THE LITIGATION. The Litigation is pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Goodwin in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The initial complaint in this action was filed on December 5, 2012. ECF No.
1. On March 6, 2013, the Court appointed Plaintiffs and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx LLP (“Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx”) as Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, respectively.1 ECF No. 60. Plaintiffs’ Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “AC”) was filed on July 30, 2013. ECF No. 75. The AC alleged, inter alia, that defendants Xxxx, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx and XxxxXxxxx violated §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the production, reserves, and economics of XxxxXxxxx’x core holdings in an area referred to as the Mississippian play (the “Mississippian”) throughout the Class Period (February 24, 2011 through November 8, 2012, inclusive). Plaintiffs allege these misrepresentations and omissions caused the price of XxxxXxxxx common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and that when the market learned of the allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions XxxxXxxxx’x share price declined. The AC also brought claims against two entities named XxxxXxxxx Mississippian Trust I and XxxxXxxxx Mississippian Trust II (collectively, the “Trusts”), and their respective board members and underwriters, alleging violations of §§11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and §10(b) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Trusts’ Class Period equity offerings. The AC further alleged Securities Act and Exchange Act claims against defendants XxxxXxxxx, Xxxx and Xxxxxxx arising out of these offerings. Defendants denied the allegations in the 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in §IV.1 herein. AC and filed motions to dismiss on October 7, 2013, which Plaintiffs opposed. See ECF Nos. 128-135, 138-142. On March 27, 2015, the parties held a mediation before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx (Xxx.) (“Judge Xxxxxxxx”) but were unable to resolve the Litigation. On May 11, 2015, the Court issued opinions and orders dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the Trusts’ offerings, finding that those claims were not encompassed by Plaintiffs’ PSLRA notice.2 See ECF Nos. 179-180. On August 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the ...
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.
THE LITIGATION. Systems East, a provider of e-payment and online payment processing solutions, including the Xpress-pay platform, experienced a cybersecurity incident in August 2023 which involved potential access by cybercriminals to information within a database containing payment card information for 209,328 individuals (the “Security Incident,” as further defined below). On November 16, 2023, Defendant notified members of the Settlement Class, as defined below, about the Security Incident, including that their payment card information (“PII”) may have been exposed to cybercriminals. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxx, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against Systems East in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Xxxxxxxxx v. Systems East, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01498-DNH-ML). On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against Systems East in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Xxxxxxxx v. Systems East, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-1571-DNH-ML). The Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx actions were consolidated on January 5, 2024, with the above-captioned action designated by the Court as the lead case. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint was subsequently filed on January 26, 2024 (the “Consolidated Complaint”). Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint asserted five causes of action against Systems East arising out of the Security Incident: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) declaratory judgment. On April 25, 2024, the Settling Parties mediated before the Xxx. Xxxxx X. Andersen (Xxx.). Before mediating, Defendant and Plaintiffs exchanged informal discovery. As part of this discovery, Defendant produced responses to state Attorneys General describing the Security Incident and its remedial measures, a forensic investigation report, and written responses to information requests. The parties also exchanged mediation submissions. The Settling Parties reached an agreement on terms for a settlement following mediation. The Settling Parties desire to settle the Litigation and all claims arising out of or related to the allegations or subject matter of the Consolidated Complaint on the terms and conditions set forth herein for the purpose of avoiding the burden, expense, risk, and uncertainty of continuing to litigate the Litigation. Under the terms set forth below, this S...
THE LITIGATION. This litigation arises from an unauthorized person gaining access to an eye appointment scheduling application – The Appointment Book or TAB – used by certain Luxottica eyecare brands (the “Litigation”). Plaintiffs allege that an unauthorized person may have accessed their PII and PHI. After discovering the issue with XXX, Luxottica engaged cybersecurity specialists to determine the scope of the incident and to develop a plan to prevent future unauthorized access. Luxottica then implemented measures to enhance security and prevent unauthorized access. Luxottica determined that the Data Incident may have affected as many as 829,454 individuals’ information. As such, Luxottica informed individuals whose PII and PHI may have been accessed.
