PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 8. The authorization to develop amendments to UN GTR No.6 (Safety glazing) was adopted by the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Agreement at its March 2015 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1114, para. 115). It is based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/42. It endorsed the proposed action plan to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on PSG.
9. The aim was to develop an amendment to relevant parts of UN GTR No.6 and UN Regulation No.43, if necessary, so that appropriate methods could be clarified for testing and evaluating Panoramic Sunroof Glazing.
10. The IWG should, at a first stage, collect information to clearly understand the reasons for glass breakage.
11. Parallel to this, additional review and activities should be done to verify the impact of CPA in part areas of vehicle glass in order to establish testing programs and develop recommendations.
12. The IWG on PSG under the Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) reported that PSG breakage can happen based on several factors, none of which could be identified as the single possible source. These include one-time manufacturing or human errors, vehicle and/or roof system design flaws, miss-assemblies or a massive sudden local load-case due to an undefined impact with a sharp, hard and large indenter of high impulse, among various others.
13. The IWG determined that PSG breakage itself does not usually cause serious injuries to the occupants of the vehicle, but this event might trigger other potential incidents to occur as a result of the breakage.
14. The proposed Mutual Resolution (M.R.4) provides guidance to limit the CPA of a possibly affected single toughened safety PSG pane and the measurement procedure proposals for CPA.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 4. The disputing Parties are the United States and Canada (together, the “Parties”). The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) participated as a third Party.
5. The United States’ claims arise under Appendix 2 (“Tariff Schedule of Canada – (Tariff Rate Quotas)”) to Annex 2-B (“Tariff Commitments”) of Chapter 2 (“National Treatment and Market Access for Goods”) as well as under Annex 3-A (“Agricultural Trade Between Canada and the United States”) of Chapter 3 (“Agriculture”) of the Agreement.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. On April 14, 2023, the Tribunal held the First Session of the Tribunal with the disputing parties (“Disputing Parties” or “Parties”) by video conference.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. The case arises from the alleged compromise of personal identifying information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) (collectively “Private Information”) as a result of a ransomware attack Defendant experienced on or around May 2021 (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiffs and Class Members (as defined below) include individuals whose Private Information may have been accessed during the Data Incident. In response to the Data Incident, Defendant sent a Notice Letter (“Notice Letter”) to each potentially impacted individual providing a description of the type of Private Information involved. The potentially accessed information may have included: full names, driver’s license or state ID number, passport number, date of birth, medical diagnosis/treatment information, financial account information and/or Social Security Number. In response, class actions were filed in two jurisdictions: Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, No. 23-cv-01442 (E.D. Pa.) (Filed Apr. 14, 2023) and Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Case ID 230401942 (Phila. C.P.) (Filed Apr. 19, 2023). In their CAC, filed July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs, collectively, alleged individually and on behalf of a nationwide Class that, as a direct result of the Data Incident, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered numerous injuries and would likely suffer additional harm into the future. Plaintiffs alleged that Class Members suffered the following categories of xxxxx: (a) loss of privacy; (b) financial costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from actual or potential future identity theft; (c) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating actual and potential future identity theft(d) anxiety, emotional distress, and other economic and non-economic losses; (e) diminution of value of their PII and PHI; and (f) statutory damages. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other members of the proposed nationwide class, collectively asserted claims for (i) negligence and negligence per se; (ii) Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1, et seq.; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty/confidences; and (iv) declaratory relief.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. On May 5, 2014 and May 7, 2014, two related and substantially similar shareholder derivative actions were separately filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of Ixia against the Individual Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”). On May 28, 2014, the Court consolidated those actions, appointed The Xxxxxx Law Firm, P.C. and Xxxxxxx Topaz Xxxxxxx & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, and appointed Plaintiffs Erie and Xxxxxx as Co-Lead Plaintiffs (the “Consolidation Order”) in the consolidated Action. On September 2, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated derivative complaint. On October 15, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the verified consolidated derivative complaint based on Plaintiffs’ failure to (i) make a prelitigation demand upon the Company’s Board and (ii) plead sufficient facts to show that such a demand would have been futile. On October 15, 2014, the Individual Defendants with the exception of Xxxxxx also filed a motion to dismiss the verified consolidated derivative complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a joinder with respect to the Company’s motion to dismiss. On the same day, Xxxxxx filed joinders with respect to both motions to dismiss. Following the Defendants’ filing of the motions to dismiss, pursuant to further stipulations of the parties and order of the Court (the “Scheduling Order”), Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Complaint”) on January 26, 2015. The Complaint asserted nine counts on behalf of Ixia against the Individual Defendants: six separate counts for breach of fiduciary duty, two separate counts for restitution, and one count for violations of California Corporations Code Sections 25402 and 25502.5. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on March 2, 2015. In April 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to explore a potential resolution of the Action by participating in an in-person mediation (“Mediation”) to be held before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, U.S. District Judge (Retired) (the “Mediator” or “Judge Xxxxxxxx”) in July 2015 in New York City. Accordingly, on April 24, 2015, the Court entered an order staying the Action pending the parties’ participation in the Mediation on July 23, 2015. On June 25, 2015 Plaintiffs and Defendants each submitted to the Mediator, and exchanged amongst each other, mediation statements in anticipation...
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 3. The disputing parties are the USA and Mexico (together, the “Parties”). Canada participated as a third party (the “Third Party”).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 1. In or around April 2016, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized pretrial proceedings for certain putative class action lawsuits filed against VIZIO in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation captioned In re VIZIO, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 8:16-ml-02693-JLS (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx X. Staton.
2. On August 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Dieisha Xxxxxx, Xxxx Zufolo, Xxxxxxx XxXxxxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed their Consolidated Complaint in the Action (as defined below), alleging violations of federal and state privacy and consumer protection laws against VIZIO.
3. On March 23, 2017, Plaintiffs Dieisha Xxxxxx, Xxxx Zufolo, Xxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, and Xxxx Xxxxxxx, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed their Second Consolidated Complaint in the Action, alleging violations of (i) the Video Privacy Xxxxxxxxxx Xxx, 00 X.X.X. § 0000, (xx) the U.S. Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 0000, (xxx) California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 630, (iv) California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq., (v) California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., (vi) Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq., (vii) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, (viii) Massachusetts’ Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, et seq., (ix) Massachusetts’ Statutory Right to Privacy, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 214 § 1B, and (x) Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86, et seq., as well as claims for (xi) unjust enrichment, (xii) intrusion, and (xiii) fraud by omission.
4. On August 15, 2017, VIZIO filed an Answer to the Second Consolidated Complaint in the Action denying the material allegations of each of Plaintiffs’ claims and alleging various affirmative defenses.
5. Over the course of this Action, Plaintiffs and VIZIO, by and through their counsel, have engaged in extensive discovery, including the production and review of voluminous documents, interrogatories, depositions of all of the Plaintiffs, and one non-party deposition.
6. Beginning in January 2018, co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants engaged in extensive settlement negotiations before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, retired chief ...
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 1. On 1 September 2023, the Parties and the Tribunal entered into the Terms of Appointment (“ToA”) for these proceedings. Paragraph 18.1 refers to the regulation of transparency contained in Article 26 of Chapter 11 of the AANZFTA, and Paragraph 18.2 provides as follows: In accordance with the above, additional measures of transparency shall be determined by agreement between the Parties or, in the absence of such agreement, by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will provide a draft order to facilitate the Parties’ discussions.
2. On 17 November 2023, further to Paragraph 18.2 of the ToA, the Tribunal provided the Parties with a draft of this Procedural Order (“Draft PO3”), and invited them to engage in consultations and revert by 1 December 2023.
3. On 28 November 2023, the Parties met virtually to discuss Draft PO3 and subsequently exchanged written comments on the same.
4. On 1 December 2023, the Parties commented on Draft PO3 and provided additional comments in separate letters.
5. This Procedural Order records the Parties’ agreement or the Tribunal’s determinations on transparency/confidentiality.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 18 The Burleys filed the Complaint on June 16, 2016 and the First Amended Complaint on 19 June 17, 2016. ECF No. 1, 4. The Burleys filed an ex parte application for an emergency stay of 20 the 2015 Decision on July 1, 2016, which the Court denied without prejudice to the refiling of a 21 properly noticed motion. ECF No. 8, 9. On July 8, 2016, the Xxxxxxx filed a noticed motion for
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 2. The Arbitrator issued its first award to the parties on 1 August 2005 and notified the award to the General Council later that same day.2 The mandate of the Arbitrator in the first arbitration was:
