Xxxxxxx Xxxxx et al. Case No. 1:16-cv-24655-KMW (S.D. Fla.); Xxxxxx
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx et al. (Super. Ct. No. 697147)), however, the City was not able to commence construction on the requisite dates.
D. As a result of the delay caused by the litigation, the cost of the Stadium expansion project increased. By Resolutions FA-97-1 and FA-97-2, adopted on December 10, 1996, the PFFA again authorized the sale and issuance of the Bonds and awarded the design/build contract for the construction of the Improvements to the Stadium. The Bonds were sold on December 12, 1996, and demolition of the Stadium commenced on December 31, 1996.
E. In order to pay for the additional costs to construct the Improvements as a result of the delays caused by the litigation, on December 10, 1996, the City adopted Ordinance Number 0-18365 (the "1996 Amendment"), whereby the Chargers would pay additional rent to the City and the City committed to construction of improvements to the Stadium , for which the PFFA would issue additional bonds. Ordinance Number 0-18365 was the subject of a successful referendum and therefore was repealed by the City Council by the adoption of Ordinance Number 0-18380 on February 3, 1997.
F. As a result of the repeal of Ordinance Number 18380, the City claims that the 1996 Amendment is not effective. However, the City and the Chargers desire to complete the Improvements to the Stadium notwithstanding the additional cost caused by the litigation delays.
G. In order to facilitate the completion of the Improvements and pay for the additional costs resulting from the delays, XXXXXXXX Xxxxxxxxxxxx ("Qualcomm"), a prominent San Diego corporation, has offered to purchase the naming rights to the Stadium and the Chargers have agreed pursuant to the terms hereof to pay additional rent in order to effectuate the construction of the Improvements and the Chargers Facilities in accordance with the Agreement, as supplemented by this Supplement.
H. The Padres L.P. (the `Padres"), are the owners of a baseball xxxx- chise and are currently using the Stadium in accordance with the Agreement for Partial Use and Occupancy of San Diego Xxxx Xxxxxx Stadium, by and between the City and the Padres, dated November 30, 1987, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the San Diego City Clerk as Document Number RR-269870, as modified and supplemented by Letter Agreements, between the City and the Padres, dated September 25, 1996, copies of which are on file in the Office of the San Diego City Clerk as Document Numbers RR-287881 and RR-287882-2.
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx et al. Case No. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv- 10753-ALC.
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx et al. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv- 10753- ALC.. I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action. I hereby appoint [print or type full name] of York agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order. Date: City and State where sworn and signed: Printed name: Signature: I, [print or type full name], of
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx et al. U.S. District Court (Del.), Civil Action No. 18-cv-00186-UNA. On January 31, 2018, Xxxxx Xxxx, a purported Company shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative complaint against certain of the Borrower’s officers and directors, naming the Borrower as a derivative defendant. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 in connection with disclosures made in the Borrower’s Schedule 14A Proxy Statement, filed with the SEC on April 21, 2017. The complaint also alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. No defendant has been served in this action.
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx et al x. Xxxxxxxx Industries, Inc. Et al. (Case No.: FC8054728), Xxxxxx County, Superior Court of the State of California. Former employee filed a law suit against Xxxxxxxx Industries alleging certain violations of California’s meal and rest break as well as wage and hours laws at all of the Company’s locations. The parties agreed to settle the matter for $900,000 (the “Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Matter”). Settlement class size includes approximately 650 class members. The court issued its final approval of the settlement and the class administrator has paid the class members.
