CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. Neville filed the Action (defined below)1 against QED Manufacturing and Xxxxx. Specifically, Neville asserted that QED Manufacturing breached the parties’ employment agreement by firing Neville. Neville further sought both a declaratory judgment and constructive trust based on the sale of Lawn Solutions of Texas, Inc. Neville’s claim against Xxxxx was based on an alter ego theory. 2 Defendants denied Neville’s allegations and sought a declaratory judgment. Defendants specifically alleged that Neville had substantially contributed to QED Manufacturing’s loss of business and that Neville’s termination was therefore just. Defendants also counterclaimed statutory fraud against Neville based on the sale of Lawn Solutions of Texas, Inc. Under the employment and purchase agreements between the parties, Plaintiff requested that the Action be mediated. During mediation, the parties agreed to release all claims against each other arising out of and relating to the Action. Accordingly, the parties agree that:
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. A. On or about February 24, 2005, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the Action (as defined below) against Defendants. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A 56:8-1 et seq.
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. 1. The Settling Defendants and/or their Affiliates have been involved, together and separately, in facilitating Refund Anticipation Loans (“RALs”) at some point from at least 1992 to the present. A RAL is a patented method by which tax customers, for a fee, can take a loan that is secured by and expected to be repaid from the anticipated proceeds of their tax refunds.
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. 1. The Beneficial Defendants and the Block Defendants (collectively the "Settling Defendants") and/or their Affiliates have been involved, together and separately, in offering or assisting lenders in offering Refund Anticipation Loans ("RALs") at some point from 1987 to the present. A RAL is a patented method by which tax customers, for a fee, can take out a loan that is secured by and expected to be repaid from the anticipated proceeds of their tax refunds.
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. A. SONY BMG markets and, directly and indirectly, including through retailers, sells, among other things, compact discs (“CDs”) containing music from a wide variety of genres. During the period beginning on August 1, 2003 through the present, some, but not all, of the CD titles marketed and sold by SONY BMG, contained, in addition to tracks of music, software (referred to herein as “Content Protection Software”) that, when the CDs were inserted into computers with CD player/recorder drives, enable consumers to transfer the music to their computers, from which consumers could make specified authorized uses (including transferring the music to portable devices and copying the music on no more than three (3) blank CDs).
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. It was alleged by the US inter alia that the “Varietal testing Method” used by Japan to screen certain varieties of products being imported from the U.S. was inter alia violative of Articles 2.2, as the Japanese varietal testing requirement was maintained without “sufficient scientific evidence” as mandated in Article 2.2. Articles 5.1 and 5.2, because the Japanese varietal testing requirement was not based on an “assessment of risk” as mandated by Article 5.1 and 5.2.
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. A. Defendants market and indirectly, including through retailers, sell, among other things, the Grand Theft Auto series of video game titles. In or about October 2004, Defendants released a game in this series entitled Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for use on the Sony “PlayStation 2”TM video game console. In or about June 2005, Defendants released versions of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas playable on personal computers and on Microsoft XboxTM video game consoles.