1 All capitalized terms herein shall have the same meanings as those ascribed to them in Section IV.1 below or as defined elsewhere in the Agreement. On November 10, 2020, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx filed the first putative class action against Luxottica after receiving notice that his PII and PHI may have been impacted. Shortly thereafter, the other Plaintiffs filed suit against Luxottica, and, on January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their CCAC against Luxottica alleging fourteen counts including Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Declaratory Judgment, Breach of Confidence, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violations of California’s Customer Records Act, violations of California’s Consumer Privacy Act, violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. On March 19, 2021, Luxottica filed a motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims. This motion to dismiss remains pending as of the date of this Settlement Agreement. On September 28, 2023, the Settling Parties participated in a full-day virtual mediation before Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx & Xxxxx, LLP. The Settling Parties were unable to come to mutually satisfactory settlement on all terms. Following this mediation, the Settling Parties engaged in informal mediation discussions through Xx. Xxxxxx and, on November 8, 2023, the Settling Parties reached a settlement in this Litigation, which is memorialized in this Settlement Agreement and attached exhibits.
THE LITIGATION. Plaintiffs allege that on or between March 1 and June 2, 2023, cybercriminals breached the computer and information systems of ETZ’s ecommerce website support and accessed personally identifiable information and financial account information belonging to ETZ’s current and former customers (the “Data Incident”). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the following categories of information were potentially compromised in the Data Incident, including, but not limited to, unencrypted and unredacted names, billing and shipping addresses, and financial information such as credit or debit card information (including card number, expiration date and printed card security code) (collectively, the “Private Information”). ETZ discovered this intrusion on July 10, 2023, and took steps to secure its ecommerce site. On August 3, 2023, ETZ sent notice of the Data Incident to approximately 42,000 individuals. On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (“Xxxxxx”) filed a putative class action complaint against ETZ concerning the Data Incident in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Plaintiffs Xxxxx Xxxxxxx was added to the “Litigation” (defined below) through the First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on May 15, 2024 (ECF No. 19) (referred to herein as the “Complaint”). In January 2024, the Parties began settlement discussions. Shortly thereafter, the Parties agreed to attend a full-day mediation on March 21, 2024, before the honorable Judge Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx (Xxx.) of JAMS. Prior to the mediation, the Parties engaged in an informal exchange of information and documents and presented their positions and arguments in confidential submissions to Judge Xxxxxxxx. At the March 21, 2024, mediation, the Parties were unable to reach an agreement, but continued negotiations which culminated in an agreement, in principle. This accepted agreement is memorialized in this Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms set out below, this Settlement provides for the resolution of all claims and causes of action asserted, or that could have been asserted, against ETZ and the “Released Persons” (as defined below) relating to the Data Incident, by and on behalf of “Representative Plaintiffs” (also referred to herein as “Class Representatives”) and the “Settlement Class” (as defined below).
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.
THE LITIGATION. On and after April 21, 2008, two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) as putative securities class actions on behalf of all Persons who purchased the securities of Credit Suisse Group (“CSG”) during the period between February 15, 2007 and April 14, 2008, inclusive. These actions were consolidated for all purposes into the Action by Order dated June 23, 2008. On July 7, 2008, the Court entered Plaintiffs’ Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) on October 21, 2008. The Complaint alleged violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and §20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, which motion was opposed by Lead 1 Capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in Part IV.1. herein.
THE LITIGATION. Plaintiff alleges that between July 2020 and January 2021, criminal actors accessed information from Defendant, including the personally identifiable information (collectively, “PII”) of over one hundred thousand consumers, including, but not limited to, their driver’s license numbers (referred to as the “Data Incident”). Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the Data Incident, an unauthorized user or users gained access to Plaintiff’s personally identifiable information, including, but not limited to, his name, and driver’s license number. After the Data Incident, Defendant sent notification letters to approximately 122,170 individuals, including 9,418 California residents and 88,468 New York residents. Defendant offered these individuals two years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Plaintiff and members of the Settlement Class (defined below) received notices of the Data Incident on or about March 5, 2021. On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:21-cv-07676-JSW), through attorney X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx of Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, A Professional Law Corporation. Plaintiff asserted claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) declaratory relief, (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349, et seq. On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff, on behalf of the Settlement Class, filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) through attorneys X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxx of Xxxx Haldenstein Xxxxx Xxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP. In the FAC, Plaintiff asserted claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (iv) violation of New York GBL § 349, et seq.; and (v) declaratory relief relating to the Data Incident (together with the State Court Complaint and proceedings, “the Litigation”). As the Litigation progressed, and over the course of several months between early February 2022 and late May 2022, the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations, including a full day mediation session with Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx, Esq. of Judicate West, and additional negotiations under the mediator’s supervision thereafter. As a result of the mediation and negotiations, the Parties agreed on basic terms of a settlement, which are memorialized in this S...