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.
Procedural Background. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint, on behalf of Impinj, against the Individual Defendants asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment (the “Xxxxxxx Action”). On October 28, 2018, Plaintiff Xxxxx filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint, on behalf of Impinj, against the Individual Defendants asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment (the “Xxxxx Action”). On November 8, 2018, Plaintiffs de xx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling and misappropriation of information, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a- 9 promulgated thereunder (the “De La Fuente Action”).1 On December 26, 2018, the parties in the Derivative Action filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Consolidating Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and Establishing a 1 The Xxxxxxx Action, Xxxxx Action, and the De La Fuente Action are collectively referred to herein as the “Derivative Action.” Leadership Structure. On January 2, 2019, the Court granted the stipulation, which: (i) consolidated the Derivative Action; and (ii) appointed Fotouhi’s and Xxxxx’x counsel, The Xxxxx Law Firm, P.A. and The Brown Law Firm, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel and Xxxxxx LLP as Liaison Counsel. On January 25, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Action, which the Court granted on January 28, 2019, and which stayed the Derivative Action until the resolution of a related securities class action, In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-05704 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “Securities Class Action”). On January 30, 2019, the Court administratively closed the Derivative Action.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Procedural Background. 1. On April 14, 2023, the Tribunal held the First Session of the Tribunal with the disputing parties (“
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:
Procedural Background. We have outlined the facts of this case in numerous previous orders. See, e.g., Docket No. 136 (“Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment”); Docket No. 294 (“Order on Post- Trial Claims”). We therefore present here only a brief introduction to the litigation’s current status.
