Common use of NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Clause in Contracts

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. A federal court has authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS You are receiving this notice (the “Notice”) because the records of the Franklin Xxxxxxxxx 401(k) Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) indicate that you have been a participant in the Plan and maintained an account with a positive balance at some point since July 28, 2010. As such, your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement of this class action litigation (the “Settlement”). This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. The complete terms and conditions of the Settlement are described in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at www. .com, or by contacting class counsel, Xxxx X. Xxxxx at xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx or Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at xxxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 0000 Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, XX 00000, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT. What this Litigation is About This consolidated class action litigation is brought on behalf of participants in the Plan. Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx and Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) are the named plaintiffs and the representatives on behalf of all members of the Class in the litigation. One of the consolidated lawsuits was filed in July 2016, and the other in November 2017. Plaintiffs sued Franklin Resources, Inc. (“Franklin”), the Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 401(k) Retirement Plan Investment Committee (the “Investment Committee”), the individual members of the Investment Committee, and others alleged to have served in fiduciary roles to the Plan (together, “Defendants”) alleging primarily that Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by choosing for the Plan allegedly imprudent and expensive investment funds that were managed by Xxxxxxxx’x investment adviser subsidiaries, and by allegedly failing to negotiate lower record keeping fees with the Plan’s third-party recordkeepers. Plaintiffs allege that there were superior, less expensive investment options available that Defendants should have chosen for the Plan. Plaintiffs also allege that between 2010 and 2013, Xxxxxxxx engaged in transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). After the lawsuits were filed, Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss from the litigation a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to monitoring of the Plan fiduciaries as well as certain individual defendants, and the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ alleged excessive recordkeeping fee claim. Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to the Plaintiffs and the Class and deny that they have engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law or breach of duty. Defendants maintain that they acted in the best interests of Plan participants at all times and complied with their fiduciary obligations to the Plan and its participants. Among other things, Defendants contend that the Plan fiduciaries employed a robust and thorough process for selecting, monitoring, and removing Plan investment options and for monitoring Plan-related fees. The Terms of the Settlement To avoid the time and expense of further litigation, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to resolve the consolidated litigation. The Settlement is the product of extensive negotiations between the parties, who were assisted in their negotiations by a neutral private mediator. The parties have taken into account the uncertainty and risks of litigation and have concluded that it is desirable to settle on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the Class will obtain the benefits of the Settlement without the further delay and uncertainty of additional litigation. The Settlement resolves all issues regarding the Plan’s investment options and fees from July 28, 2010 through such time as the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. The terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release dated February 15, 2019 (the “Settlement Agreement”), which is available at www. .com. Those terms are summarized below. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement is an admission or concession on Defendants’ part of any fault or liability whatsoever, nor is it an admission or concession on Plaintiffs’ part that their claims lacked merit.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN XXXXX Xxxxxxxx v. Proven Staffing Consultants, LLC Case No. Indicate Name/Address Changes, if any: <<Name>> <<Address>> <<City>>, <<State>> <<Zip Code>> XX - XX - YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MONEY FROM A federal SETTLEMENT. THIS NOTICE AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. A California court has authorized this Noticenotice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS You are receiving this notice (the “Notice”) because the records of the Franklin Xxxxxxxxx 401(k) Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) indicate YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you have been a participant in the Plan and maintained an account with a positive balance at some point since July 28, 2010. As such, your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement (“the Settlement”) of the above-captioned class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) representative action (“the Action”) filed in the San Diego County Superior Court has been reached by Proven Staffing Consultants, LLC (“Proven” or “Defendant”) and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and has been granted Preliminary Approval by the Court supervising the Action. The San Diego County Superior Court has ordered that this Notice be sent to you because you may be a Settlement Class Member. