THE LITIGATION. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx X.X. Xxxxx, III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”) and is brought on behalf of a proposed class of: (i) all persons who held stock in Orbital Sciences Corporation (“Orbital Sciences”) as of December 16, 2014 and exchanged shares of Orbital Sciences stock for shares of Orbital ATK common stock on or around February 9, 2015 in connection with the merger between Alliant Techsystems Inc. (“Alliant”) and Orbital Sciences1; and/or (ii) all persons who purchased or acquired Orbital ATK common stock between May 28, 2015 and August 9, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The initial complaint was filed on August 12, 2016. On November 10, 2016, the Court appointed Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP as Lead Counsel. On April 24, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which added Xxxxx County as named plaintiff and alleged violations of §§10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The named defendants in the Complaint were Orbital ATK, X. Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx, and Xxxx X. XxXxxxx. As to the §14(a) claim, the Complaint alleged that the Joint Proxy Statement issued by Alliant and Orbital Sciences and signed by Defendants D. Thompson, Pierce, and XxXxxxx on December 17, 2014, which was used to solicit shareholder approval of the Merger, contained materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia: (a) Alliant’s historical financial results, (b) the performance of Alliant’s $2.3 billion Lake City Contract, and (c) Alliant’s internal controls because the statements omitted to disclose, inter alia, that Alliant’s financial results were materially misstated, that the Lake City Contract was operating at an approximately $375 million loss, and that Alliant suffered material weaknesses in internal controls. The Complaint further stated that the alleged false and misleading statements caused Alliant to be overvalued and impacted the exchange ratio to the detriment of Orbital Sciences shareholders, depriving certain members of the Class of their right to a fully informed shareholder vote and inducing them to vote their shares and accept inadequate consideration.
THE LITIGATION. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Schroeder, III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Court”) and was brought on behalf of the certified Class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired JCPenney common stock or call options, or who sold JCPenney put options, between August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The initial complaint was filed on October 1, 2013. On February 28, 2014, the Court appointed NSPF as Lead Plaintiff and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP as Lead Counsel. On June 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed the Revised Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors concerning JCPenney’s liquidity, need for additional financing, sufficiency of inventory, and strength of supplier relationships that artificially inflated JCPenney’s stock price, and those statements resulted in substantial damage 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 false or misleading, nor did they ever direct anyone to make public statements that were false or misleading. Defendants believed at the time and still believe that, during the Class Period and at all other times, JCPenney’s public statements were truthful, accurate and not misleading. As a result Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of securities fraud, including, but not limited to, falsity, scienter and loss causation. On September 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Xxxxxxxx issued a report recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. On September 29, 2015, Judge Xxxxxxxxx issued an order adopting Judge Xxxxxxxx’x report. Thereafter, Defendants filed an answer denying all material allegations of the Complaint and asserting their defenses. On March 8, 2017, the Court entered an order appointing Plaintiff NSPF as class representative and certifying the Class defined as: “All persons who, between August 20, 2013 and September 26, 2013 (the “Class Period”), purchased or otherwise acquired X.X. Xxxxxx Company, Inc. securities, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are current and former defendants, members of the immediate family of any current or former defendants, directors, officers, subsidiaries and affiliates of X.X. Xxxx...
THE LITIGATION. 21 On June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting violations of 22 their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their rights under California 23 state law, arising from a mass arrest which occurred on November 5, 2010. The 150 24 Class Members were arrested during a march protesting police misconduct and the 25 sentencing of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, the BART officer convicted in the death of Xxxxx
THE LITIGATION. The initial complaint in this case, entitled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-05543-WHP, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) on July 20, 2017. On October 11, 2017, the Court appointed District No. 9, I.A. of M & A.W. Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff. On November 28, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. 1 On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) and alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The named defendants in the Complaint are Lexmark and the Individual Defendants. The Complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements and omissions of 1 Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint named Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx as a defendant. With the Court’s approval, Xx. Xxxxxxx was voluntarily dismissed from the Litigation on December 4, 2017. ECF No. 45. material fact in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases, earnings calls, and investor conferences regarding Lexmark’s laser printer supplies business, including demand and the amount of Lexmark’s “channel inventory.” The Complaint further alleges that Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of Lexmark common stock. The Complaint alleges that on July 21, 2015, Lexmark revealed a decline in laser printer supplies revenue stemming from the need to reduce elevated channel inventory, and that this disclosure removed the artificial inflation from the price of Lexmark common stock, which declined in response to the Company’s disclosures. On April 2, 2018, Xxxxxxxxxx moved to dismiss the Complaint. Following briefing and oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, on March 19, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 2, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer and Defenses to the Complaint. ECF No. 86. Defendants denied, and continue to deny, each and all of the Complaint’s allegations of fraud or intentional misconduct. Defendants contend they are not liable for any alleged false or misleading statements and that all information required to be disclosed by the federal securities laws was so disclosed. Defendants also contend that th...
