Common use of Class Findings Clause in Contracts

Class Findings. Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been met as to the Settlement Class, which is defined as: All persons who participated in the Plans at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are each of the individual members of the Investment Committee during the Class Period. The Class Period is August 10, 2010 through January 14, 2021. A. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there are over 20,000 potential class members making joinder impracticable. B. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class that can or would be resolved as to the Plan, not only as to individual participants, including: whether the fiduciaries to the Plan breached their duties; whether the Plans suffered losses resulting from each breach of duty; and what Plan-wide equitable and other relief, if any, the Court should impose in light of Defendants’ alleged breach of duty. C. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class because they all arise from a Plan-level course of conduct. D. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because there is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ individual interests and the interests of the Settlement Class. Instead, they share the same objectives, share the same factual and legal positions, and share the same interest in establishing Defendants’ liability. Additionally, Class Counsel is qualified, reputable, and has extensive experience in ERISA fiduciary breach class actions such as this one. E. The Court finds that, as required by Rule 23(b)(1), individual members of the Settlement Class pursuing their own claims could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual members of the Settlement Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and that adjudication as to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or would substantially impair or impeded those persons’ ability to protect their interests. F. The Court finds that Rule 23(g) is satisfied because the law firm Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, LLP, is capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has done substantial work on this case, including significant investigation, both before filing and thereafter, of the underlying merit of Plaintiffs’ claims alleged in the Class Action. Class Counsel is highly experienced in these types of cases and is knowledgeable of the applicable law.

Class Findings. Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been met as to the Settlement Class, which is defined as: All persons who participated in the Plans Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or more of the Plans Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or more of the Plans Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are each of the individual members of the Investment Committee during the Class Period. The Class Period is August 1011, 2010 through January 14June 30, 20212019. A. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there are over 20,000 potential class members making joinder impracticable. B. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class that can or would be resolved as to the Plan, not only as to individual participants, including: whether the fiduciaries to the Plan breached their duties; whether what are the Plans suffered losses to the Plan resulting from each breach of duty; and what Plan-wide equitable and other relief, if any, the Court should impose in light of Defendants’ Defendant’s alleged breach of duty. C. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class because they all arise from a Plan-level course of conduct. D. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because there is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ individual interests and the interests of the Settlement Class. Instead, they share the same objectives, share the same factual and legal positions, and share the same interest in establishing Defendants’ Defendant’s liability. Additionally, Class Counsel is qualified, reputable, and has extensive experience in ERISA fiduciary breach class actions such as this one. E. The Court finds that, as required by Rule 23(b)(1), individual members of the Settlement Class pursuing their own claims could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual members of the Settlement Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for DefendantsDefendant, and that adjudication as to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or would substantially impair or impeded those persons’ ability to protect their interests. F. The Court finds that Rule 23(g) is satisfied because the law firm Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, LLP, is capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has done substantial work on this case, including significant investigation, both before filing and thereafter, of the underlying merit of Plaintiffs’ claims alleged in the Class Action. Class Counsel is highly experienced in these types of cases and is knowledgeable of the applicable law.

Class Findings. Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the The Court preliminarily finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Procedure, the United States Constitution, the Rules of the Court and any other applicable law have been met as to the “Settlement Class” defined below, which is defined as: All persons who participated in the Plans at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are each of the individual members of the Investment Committee during the Class Period. The Class Period is August 10, 2010 through January 14, 2021.that: A. (a) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there the Settlement Class is ascertainable from records kept with respect to the Plans and from other objective criteria, and the members of the Settlement Class are over 20,000 potential class members making so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be impracticable. B. (b) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class that can or would be resolved as to the Plan, not only as to individual participants, including: whether the fiduciaries to the Plan breached their duties; whether the Plans suffered losses resulting from each breach of duty; and what Plan-wide equitable and other relief, if any, the Court should impose in light of Defendants’ alleged breach of dutyClass. C. (c) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the Named Plaintiffs’ claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class because they all arise from a Plan-level course of conductClass. D. (d) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because there is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ individual interests the Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class in that: (i) the Named Plaintiffs’ interests and the nature of claims alleged are consistent with those of the members of the Settlement Class. Instead, they share ; (ii) there appear to be no conflicts between or among the same objectives, share Named Plaintiffs and the same factual Settlement Class; and legal positions, (iii) the Named Plaintiffs and share the same interest in establishing Defendants’ liability. Additionally, members of the Settlement Class Counsel is are represented by qualified, reputablereputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting large, and has extensive experience in complicated ERISA fiduciary breach class actions such as this oneactions. E. (e) The Court preliminarily finds that, as required that Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (B) are satisfied because the prosecution of separate actions by Rule 23(b)(1), individual members of the Settlement Class pursuing their own claims could result in would create a risk of: (i) inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual class members of the Settlement Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and that adjudication ; or (ii) adjudications as to individual class members that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or would substantially impair or impeded impede those persons’ ability to protect their interests. F. (f) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(g) is satisfied because the law firm Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx L.L.P. and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx & Xxxxxx, LLP, is Chtd. (“Class Counsel”) are capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has have done substantial extensive work on this caseidentifying or investigating potential claims in the action, including significant investigationand have vigorously litigated the validity of those claims for the past six years. Class Counsel are experienced in handling class actions, both before filing other complex litigation, and thereafter, claims of the underlying merit of Plaintiffs’ claims alleged type asserted in the Class Action. Class Counsel is highly experienced in these types of cases and is are knowledgeable of the applicable law, and Class Counsel have committed the necessary resources to represent the Settlement Class. ACCORDINGLY, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT IS HEREBY GRANTED; THE CLASS IS CONDITIONALLY CERTIFIED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

