ERISA Litigation Sample Clauses

ERISA Litigation. No material proceeding, claim, lawsuit and/or investigation is existing or, to the best knowledge of Borrower, threatened concerning or involving any (i) employee welfare benefit plan (as defined in Section 3(1) of ERISA) currently maintained or contributed to by Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate, (ii) Pension Plan or (iii) Multiemployer Plan.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (33)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
ERISA Litigation. This ESCROW AGREEMENT (the “Escrow Agreement”) is entered into in connection with a Settlement Agreement dated as of .
Sample 1
ERISA Litigation. 37 ---------------- 5.20 Employee Matters...............................................................................37 ---------------- 5. 20.1 Collective Bargaining Agreements; Grievances..........................................37 -------------------------------------------- 5. 20.2 Claims Relating to Employment.........................................................37 ----------------------------- 5.21 Burdensome Obligations.........................................................................37 ---------------------- 5.22 Insurance......................................................................................38 --------- 5.23 Xxxxxx Group Merger Instruments................................................................38 -------------------------------
Sample 1
ERISA Litigation. 27 Section 4.12 Intellectual Property.......................................27 Section 4.13 Broker's Fees...............................................28
Sample 1
ERISA Litigation. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R.
Sample 1
ERISA Litigation. No. 01-3913 (S.D. Tex.) (Also cited as “Xxxxxx v. Enron Corp.”). Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx served as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action filed in the Southern District of Texas on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Enron Corporation Savings Plan, a 401(k) plan and ESOP plan. On September 30, 2003, Judge Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx denied Defendants’ numerous motions to dismiss in a landmark decision that addressed in detail Defendants’ obligations as ERISA fiduciaries, and upheld Plaintiffs’ core ERISA claims. See Xxxxxx v. Enron Corp., 284 F. Supp. 2d 511 (S.D. Tex. 2003). Judge Xxxxxx subsequently granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and affirmed Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx as Co-Lead Counsel. See Xxxxxx v.
Sample 1
ERISA Litigation. In May 2002, in Xxxxx v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH’s tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the XXX 000(x) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the XXX 000(x) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the “1999 Amendment”) that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the XXX 000(x) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in pa...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to ERISA Litigation

  • Material Litigation Promptly after the commencement thereof, notice of all actions, suits, investigations, litigation and proceedings before any court or governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, affecting any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries of the type described in Section 4.01(f), and promptly after the occurrence thereof, notice of any material adverse change in the status or the financial effect on any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries of the Material Litigation from that described on Schedule 4.01(f) hereto.

  • No Pending Litigation There is no action, suit, proceeding, investigation or litigation pending or, to the Purchaser’s knowledge, threatened, which either in any one instance or in the aggregate, if determined adversely to the Purchaser would adversely affect the purchase of the Mortgage Loans by the Purchaser hereunder, or the Purchaser’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement; and

  • Investigations; Litigation There is no investigation or review pending (or, to the knowledge of Parent, threatened) by any Governmental Entity with respect to Parent or any of its Subsidiaries which would have, individually or in the aggregate, a Parent Material Adverse Effect, and there are no actions, suits, inquiries, investigations or proceedings pending (or, to Parent’s knowledge, threatened) against or affecting Parent or its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective properties at law or in equity before, and there are no orders, judgments or decrees of, or before, any Governmental Entity, in each case which would have, individually or in the aggregate, a Parent Material Adverse Effect.

  • Pending Litigation Financial position and prospective long-term profitability of the Single Tenderer, and in the case the Tenderer is a JV, of each member of the JV, shall remain sound according to criteria established with respect to Financial Capability under paragraph I (i) above assuming that all pending litigation will be resolved against the Tenderer. Tenderer shall provide information on pending litigations as per Form CON-2.

  • Related Litigation The party that delivers the Arbitration Notice to the other party shall have the option to also commence concurrent legal proceedings with any state or federal court sitting in Salt Lake County, Utah (“Litigation Proceedings”), subject to the following: (a) the complaint in the Litigation Proceedings is to be substantially similar to the claims set forth in the Arbitration Notice, provided that an additional cause of action to compel arbitration will also be included therein, (b) so long as the other party files an answer to the complaint in the Litigation Proceedings and an answer to the Arbitration Notice, the Litigation Proceedings will be stayed pending an Arbitration Award (or Appeal Panel Award (defined below), as applicable) hereunder, (c) if the other party fails to file an answer in the Litigation Proceedings or an answer in the Arbitration proceedings, then the party initiating Arbitration shall be entitled to a default judgment consistent with the relief requested, to be entered in the Litigation Proceedings, and (d) any legal or procedural issue arising under the Arbitration Act that requires a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction may be determined in the Litigation Proceedings. Any award of the arbitrator (or of the Appeal Panel (defined below)) may be entered in such Litigation Proceedings pursuant to the Arbitration Act.

