DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. On December 20, 2006, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxx (together with Frenchola Holden and Xxxxx XxXxxxxx) (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”) filed this Action against Defendants GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC Mortgage”), GMAC Bank (now known, and hereinafter referred to, as Ally Bank), and Cap Re of Vermont, LLC (“Cap Re”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (Defendants together with the Named Plaintiffs, the “Parties”). The Action was filed as a proposed class action. Named Plaintiffs allege that the portions of the mortgage insurance premiums that certain non-party private mortgage insurance providers ceded to Cap Re were disguised kickbacks paid for the referral of private mortgage insurance business. Named Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ conduct violated Section 8 of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. On May 14, 2012, GMAC Mortgage and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases are being jointly administered and are styled In re Residential Capital, LLC, No. 12- 12020-MG (the “Chapter 11 Cases”). On July 3, 2013, the Debtors and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed that certain Joint Chapter 11 Plan Proposed by Residential Capital, LLC, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (as may be modified, amended or supplemented from time to time, the “Chapter 11 Plan”). On November 19, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court commenced a hearing in connection with confirmation of the Chapter 11 Plan. A copy of the Chapter 11 Plan and related documents is available at xxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxx. Defendants deny all of Named Plaintiffs’ claims and deny any wrongdoing and any liability to Named Plaintiffs or any Class Members, in any amount. Defendants contend that Named Plaintiffs’ claims have no merit and that Defendants would prevail in the Action. Class Counsel have investigated the facts and the applicable law regarding the matters raised in the Action. Class Counsel believe that the issues before the Court are complex and are further complicated by the pending Chapter 11 Cases. Given these complications and the uncertainty as to the outcome of the Action, there is a risk that Named Plaintiffs could recover nothing. Absent the Settlement, the Chapter...
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. Overall objective, specific objective(s), expected outputs and indicative activities
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. It is suggested that this be drafted in very wide terms so that it encompasses all possible causes of action and remedies. Note, the Conditions include an appeal and so if it is not intended for the CFA to apply to any appeal this should be stated expressly in the definition of the Action.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. 2.1 On July 25, 2006, Atmel announced that its audit committee had initiated an independent investigation “regarding the timing of Atmel stock option grants.” The investigation covered Atmel’s stock option grants between March 19, 1991, and August 3, 2006. In June 2007, Atmel restated its financial statements for the periods between 1993 and 2005 by approximately $116 million.
2.2 On July 27, 2006, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx filed a derivative action in the Federal Court against certain current and former officers and directors of Atmel (Action No. C06-04592). Three additional derivative actions were filed in the same court by Xxxxxxx Xxxxx (Action No. C06-4973), Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (Action No. C06-04680), and Xxxxxxx XxXxxxx (Action No. C08-01031). On October 4, 2006, these actions were consolidated under the caption In re Atmel Corp.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION i print format A4 landscape Estimated eligible 1 costs (per budget category) EU contribution A. Direct personnel costs B. Direct costs of subcontracting [C .Direct costs of financial support] D. Other direct costs E. Indirect costs2 Total costs Reimburse ment rate%3 Maximum EU contribution4 Maximum grant amoun 5t
A.1 Emplyees (or equivalent) A.2 Natural persons under direct contract and seconded persons [C.1 Financial support] [C.2 Prizes] X.0 Xxxxxx X.0 Xxxxxxxxx X.0 Other goods and services 6 Cost form Actual Actual Unit Actual 7 Flat-rate 7% a b c d e =0,07 * (a + b + d) f = a+ b + c + d + e g h = g * f i 1. [short name partner] [short name affiliated entity not receivingfunding] [short name affiliated entity not receiving EUfunding Total partner 2. [short name partner] [short name affiliatedentity] Total partner X. [short name partner not receiving EU 8 funding] [short name affiliated9entity] Total consortium Action's estimated receipts Income generated by the action Financial contributions given by third parties to the partners Action’s totalreceipts j k l = j+k Additional information Estimated costs of partners/ affiliated entities not receiving EU funding m 1 See Article 5 SGA for the eligibility conditions. 2 The indirect costs claimed must be free of any amounts covered by an operating grant (received under any EU or Euratom funding programme). A partner that receives an operating grant during the duration of the action cannot claim any indirect costs for the year(s) covered by the operating grant (see Article 5.2.E SGA).
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. The purpose of Work Package 6 in the SIMSTAT Pilot ESSnet1 is to evaluate the quality of statistics produced using exchanged dispatch micro data to assess the usability of micro data exchange in a possible future SIMSTAT setup. The Work Package has three objectives:
6.1. Proposal for an analysis plan to evaluate the quality of the statistics to be produced during the ESSnet work. The plan should include both the production of short-term estimates and the production of detailed data
6.2. Compilation and quality evaluation of statistics using the data exchanged during the ESSnet. Each participating Member State should compile and analyse the data concerning their own economy obtained from other Member States.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. the FOLDOUT Website went only a few weeks after the Kick-Off Meeting Each partner will include updated information about the project and links to the central website to deal with the objectives reported below.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. Give stakeholders and the public an overview of the project, benefits and pilot sites. This video initially planned for previous reporting period should come for the reporting period after the pilots start.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. The grant awarded aims at implementing the activities as they are described in the application form: Submitted by: […] For the project whose title is: […] Registered by the Executive Agency under the reference: […] Having received the contract number: […] Any change to the activities needs to be explicitly authorised by the Executive Agency.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION. 1.1 The Plaintiffs contend that Entertainers performing at the adult clubs doing business as The Library Gentlemen’s Club – Westminster CA; The Library Gentlemen’s Club – Anaheim; and The Library Gentlemen’s Club – Redlands (the “Clubs”) should have been treated as employees rather than as independent contractors and as a result were entitled to but did not receive adequate compensation and benefits in exchange for the services they provided to the Clubs. Plaintiffs further contend, among other things, that Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to pay wages, failed to reimburse expenses, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failed to provide workers compensation insurance, that Defendants were engaged in unlawful tip-sharing arrangements with the Entertainers and that Defendants violated the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) (Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq.) and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (29 U.S. Code §§ 201 et. seq.) Defendants in the Action dispute and deny any The United States District Court for the Central District of California has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.
