Procedural Background. 8. The authorization to develop amendments to UN GTR No.6 (Safety glazing) was adopted by the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Agreement at its March 2015 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1114, para. 115). It is based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/42. It endorsed the proposed action plan to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on PSG.
Procedural Background. 4. The disputing Parties are the United States and Canada (together, the “Parties”). The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) participated as a third Party.
Procedural Background. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint, on behalf of Impinj, against the Individual Defendants asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment (the “Xxxxxxx Action”). On October 28, 2018, Plaintiff Xxxxx filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint, on behalf of Impinj, against the Individual Defendants asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment (the “Xxxxx Action”). On November 8, 2018, Plaintiffs de la Fuente and Xxxxxxx filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling and misappropriation of information, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a- 9 promulgated thereunder (the “De La Fuente Action”).1 On December 26, 2018, the parties in the Derivative Action filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Consolidating Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and Establishing a 1 The Xxxxxxx Action, Xxxxx Action, and the De La Fuente Action are collectively referred to herein as the “Derivative Action.” Leadership Structure. On January 2, 2019, the Court granted the stipulation, which: (i) consolidated the Derivative Action; and (ii) appointed Fotouhi’s and Xxxxx’x counsel, The Xxxxx Law Firm, P.A. and The Xxxxx Law Firm, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel and Xxxxxx LLP as Liaison Counsel. On January 25, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Action, which the Court granted on January 28, 2019, and which stayed the Derivative Action until the resolution of a related securities class action, In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-05704 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “Securities Class Action”). On January 30, 2019, the Court administratively closed the Derivative Action.
Procedural Background. 18 The Burleys filed the Complaint on June 16, 2016 and the First Amended Complaint on 19 June 17, 2016. ECF No. 1, 4. The Burleys filed an ex parte application for an emergency stay of 20 the 2015 Decision on July 1, 2016, which the Court denied without prejudice to the refiling of a 21 properly noticed motion. ECF No. 8, 9. On July 8, 2016, the Xxxxxxx filed a noticed motion for
Procedural Background. 1. In or around April 2016, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized pretrial proceedings for certain putative class action lawsuits filed against VIZIO in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation captioned In re VIZIO, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 8:16-ml-02693-JLS (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx X. Staton.
Procedural Background. This case involves an agreement or failure to reach agreement regarding non- resident attendance in Bowling Green Independent School District by students residing in the Xxxxxx County School District. KRS 157.350(4)(a) provides that “[i]f an agreement [concerning nonresident students] cannot be reached, either board may appeal to the commissioner for settlement of the dispute.” An important issue in this case is the effect of a 2001 agreement signed by the superintendents of both school districts. This agreement set a base number as of 2001 for non-residents from Xxxxxx County and included a formula for growth percentage increases each year based upon Xxxxxx County’s growth in student population. Historically, for many years thereafter, as will be found in the recommended findings below, the two Boards approved non-resident agreements that calculated the number of non-residents using the formula from the 2001 agreement. Beginning in 2008-2009, Xxxxxx County stopped agreeing to the growth percentage but each year would agree that 850 Xxxxxx County non-residents (the number applicable from the 2007-2008 calculation) could attend Bowling Green. This number included children of school employees residing in Xxxxxx County, who no longer are counted in non-resident calculations due to a change in KRS 157.350. Regarding the numbers of students at issue for 2013-2014, there were about 950 Xxxxxx County non-residents attending Bowling Green in 2012-2013, but this included about 100 children of employees (who no longer are counted due to a change in the law) and 100 non-contract Xxxxxx County non-residents being educated without the benefit of SEEK money at the choice of Bowling Green. Excluding the non-contract students and children of school employees from the calculations, if prior year agreements were repeated the number of Xxxxxx County residents in the upcoming school year would be 750. Bowling Green tendered a proposed annual agreement for 2013-2014 that, as in prior years proposed the traditional 850 minimum (but that parties later understood would be reduced by the 100 children of school employees) plus a growth percentage (discussed elsewhere hereinbelow). Had Xxxxxx County acted as it had during every year since 2008-2009, it would have crossed out the growth percentage, approved the 850, and that would have been the parties’ agreement. Instead, Xxxxxx County approved only 664 students from Xxxxxx County to attend Bowling, deducting from the 750 number 86 ...