  • Third Party Litigation In the event that a Third Party institutes a patent or other infringement suit against any of NovaDel, PAR or HANA or any of its respective Affiliates during the Term, alleging manufacture, use or sale of a Licensed Product in the Territory, infringes one or more patent or other intellectual property rights held by such Third Party (an “Infringement Suit”), the Parties shall cooperate with one another in defending such suit. PAR, as the NDA holder, shall have the first right to direct and control, at its expense, any Infringement Suit (including settlement negotiations, settlement or compromise thereof) to the extent that it relates to the manufacture, use or sale of a Licensed Product but does not implicate the Licensed Technology or Licensed Process. In the event that the Infringement Suit relates to the use of the Licensed Technology or Licensed Process, NovaDel shall have the first right to direct and control, at its expense, any such Infringement Suit (including settlement negotiations, settlement or compromise thereof). To the extent that any amounts become payable to any Third Party as a result of such action, whether through judgment or settlement, then PAR shall, unless HANA is jointly promoting and commercializing the Licensed Product pursuant to Section 2.4 and subject to Section 12.2, bear [***] percent ([***]%) of such amounts with respect to the Exploitation of the Licensed Product; provided, however, that PAR shall have the right to credit [***] percent ([***]%) of any amounts paid by PAR through judgment or settlement with respect to such country against the royalty payments to be paid by PAR to HANA with respect to the sale of the Licensed Product under Section 6.3; provided further, however, that no royalty payment when due, regardless of the amount or number of credits available to PAR shall be reduced by more than [***] percent ([***]%) of the amounts otherwise owed pursuant to Section 6.3 in any calendar quarter. Credits not exhausted in any calendar quarter may be carried into future calendar quarters. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that no payments are due or owing, or contemplated to be due or owing, by PAR to HANA under Article 6 with respect to the sale of the Licensed Product, then NovaDel shall pay to PAR such amount owed to a Third Party up to a cap of [***]% of such amount owed to such Third Party, less any amount already credited to PAR under this Section 10.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, NovaDel shall have no obligation under this Section 10.3 for any costs, expenses or damages that are paid or payable to a Third Party as a result of an actual or alleged infringement by PAR or HANA to the extent such costs, expenses or damages result from the use of a Product Trademark.

  • No Governmental Litigation There shall not be pending or threatened any Legal Proceeding in which a Governmental Body is or is threatened to become a party or is otherwise involved: (a) challenging or seeking to restrain or prohibit the consummation of the Merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement; (b) relating to the Merger and seeking to obtain from Parent or any of its subsidiaries any damages that may be material to Parent; (c) seeking to prohibit or limit in any material respect Parent's ability to vote, receive dividends with respect to or otherwise exercise ownership rights with respect to the stock of the Surviving Corporation; or (d) which would materially and adversely affect the right of Parent, the Surviving Corporation or any subsidiary of Parent to own the assets or operate the business of the Company.

  • Cooperation With Regard to Litigation Executive agrees to cooperate with the Company, during the term and thereafter (including following Executive’s termination of employment for any reason), by making himself available to testify on behalf of the Company or any subsidiary or affiliate of the Company, in any action, suit, or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative, and to assist the Company, or any subsidiary or affiliate of the Company, in any such action, suit, or proceeding, by providing information and meeting and consulting with the Board or its representatives or counsel, or representatives or counsel to the Company, or any subsidiary or affiliate of the Company, as may be reasonably requested and after taking into account Executive’s post-termination responsibilities and obligations. The Company agrees to reimburse Executive, on an after-tax basis, for all reasonable expenses actually incurred in connection with his provision of testimony or assistance.

  • Lawsuits There is no lawsuit, tax claim or other dispute pending or threatened against the Borrower which, if lost, would impair the Borrower's financial condition or ability to repay the loan, except as have been disclosed in writing to the Bank.

  • Transaction Litigation From and after the date of this Agreement until the earlier of the Acquisition Merger Closing or termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, SPAC, on the one hand, and the Company, on the other hand, shall each notify the other in writing promptly after learning of any stockholder demands, other stockholder Actions (including derivative claims) or Actions brought by any third-party relating to this Agreement, any related agreements or any matters relating thereto (collectively, the “Transaction Litigation”) commenced against, in the case of SPAC, any of SPAC or its Subsidiaries or any of their respective Representatives (in their capacity as a Representative of SPAC or any of its Subsidiaries), or, in the case of the Company, any of the Company or its Subsidiaries or any of their respective Representatives (in their capacity as a Representative of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries). SPAC and the Company shall each (i) keep the other reasonably informed regarding any Transaction Litigation, (ii) give the other the opportunity to, at its own cost and expense, participate in the defense, settlement and compromise of any such Transaction Litigation and reasonably cooperate with the other in connection with the defense, settlement and compromise of any such Transaction Litigation, (iii) consider in good faith the other’s advice with respect to any such Transaction Litigation and (iv) reasonably cooperate with each other; provided, however, that in no event shall (x) SPAC or any of its Subsidiaries or any of their respective Representatives settle or compromise any Transaction Litigation without the prior written consent of the Company (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), or (y) the Company or any of its Subsidiaries any or any of their respective Representatives settle or compromise any Transaction Litigation without the prior written consent of SPAC (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed).

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!