The Action. On February 22, 2019, a proposed class action was commenced on behalf of investors who purchased FSD class B common shares in the secondary market during the Class Period, against FSD in the Ontario Superior Court: Xxxx Xxxxxx v. FSD Pharma, Inc. CV-19-614981-00CP (the " Action"). The Plaintiff in the Action alleges that the Defendant made misrepresentations during the Class Period related to FSD’s business, operations and finances by omitting from core documents, non-core documents and statements, material facts regarding the status of its project with Auxly Cannabis Corp. to build-out 220,000 square feet of cannabis cultivation space in Cobourg, Ontario. The parties have reached a proposed settlement of the Action, without an admission of liability on the part of the Defendant, subject to approval by the Court. The terms of the proposed settlement are set out below. FSD will pay CAD $5.5 million (the “Settlement Amount”), in full and final settlement of all claims against it in the Action. The Settlement Amount, less the lawyers’ fees and disbursements, administrator’s expenses, and taxes (the “Net Settlement Amount”), if approved by the Court, will be distributed to the Class on a pro rata basis. The Settlement Agreement may be viewed at xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/fsd-pharma-inc/, xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx, or in the investor relations section of xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx. If the Settlement is approved, a further notice will be published which will include instructions on how Class Members can file Claim Forms to participate in the pro rata distribution of the Net Settlement Amount and the deadline for doing so. The Settlement provides that if it is approved by the Court, the claims of all Class Members which were asserted or which could have been asserted in the Action (except any putative Class Members who opt-out) will be fully and finally released and the Action will be dismissed.
The Action. This case is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Pallmeyer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Court”) and was brought on behalf of the Class (to be certified for settlement purposes) of all Persons who purchased or otherwise
(i) Camping World’s financial results for the fourth quarter for the fiscal year 2016 (the “Financial Statements”); (ii) certain of Defendants’ statements related to internal controls, disclosure controls, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles compliance (the “Controls Statements”); and (iii) certain of Defendants’ statements regarding the acquisition and integration of Gander Mountain (the “Gander Statements” and collectively with the Financial Statements and Controls Statements, the “Challenged Statements”). Lead Plaintiffs allege the Challenged Statements artificially inflated Camping World’s stock price and when the truth was eventually disclosed, the price of Camping World stock declined, resulting in substantial damages to the Class. From the outset of the Action, Defendants have denied all of these allegations and consistently maintained that they never made any statement to the market that was, or that they believed was, false or misleading, nor did they ever direct anyone to make public statements that were, or that they believed were, false and misleading. Defendants maintain that they believed at the time and still believe that, during the Class Period and at all other times, Camping World’s public statements including the Challenged Statements, were not materially false or misleading. As a result, and as argued in their Motions to Dismiss the Action, which had not been ruled on at the time of this Settlement, Defendants contend that Lead Plaintiffs did not plead an actionable claim and cannot prove any element of securities fraud, including, but not limited to, falsity, scienter, or loss causation, and cannot prove any element of the other claims Lead Plaintiffs brought, including claims based on §§11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On May 17, 2019, Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss the Action, alleging that Lead Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 16, 2019, and Defendants filed their replies on August 15, 2019. At the time the Settling Parties reached an agreement to settle the Action, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were pending before the Court. During the Action, certai...
The Action. Case No. 2:16-cv-10936-PDB-EAS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The Action. The Winthrop Parties agree not to pursue any other rights or remedies in, through or with respect to the Action, including but not limited to appealing any aspect of the judgment in the Action.
The Action. In the Action (as defined below), the Class Representatives allege that the actuarial assumptions that the Plans used prior to January 1, 2018 to determine joint and survivor annuity (“JSA,” as defined below) benefits did not produce actuarially equivalent benefits in violation of ERISA. The Class Representatives also allege that the Benefit Plans Committee breached its ERISA fiduciary duties in connection therewith.
The Action. The Action is Xxxxxx, et al. v. CIOX Health, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-05279, and it is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division. In the Action, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants excessively and improperly charged them for copies of medical records in connection with treatment they received at certain West Virginia hospitals and other healthcare providers where Defendants contract to produce copies of patient healthcare records. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ claims and contend that they have not acted in an unlawful manner. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and there is no determination of wrongdoing or liability against Defendants or in favor of Plaintiffs. By settling this lawsuit, Defendants are not admitting, and expressly deny, that they have done anything wrong. However, Defendants have agreed, as part of the Settlement, to reimburse Plaintiffs and those similarly situated a certain monetary amount as discussed in greater detail below. The Court has preliminarily certified a Class (the “Settlement Class”) in the Action, and preliminarily determined that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class is defined to include any release of information request for copies of medical records from a West Virginia medical provider between December 1, 2010 and July 5, 2017, made by a patient, insurance company or attorney which (1) was processed and billed by the Defendants, and (2) for which the patient, insurance company or attorney ultimately paid. The Settlement Class excludes (1) any release of information requests that were made by a class of requestors other than patients, insurance companies or attorneys; (2) any release of information requests that were not ultimately paid for by an attorney, insurance company or patient; (3) any release of information requests that are subject to a separate fee agreement between the requestor and the hospital or Defendants or for which the requestor received a reduced or negotiated rate; (4) any release of information requests directed to hospitals, pharmacies, or medical providers outside of West Virginia, related to treatment performed outside of West Virginia; (5) any release of information requests that are seeking films or diagnostic imaging, including x-ray, computed tomography (CT), computerized axial tomography (CAT scan); fluoroscopy;...
The Action a. The Action was filed on March 13, 2020 by Plaintiff Altamonte, individually and on behalf of a putative class. Defendant Greenway Health, LLC moved to dismiss the Action on May 29, 2020. The Amended Complaint was filed September 18, 2020. Greenway answered the Amended Complaint on November 13, 2020. On February 22, 0000, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx filed a Motion for Class Certification, which Greenway opposed on March 22, 2021. The Motion for Class Certification remains pending.
b. The Amended Complaint alleges that Greenway promised and represented that its Intergy software satisfied the certification requirements of federal government incentive programs, but delivered a noncompliant version of the software for years.
The Action. Outfront shall file a Conditional Notice of Settlement with the Court within 5 days of the Effective Date. Outfront shall file a dismissal of the Action, in its entirety, with prejudice, within two weeks of TEACH’s final payment of the amount specified in paragraph 1(c), above.
The Action. Programme
(1) The Union agrees to finance and the IPA II beneficiaries agree to accept the financing of the 2017 allocation of the following Action Programme as described in Annex I: Cross-border Cooperation Action Programme Montenegro-Albania for the years 2015 - 2017. 2017 (XXXX 2017 / 038-175) This Action Programme is financed from the Union Budget under the following basic act: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II)1.
(2) The total estimated cost of the 2017 allocation of this Action Programme is EUR 1, 400,000 and the maximum Union contribution to this Action Programme is set at EUR 1,190,000. No financial contribution is required from the IPA II beneficiaries.
The Action. Beginning on May 3, 2017, several class action complaints were filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the U. S. Steel Defendants asserting violations of the federal securities laws, including: Xxxxx, et. al., v.