Procedural Background. The case arises from the alleged compromise of personal identifying information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) (collectively “Private Information”) as a result of a ransomware attack Defendant experienced on or around May 2021 (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiffs and Class Members (as defined below) include individuals whose Private Information may have been accessed during the Data Incident. In response to the Data Incident, Defendant sent a Notice Letter (“Notice Letter”) to each potentially impacted individual providing a description of the type of Private Information involved. The potentially accessed information may have included: full names, driver’s license or state ID number, passport number, date of birth, medical diagnosis/treatment information, financial account information and/or Social Security Number. In response, class actions were filed in two jurisdictions: Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, No. 23-cv-01442 (E.D. Pa.) (Filed Apr. 14, 2023) and Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Case ID 230401942 (Phila. C.P.) (Filed Apr. 19, 2023). In their CAC, filed July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs, collectively, alleged individually and on behalf of a nationwide Class that, as a direct result of the Data Incident, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered numerous injuries and would likely suffer additional harm into the future. Plaintiffs alleged that Class Members suffered the following categories of xxxxx: (a) loss of privacy; (b) financial costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from actual or potential future identity theft; (c) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating actual and potential future identity theft(d) anxiety, emotional distress, and other economic and non-economic losses; (e) diminution of value of their PII and PHI; and (f) statutory damages. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other members of the proposed nationwide class, collectively asserted claims for (i) negligence and negligence per se; (ii) Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1, et seq.; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty/confidences; and (iv) declaratory relief.
Procedural Background. The Settlement Agreement approved by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (Commission) by Order No. 25,292 (November 23, 2011) in Docket No. DW 11-026, Re City of Nashua, required that Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. (PWW), Pennichuck East Utility, Inc. (PEU), and Pittsfield Aqueduct Company, Inc. (PAC) (jointly, the Companies) file with the Commission full rate cases simultaneously by June 1, 2013. On May 31, 2013, the Companies filed the required rate cases. The Commission issued Order No. 25,523 on June 20, 2013 in this docket and suspended PEU’s proposed tariff and scheduled a prehearing conference on July 19, 2013 immediately followed by a technical session. The Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) had previously filed a letter of participation in this docket on May 9, 2013 and the Town of Litchfield (Litchfield) filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding on July 9, 2013. The prehearing conference and technical session were held as scheduled, at which time the Commission approved Litchfield’s petition to intervene. On July 19, 2013, the Commission Staff (Staff) filed on behalf of the parties in the case a proposed procedural schedule. On July 22, 2013, the Commission approved the proposed procedural schedule which, among other things, provided for three rounds of discovery followed by a technical session and settlement conference.
Procedural Background. On May 5, 2014 and May 7, 2014, two related and substantially similar shareholder derivative actions were separately filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of Ixia against the Individual Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”). On May 28, 2014, the Court consolidated those actions, appointed The Xxxxxx Law Firm, P.C. and Xxxxxxx Topaz Xxxxxxx & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, and appointed Plaintiffs Erie and Xxxxxx as Co-Lead Plaintiffs (the “Consolidation Order”) in the consolidated Action. On September 2, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated derivative complaint. On October 15, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the verified consolidated derivative complaint based on Plaintiffs’ failure to (i) make a prelitigation demand upon the Company’s Board and (ii) plead sufficient facts to show that such a demand would have been futile. On October 15, 2014, the Individual Defendants with the exception of Xxxxxx also filed a motion to dismiss the verified consolidated derivative complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a joinder with respect to the Company’s motion to dismiss. On the same day, Xxxxxx filed joinders with respect to both motions to dismiss. Following the Defendants’ filing of the motions to dismiss, pursuant to further stipulations of the parties and order of the Court (the “Scheduling Order”), Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Complaint”) on January 26, 2015. The Complaint asserted nine counts on behalf of Ixia against the Individual Defendants: six separate counts for breach of fiduciary duty, two separate counts for restitution, and one count for violations of California Corporations Code Sections 25402 and 25502.5. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on March 2, 2015. In April 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to explore a potential resolution of the Action by participating in an in-person mediation (“Mediation”) to be held before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, U.S. District Judge (Retired) (the “Mediator” or “Judge Xxxxxxxx”) in July 2015 in New York City. Accordingly, on April 24, 2015, the Court entered an order staying the Action pending the parties’ participation in the Mediation on July 23, 2015. On June 25, 2015 Plaintiffs and Defendants each submitted to the Mediator, and exchanged amongst each other, mediation statements in anticipation...
Procedural Background. 1. On 1 September 2023, the Parties and the Tribunal entered into the Terms of Appointment (“ToA”) for these proceedings. Paragraph 18.1 refers to the regulation of transparency contained in Article 26 of Chapter 11 of the AANZFTA, and Paragraph 18.2 provides as follows: In accordance with the above, additional measures of transparency shall be determined by agreement between the Parties or, in the absence of such agreement, by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will provide a draft order to facilitate the Parties’ discussions.
