The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxx et al. v.
The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxxxxxxx, et al., x. Xxxxxxx University, et al, Case No. 16-cv-6525 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Class Action”). The Court supervising the case is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The individuals who brought this suit are called Class Representatives, and the entity and individuals they sued are called the Defendants. The Class Representatives are current and former participants in the Plans. The Defendants are Cornell University, the Retirement Plan Oversight Committee, and Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx. The Class Representatives’ claims are described below, and additional information about them is available at xxx.Xxxxxxx000xXxxxXxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxxxxxx et al. x. Xxxxx University et al., No. 16-cv-2920 (N.D. Ga.) (the “Class Action”). The Court supervising the case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The individuals who brought this suit are called Class Representatives, and the entities they sued are called the defendants. The Class Representatives are current and former participants in the Plans. The Defendants are Emory University and certain affiliates and individuals. The Class Representatives’ claims are described below, and additional information about them is available at Xxxxx000xXxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxxx, et al. x. XxXxxxxx & Company, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-01466- GHW-SN (the “Class Action” or “lawsuit”). It has been pending since February 15, 2019. The Court supervising the case is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The individual who brought this lawsuit is called the Class Representative, and the entities he sued are called Defendants. The Class Representative, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, is a former participant in the Plans. The Defendants are McKinsey, MIO, and certain unidentified individuals (“Doe Defendants”) with fiduciary functions relating to the Plans. The Class Representative’s claims are described below, and additional information about those claims is available at [xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx].
The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxxxx, et al. v. Reliance Trust, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-4444-MHC (N.D. Ga.) (the “Class Action”). The Court supervising the case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The individuals who brought this suit are called Class Representatives, and the entity and individuals they sued are called the Defendants. The Class Representatives are current and former participants in the Plan. The Defendants are Reliance Trust Company, Insperity, Inc., Insperity Holdings, Inc., and Insperity Retirement Services, L.P. The Class Representatives’ claims are described below, and additional information about them is available at xxx.Xxxxxxxxx000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxxx, et al. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11620 (D. Mass.) (the “Class Action”). The Court supervising the case is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The individuals who brought this suit are called Class Representatives, and the entity and individuals they sued are called the Defendants. The Class Representatives are current and former participants in the Plan. The Defendants are Massachusetts Institute of Technology and certain individuals. The Class Representatives’ claims are described below, and additional information about them is available at xxx.XXX000XXxxxxxxxxxXxxx.xxx.
The Class Action. On or after September 7, 2007, a class action, Xxxxxx v. Smart Online, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 07-CV-00785-WO-PTS (the “Action”), was filed in this Court on October 18, 2007 as a class action alleging on behalf of purchasers of Smart Online securities during a defined period of time violations of the federal securities laws. The suit seeks relief on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Smart Online, Inc. (“Smart Online” or the “Company”) during the Class Period and who were damaged thereby. The class action seeks remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78j, and Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, thereunder arising out of the Defendants’ alleged misconduct. By Order dated June 24, 2008, the Court appointed Xxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx as Lead Plaintiff and approved her selection of Xxxx Xxxxx & Xxxx LLC2 and Xxxxxx Piven, a Professional Corporation as Lead Counsel for the Class and S. Ranchor Xxxxxx, III as Liaison Counsel for the Class.
The Class Action. The case is called Xxxxxxxxx, et al. v. Massachusetts Financial Services Company d/b/a MFS Investment Management, et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-11249 (D.Mass) (the “Class Action” or “lawsuit”). It has been pending since July 7, 2017. The Court supervising the case is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The individuals who brought this lawsuit are called Class Representatives, and the persons they sued are called Defendants. The Class Representatives, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx, are Current Participants or Former Participants in the Plans. The Defendants are MFS, the MFS Retirement Committee, and the MFS Retirement Investment Committee. The Class Representatives’ claims are described below, and additional information about them is available at [xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx].
The Class Action. On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Xxxx County, Illinois, alleging, inter alia, a claim for damages and an injunction under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (“BIPA”) (the “Class Action”). Plaintiff claimed that Defendant collected, stored, and disclosed her fingerprint data without authorization through the use of its finger-scanning customer identification system.
The Class Action. On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff Xxxxxx commenced the Class Action by filing a Complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff Xxxxxx’x Class Action Complaint alleged claims that Defendant:
