITIGATION. A. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xx Xxxxxxxx in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Trinity common stock between February 16, 2012 and April 24, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby. The initial complaint was filed on April 27, 2015. On March 8, 2016, the Court appointed Xxxxxxxx and Pipefitters, the UA Fund, and New Jersey as Lead Plaintiffs and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP, Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx LLP, and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 11, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors regarding changes made in 2005 to Trinity’s ET-Plus guardrail system, and that such statements artificially inflated Trinity’s stock price.
THE LITIGATION. 9.1 Purepac has reviewed with patent legal counsel certain patent issues surrounding the manufacture and marketing of Finished Products in the Territory and, in particular, claims made by Pfizer, Inc. in the Litigation. Based upon such review and advice from such patent legal counsel, Purepac believes, in good faith, that its current plans to develop and market Finished Products using API will not violate any validly claimed right of any third party, including, without limitation, those claimed by Pfizer, Inc. in the Litigation.