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the Settlement of this class and representative action litigation (the “Settlement”). This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. The complete terms and conditions of your legal rights under the Settlement are described in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at www. .com, or by contacting class counsel, Xxxx X. Xxxxx at xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx or Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for as follows: • Xxxxxx has agreed to settle a fee, through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at xxxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 0000 Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, XX 00000, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT. What this Litigation is About This consolidated class action litigation is lawsuit brought on behalf of participants in all California residents who are or were employed by Xxxxxx and worked from home at any point during at least one pay period during the Plan. Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx period between March 15, 2020 and Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) are the named plaintiffs and the representatives on behalf of all members of the Class in the litigation. One of the consolidated lawsuits was filed in July 2016February 27, and the other in November 2017. Plaintiffs sued Franklin Resources, Inc. (“Franklin”), the Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 401(k) Retirement Plan Investment Committee 2022 (the “Investment CommitteeClass Period”), the individual members of the Investment Committee, ) and others alleged to have served in fiduciary roles to the Plan did not receive reimbursement for work-related home office expenses (togetherhereafter, “Defendants”) alleging primarily that Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by choosing for the Plan allegedly imprudent and expensive investment funds that were managed by Xxxxxxxx’x investment adviser subsidiaries, and by allegedly failing to negotiate lower record keeping fees with the Plan’s third-party recordkeepers. Plaintiffs allege that there were superior, less expensive investment options available that Defendants should have chosen for the Plan. Plaintiffs also allege that between 2010 and 2013, Xxxxxxxx engaged in transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISASettlement Class”). After • The proposed Settlement resolves all alleged claims regarding Xxxxxx’s alleged failure to reimburse business expenses under Labor Code section 2802, incurred as a result of working from home during the lawsuits were filed, Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss from the litigation a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to monitoring of the Plan fiduciaries as well as certain individual defendants, and the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ alleged excessive recordkeeping fee claim. Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to the Plaintiffs and the Class and deny that they have engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law or breach of duty. Defendants maintain that they acted in the best interests of Plan participants at all times and complied with their fiduciary obligations to the Plan and its participants. Among other things, Defendants contend that the Plan fiduciaries employed a robust and thorough process for selecting, monitoring, and removing Plan investment options and for monitoring Plan-related fees. The Terms of the Settlement To avoid the time and expense of further litigation, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to resolve the consolidated litigationCOVID-19 pandemic. The Settlement is also resolves claims for unfair competition and for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) arising out of the product of extensive negotiations between the parties, who were assisted in their negotiations by a neutral private mediatoralleged failure to reimburse business expenses. The parties have taken into account the uncertainty settlement avoids costs and risks of litigation to you from continuing the lawsuit, pays money to employees, and releases Proven from liability for these claims. • The parties in the lawsuit disagree on whether Xxxxxx is liable for the allegations raised in this case and how much money could have concluded been won if the employees won at trial. Proven denies all liability and believes that it is desirable to settle on paid you and other employees properly under the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreementlaw. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the Class will obtain the benefits of the Settlement without the further delay and uncertainty of additional litigation. The Settlement resolves all issues regarding the Plan’s investment options and fees from July 28, 2010 through such time as the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. The terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release dated February 15, 2019 (the “Settlement Agreement”), which is available at www. .com. Those terms are summarized below. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement is an admission or concession on Defendants’ part of any fault or liability whatsoever, nor is it an admission or concession on Plaintiffs’ part that their claims lacked merit.YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. A federal court has THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA XXXXX XXXXX, ET AL. V. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, NO. 21CV384151 The Superior Court of the State of California authorized this Noticenotice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS Para una notificacion en Espanol, visitor xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx If You Purchased Or Own Certain SunPower Residential Solar Modules Identified Below, Your Rights May Be Affected By A Class Action Settlement • You are receiving this notice Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the “Notice”) because SunPower Corporation’s (“SunPower”) records show that you may have purchased or own SunPower residential Solar Modules manufactured between approximately July 2015 and December 2016 that contain or previously contained certain factory-integrated Generation 3.0 microinverters. You may be eligible to have SunPower, at no cost to you, replace the records microinverters in your Solar Modules with new microinverters if they have not already been replaced, and you may also qualify for a cash payment as a result of the Franklin a class action settlement. • This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs Xxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx 401(kXxxxxx, and Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Retirement Plan against SunPower, alleging that SunPower manufactured, marketed, and sold for residential use, Solar Modules with factory-integrated Generation 3.0 microinverters containing a component part manufactured by a third-party, which Plaintiffs allege is defective (the “Plan”) indicate that you have been a participant in the Plan and maintained an account with a positive balance at some point since July 28, 2010. As such, your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement of this class action litigation (the “SettlementSubject Microinverters”). This Notice summarizes The Solar Modules were manufactured between approximately July 2015 and December 2016. • SunPower denies the proposed Settlement. The complete terms and conditions of the Settlement are described allegations in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at www. .com, or by contacting class counsel, Xxxx X. Xxxxx at xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx or Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at xxxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 0000 Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, XX 00000, between 9:00 a.m. lawsuit and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT. What this Litigation is About This consolidated class action litigation is brought on behalf of participants in the Plan. Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx and Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) are the named plaintiffs and the representatives on behalf of all members of the Class in the litigation. One of the consolidated lawsuits was filed in July 2016, and the other in November 2017. Plaintiffs sued Franklin Resources, Inc. (“Franklin”), the Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 401(k) Retirement Plan Investment Committee (the “Investment Committee”), the individual members of the Investment Committee, and others alleged to have served in fiduciary roles to the Plan (together, “Defendants”) alleging primarily that Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by choosing for the Plan allegedly imprudent and expensive investment funds that were managed by Xxxxxxxx’x investment adviser subsidiaries, and by allegedly failing to negotiate lower record keeping fees with the Plan’s third-party recordkeepers. Plaintiffs allege that there were superior, less expensive investment options available that Defendants should have chosen for the Plan. Plaintiffs also allege that between 2010 and 2013, Xxxxxxxx engaged in transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). After the lawsuits were filed, Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss from the litigation a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to monitoring of the Plan fiduciaries as well as certain individual defendants, and the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ alleged excessive recordkeeping fee claim. Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to the Plaintiffs and the Class and deny that they have engaged in denies any wrongdoing or violation of law or breach of dutyliability. Defendants maintain that they acted in SunPower has agreed to settle the best interests of Plan participants at all times lawsuit to avoid burdensome and complied with their fiduciary obligations costly litigation and disruption to the Plan and its participantsbusiness operations. Among other things, Defendants contend that the Plan fiduciaries employed a robust and thorough process • Settlement Class Members may submit claims for selecting, monitoring, and removing Plan investment options and for monitoring Plan-related feescash payments. The Terms Plan of Allocation for cash payments to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid and timely Claim Form is described in detail below. • You can make a claim online at the Settlement To avoid the time and expense of further litigationWebsite, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx, or you can submit your claim by email to resolve the consolidated litigation[insert address] or by U.S. mail to [insert address]. • The Settlement is the product of extensive negotiations between the parties, who were assisted in their negotiations by a neutral private mediator. The parties have taken into account the uncertainty and risks of litigation and have concluded that it is desirable to settle on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If the Settlement is has been preliminarily approved by the Court, the Class will obtain the benefits of . This Notice provides information about the Settlement without the further delay and uncertainty of additional litigationyour options as a Settlement Class Member. Please read this Notice carefully because it affects your legal rights. The Settlement resolves all issues regarding court authorized the Plan’s investment options and fees from July 28, 2010 through such time as the Court grants final approval sending of the Settlementthis Notice to you. The terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release dated February 15, 2019 (the “Settlement Agreement”), which This is available at www. .com. Those terms are summarized below. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement is an admission or concession on Defendants’ part of any fault or liability whatsoever, nor is it an admission or concession on Plaintiffs’ part that their claims lacked meritnot a solicitation.