Antitrust Litigation Sample Clauses
The Antitrust Litigation clause establishes the parties' rights and obligations in the event of legal action related to antitrust laws. Typically, this clause outlines procedures for cooperation, notification, and the allocation of responsibility if one party becomes involved in an antitrust investigation or lawsuit. For example, it may require parties to promptly inform each other of any government inquiries or to coordinate their legal strategies. Its core function is to ensure that both parties are prepared to address antitrust issues efficiently and to clarify how risks and responsibilities are managed in such situations.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Antitrust Litigation. This Document Relates To: All Actions MDL No. 2409 Civil Action No. 1:12-md-02409-WGY
Antitrust Litigation. The term “Antitrust Litigation” means the matter entitled Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al., No. 04-431105 (Supr. Ct. Cal., San ▇▇▇▇. Filed May 5, 2004) and any appeals therefrom and related proceedings, including specifically the appeal in Rambus Inc. v Micron Technology, Inc., et al., in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, Case No. A135150.
Antitrust Litigation. ▇ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Settlement Agreement" or "Agreement") is made as of the 4th day of June 2003, by Defendant MasterCard International, Incorporated ("MasterCard") and Plaintiffs in In Re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, No. 96-CV-5238 (JG), a Class Action (the "Class Action" or "Action"), on behalf of each and every member of the Class defined herein (collectively, the "Plaintiffs" or "Class Members").
Antitrust Litigation. This Document Relates To: All End-Payor Class Actions MDL No. 2409 Civil Action No.: 1:12-md-2409-WGY THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the “Settlement Agreement”) is made and entered into on April 1, 2015, by and between defendants Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, “Teva”), and United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Fraternal Order of Police Miami Lodge 20 Insurance Trust Fund, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund, Laborers International Union of North America Local 35 Health Care Fund, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595 Health and Welfare Fund, Laborers International Union of North America Local 17 Health Care Fund, International Union of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District No. 15 Health Fund, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund, and A.F. of L-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, (collectively “End-Payor Class Plaintiffs”) and the certified End-Payor Class in In Re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-md-2409-WGY (D. Mass.). The End-Payor Class Plaintiffs and End-Payor Class are collectively referred to herein as the “End-Payor Class,” the “Plaintiffs,” or the “Class.” Three plaintiffs groups, the End-Payor Class, Direct Purchaser Class, and the Individual Retailer Plaintiffs, brought suit against Teva, AstraZeneca AB, Aktibolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP (collectively, “AstraZeneca”), Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, “Ranbaxy”), ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Laboratories, Ltd. and ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”) in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-md-2409-WGY (D. Mass.) (the “MDL Action”). All three plaintiffs groups have agreed to settle their claims against Teva for a single payment, defined in paragraph 5 below, to be divided amongst the three plaintiffs groups.1 This agreement covers the terms of Teva’s settlement with the End-Payor Class. By order dated November 14, 2013, the End-Payor Class is defined as follows: All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Nexium or its AB-rated generic equivalents in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, ...
Antitrust Litigation. Buyer will use its best efforts to cause the Company to pursue the Antitrust Litigation on behalf of the Company. The Company shall retain all proceeds