THE LITIGATION. On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (“Xxxxxxxx”) filed in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial District in and for Leon County, Florida a putative class action complaint against TMH, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”) (“Xxxxxxxx Action”). As the basis for her claims, Xxxxxxxx alleges that on or about February 3, 2023, TMH “‘detected unusual activity’ on its computer systems and subsequently began an investigation ‘with the assistance of independent experts,’” which, in turn, resulted in TMH determining that “‘an unauthorized person gained access to [TMH’s] computer network, and obtained certain files between January 26 and February 2, 2023’” (“Data Incident”). Xxxxxxxx further alleges that the information to which the “unauthorized person gained access” included: “name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, health insurance information, medical record number, patient account number and/or treatment information.” Xxxxxxxx claims that TMH notified her and “Class Members” of the Data Incident on or about March 31, 2023. She defines the class as “[a]ll individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party as a result of the data breach reported by Defendant on or about March 31, 2023 of the Data Incident “on or about March 31, 2023.” Approximately two months later, on June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (“Xxxxxxxx”) filed in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial District in and for Leon County, Florida a different putative class action complaint against TMH, asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy – public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion, and violation of the FDUTPA (“Xxxxxxxx Action”). Xxxxxxxx claims that his “action arises out of [TMH’s] unauthorized disclosure of the confidential Personally Identifying Information and Protected Health Information of approximately 20,376 current and former patients…from January 26, 2023 to February 2, 2023 in a cyberattack on TMH’s systems, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical records numbers, patient account numbers, and/or limited treatment infor...
THE LITIGATION. Plaintiff alleges that between September 28, 2021 and October 13, 2021 (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiff alleges that during this Data Incident, cybercriminals accessed and stole the highly sensitive personally identifiable information (“Private Information” or “PII”) of the Plaintiff and approximately 81,355 Class Members. The PII compromised in the Data Incident includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver’s license or state identification card numbers, passport numbers, financial account information, payment card numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. Plaintiff and members of the Settlement Class (defined below) received notices of the Data Incident in or around June 2022. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 4:22-cv-12086) through attorneys A. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx of Xxxxxx Law Firm, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx of Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxxx of DannLaw. On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) unjust enrichment; and (iv) declaratory and injunctive relief. Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Following full briefing and a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court entered an Order, on June 30, 2023, granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Under the Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court found that the negligence and breach of implied contract claims had been sufficiently pled. On September 14, 2023, the Parties exchanged initial disclosures. On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for document production and interrogatories on Defendant. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff served additional pre-mediation discovery requests on Defendant.
THE LITIGATION. 9.1 Purepac has reviewed with patent legal counsel certain patent issues surrounding the manufacture and marketing of Finished Products in the Territory and, in particular, claims made by Pfizer, Inc. in the Litigation. Based upon such review and advice from such patent legal counsel, Purepac believes, in good faith, that its current plans to develop and market Finished Products using API will not violate any validly claimed right of any third party, including, without limitation, those claimed by Pfizer, Inc. in the Litigation.
THE LITIGATION. A. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xx Xxxxxxxx in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Trinity common stock between February 16, 2012 and April 24, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby. The initial complaint was filed on April 27, 2015. On March 8, 2016, the Court appointed Xxxxxxxx and Pipefitters, the UA Fund, and New Jersey as Lead Plaintiffs and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP, Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx LLP, and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 11, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors regarding changes made in 2005 to Trinity’s ET-Plus guardrail system, and that such statements artificially inflated Trinity’s stock price.
THE LITIGATION. In approximately April 2022, ACTS experienced a cybersecurity attack that potentially exposed the personally identifiable information (“PII”), including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers, and financial account and routing numbers (the “Data Security Incident”), of a number of individuals, including some of its current and former employees. ACTS began notifying Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class about the Data Security Incident in approximately July 2022. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff Xxxxx, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against ACTS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Corra v.
THE LITIGATION. On January 17, 2007, and February 21, 2007, TJX issued press releases disclosing that it had suffered an unauthorized intrusion or intrusions (hereinafter, “the Intrusion”) into the portion of its computer system that processes and stores information related to customer transactions. Beginning thereafter, in January 2007, and continuing through June 2007, lawsuits were filed in various state and federal jurisdictions in the United States, as well as in Canada, asserting claims against TJX in relation to the Intrusion. In April 2007, those actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“the Court”) were consolidated (“Consolidated Class Action”). The consolidated Massachusetts proceedings were divided into a “consumer track,” comprising all actions asserting putative class claims on behalf of TJX customers (“Consolidated Consumer Class Action”),1 and a “financial institution track,” comprising all actions asserting putative class claims on behalf of financial institutions. On May 9, 2007, in the Consolidated Consumer Class Action, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“the Complaint”) was filed alleging five counts, i.e., negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A Section 9, and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, Section 11, and identifying ACohen Marketing & Public Relations, LLC, Jxxxx Xxxxxxx, Axxx Xxxxx, LxXxxxx Xxxxxxx, Lxxxx Xxxxxx, Rxxxxx Xxxx, Kxxxxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxxx, Jxxxx Xxxxxx, and Dxxxxxx Xxxxxx, as the named representative plaintiffs.