Class Findings. Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been met as to the Settlement Class, which is defined as: All persons who participated are or were participants or beneficiaries in the Plans Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or more of the Plans Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any and/or Alternate Payee Payee, in the case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or more of the Plans Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are each certain individuals identified in the Settlement Agreement. As defined under Section 2.11 of the individual members of Settlement Agreement, the Investment Committee during the Class Period. The Class Period is August 10, 2010 through January 14, 2021the date of entry of the Preliminary Order. A. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there are over 20,000 40,000 potential class members making joinder impracticable. B. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class that can or would be resolved as to the Plan, not only as to individual participants, including: whether the fiduciaries to the Plan breached their duties; whether what are the Plans suffered losses to the Plan resulting from each breach of duty; and what Plan-wide equitable and other relief, if any, relief the Court should impose in light of Defendantsdefendants’ alleged breach of duty. C. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class because they all arise from a Plan-level course of conduct. D. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because there is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ individual interests and the interests of the Settlement Class. Instead, they share the same objectives, share the same factual and legal positions, and share the same interest in establishing Defendantsthe defendants’ liability. Additionally, Class Counsel is qualified, reputable, and has extensive experience in ERISA fiduciary breach class actions such as this one. E. The Court finds that, as required by Rule 23(b)(1), individual members of the Settlement Class pursuing their own claims could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual members of the Settlement Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendantsthe defendants, and that adjudication as to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or would substantially impair or impeded those persons’ ability to protect their interests. F. The Court finds that Rule 23(g) is satisfied because the law firm Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, LLP, is capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has done substantial extensive work on this case, including significant investigation, both before filing and thereafter, investigation of the underlying merit of Plaintiffs’ claims alleged in the Class ActionActions. Class Counsel is highly experienced in these types of cases and is knowledgeable of the applicable law.

Class Findings. Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the The Court preliminarily finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Procedure, the United States Constitution, the Rules of the Court and any other applicable law have been met as to the “Settlement Class” defined below, which in that: a) The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Class is defined as: All persons who participated in ascertainable from records kept with respect to the Plans at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class PeriodPlan and from other objective criteria, and any Alternate Payee the members of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are each of so numerous that their joinder before the individual members of the Investment Committee during the Class PeriodCourt would be impracticable. The Class Period is August 10, 2010 through January 14, 2021. A. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there are over 20,000 potential class members making joinder impracticablesatisfied. B. b) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class that can or would be resolved as to the Plan, not only as to individual participants, including: whether the fiduciaries to the Plan breached their duties; whether the Plans suffered losses resulting from each breach of duty; and what Plan-wide equitable and other relief, if any, the Court should impose in light of Defendants’ alleged breach of dutyClass. Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied. C. c) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the Named Plaintiff’s claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class because they all arise from a Plan-level course of conductClass. Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied. D. d) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because there is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ individual interests the Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class in that: (i) the Named Plaintiff’s interests and the nature of claims alleged are consistent with those of the members of the Settlement Class. Instead, they share ; (ii) there appear to be no conflicts between or among the same objectives, share Named Plaintiff and the same factual Settlement Class; and legal positions, (iii) the Named Plaintiff and share the same interest in establishing Defendants’ liability. Additionally, members of the Settlement Class Counsel is are represented by qualified, reputablereputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting large, and has extensive experience in complicated ERISA fiduciary breach class actions such as this oneactions. Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied. E. e) The Court preliminarily finds that, as required that the prosecution of separate actions by Rule 23(b)(1), individual members of the Settlement Class pursuing their own claims could result in would create a risk of: (i) inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual class members of the Settlement Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and that adjudication ; or (ii) adjudications as to individual class members that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or would substantially impair or impeded impede those persons’ ability to protect their interests. Rule 23(b)(1) is satisfied. F. f) Alternatively, the Court preliminarily finds that Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Settlement Class, and such conduct may be subject to appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Settlement Class as a whole. Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied. g) The Court preliminarily finds that Rule 23(gXxxxx, Xxxxxxx & Xxxxx, LLP and Xxxxxxx Topaz Xxxxxxx & Check, LLP (collectively, “Class Counsel”) is satisfied because the law firm Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, LLP, is are capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has done substantial work on this casehave adequately identified and investigated potential claims in the action. Class Counsel are experienced in handling class actions, including significant investigationother complex litigation, both before filing and thereafter, claims of the underlying merit of Plaintiffs’ claims alleged type asserted in the Class Action. Class Counsel is highly experienced in these types of cases and is are knowledgeable of about the applicable law, and have committed the necessary resources to represent the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily finds that the Xxxxxxxx Law Offices are experienced and capable of acting as Liaison Counsel for the Class. Rule 23(g) is satisfied.

Class Findings. Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been met as to the “Settlement Class” defined below, which is defined as: in that: A. All persons who participated findings in this Section 1 are based on the submissions to the Court, including the Settlement Agreement. These findings are not based upon any admissions, representations, assertions, or arguments by the Defendants that a class can, should, or would be certified in the Plans at any time during Action, and these findings are made while preserving the Class PeriodDefendants’ rights to argue, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one the event that the settlement does not become final or more is terminated pursuant to terms of the Plans at any time during Settlement Agreement, that no class or that a different class or subclasses, can or should be certified in the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are each of the individual members of the Investment Committee during the Class Period. The Class Period is August 10, 2010 through January 14, 2021. A. The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because there are over 20,000 potential class members making joinder impracticableAction. B. The Court finds that, as required by Rule 23(a)(1), the Settlement Class is ascertainable from records kept with respect to the Plan and from other objective criteria, and that the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be impracticable. C. The Court finds that, as required by Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because ), there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class that can or would be resolved as to the Plan, not only as to individual participants, including: whether the fiduciaries to the Plan breached their duties; whether the Plans suffered losses resulting from each breach of duty; and what Plan-wide equitable and other relief, if any, the Court should impose in light of Defendants’ alleged breach of dutyClass. C. D. The Court finds that that, as required by Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because ), the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class because they all arise from a Plan-level course of conductClass. D. E. The Court finds that finds, as required by Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because there is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ individual interests ), that the Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class in that: i. The interests of Class Representatives and the nature of their alleged claims are consistent with those of the members of the Settlement Class; ii. Instead, they share There appear to be no conflicts between or among the same objectives, share Class Representatives and the same factual Settlement Class; and iii. The Class Representatives and legal positions, and share the same interest in establishing Defendants’ liability. Additionally, members of the Settlement Class Counsel is are represented by qualified, reputablereputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting large, and has extensive experience in complex ERISA fiduciary breach class actions such as this oneactions. E. F. The Court finds that, as required by Rule 23(b)(1), the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Settlement Class pursuing their own claims could result in would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual members of the Settlement Class that Class, would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and that adjudication as to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or would substantially impair or impeded impede those persons’ ability to protect their interests. F. G. The Court finds that that, as required by Rule 23(g) is satisfied because ), the law firm Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, LLP, is capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Settlement ClassClass as Class Counsel. Class Counsel has done substantial extensive work on this case, including significant investigation, both before filing identifying and thereafter, of the underlying merit of Plaintiffs’ investigating potential claims alleged in the Class Actionaction, and has litigated the validity of those claims for over five years. Class Counsel is highly experienced in these types handling class actions and claims of cases the type asserted in the Action and Class Counsel is knowledgeable of the applicable law. Class Counsel has committed the necessary resources to represent the Settlement Class.