IN RE. XXXXXX XXXXXXX CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 2669/Case No. 4:15-md-02669 The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Ross, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (July 21, 2017): The Court further finds that the method of disseminating Notice, as set forth in the Motion, the Declaration of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Esq. on Adequacy of Notice Program, dated July 13, 2017, and the Parties’ Stipulation—including an extensive and targeted publication campaign composed of both consumer magazine publications in People and Sports Illustrated, as well as serving 11,484,000 highly targeted digital banner ads to reach the prospective class members that will deliver approximately 75.3% reach with an average frequency of 3.04 —is the best method of notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies all requirements provided in Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and all Constitutional requirements including those of due process. The Court further finds that the Notice fully satisfies Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process; provided, that the Parties, by agreement, may revise the Notice, the Claim Form, and other exhibits to the Stipulation, in ways that are not material or ways that are appropriate to update those documents for purposes of accuracy.
IN RE. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION Case No. 1:14-md-02583 The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Thrash Jr., United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (March 10, 2017): The Court finds that the form, content, and method of giving notice to the settlement class as described in the settlement agreement and exhibits: (a) constitute the best practicable notice to the settlement class; (b) are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise settlement class members of the pendency of the action, the terms of the proposed settlement, and their rights under the proposed settlement; (c) are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to those persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the constitutional requirement of due process, and any other legal requirements. The Court further finds that the notice is written in plain language, uses simple terminology, and is designed to be readily understandable by settlement class members.
IN RE. CHAPTER 11 CASE NO. : GLOBAL CROSSING LTD., ET AL., : 02-40188 (REG) : DEBTORS. : (JOINTLY ADMINISTERED) : ------------------------------ ORDER RESOLVING THE OBJECTION OF IPC ACQUISITION CORP. TO THE REJECTION OF A CERTAIN EXECUTORY CONTRACT AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE DEBTORS AND IPC ACQUISITION CORP. AND ITS AFFILIATES The Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated October 28, 2002 (the "Plan"), having been filed with the Bankruptcy Court (the "Court") by Global Crossing Ltd. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries that are debtors in the above-referenced chapter 11 cases (collectively, the "Debtors") and approved by the Court on December 26, 2002; and whereas the Plan provides, among other things, for the rejection of that certain Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 16, 2001, among IPC Acquisition Corp. ("IPC"), certain Debtors and certain other parties, as amended by that certain Amendment to the Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 16, 2001 (as amended as of December 20, 2001, the "Purchase Agreement"); whereas, on November 26, 2002, IPC filed an objection to the Debtors' proposed rejection of the Purchase Agreement (the "Objection"); and whereas the Debtors and IPC have since reached a settlement agreement settling the Objection and other matters, which agreement is memorialized in the Settlement and Rejection Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the second amendment (the "Second Amendment", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) to the Network Services, Channel Sales and Transitional Services Agreement (the "NCT Agreement")(1) dated December 20, 2001, as amended July 3, 2002, pursuant to an order of the Court dated July 3, 2002; and whereas the Debtors have provided notice to the statutory committee of unsecured creditors appointed in these chapter 11 cases and the Debtors' prepetition bank lenders of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Second Amendment; and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Second Amendment are in the best interests of the Debtors and their estates; and it appearing that no other or further notice is required; and based on all the proceedings had before the Court and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing thereof, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 105(a) and 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Settlement Agreement and the Second Amendment...
More Definitions of IN RE
IN RE means “regarding.” It labels a proceeding with no adversarial parties, but which involves a thing or a status, such as a bankrupt’s estate or a proposed public project. “In re” replaces synonymous phrases such as ‘‘in the matter of,”
IN RE. Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Master Docket Misc. No. 97-550, MDL 1200, the facilities of the Company formerly located in Omaha, Nebraska, and Salina, Kansas, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxx Glass, Inc., Xxxxxx XxXxxx, Xx. vs. Escambio County School District and Xxxxxxx Glass, Inc., Ophelia's L.L.C. and Construction Technologies, Inc. x. Xxxxxxx Glass Industries, Inc., Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Glass, Inc., Xxxxxx Electric Company v. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, et al., Xxxxxx Electric J.P.&T., Inc. et al. and X. Xxxxxxxxx vs. Xxxxxxx Glass, Inc. and any manner, cause of, action, claim or other liability arising, directly or indirectly, therefrom, (xx) any of the independent contractor agreement, dated February 9, 1999, among Xxxxxxxxx Management Group, Inc. and the parties thereto, the agreement, effective January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002, by and between "Xxxxxxx Glass Denver" and the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Local Union No. 930, Service Agreement, dated June 21, 1999, by and between Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. and the Company, Service and Supply Agreement, dated April 29, 1999, by and between G&K Services, Inc. and the Company, Service Agreement, dated April 18, 1997, by and between Aramark Services, Inc. and the Company, any insurance policy by and between SunSource and Legion Insurance Company, letter agreement, dated January 25, 1999, between the Company and Graftec of Rockford, Inc., the tax consulting agreement, dated March 16, 1998, by and between the Company and KMR Consulting, Ltd., the Xxxxx Contract (with respect to said contract the Sellers agree to not amend or terminate, or attempt to amend or terminate, the same for thirty (30) days after the date hereof and the Buyer agrees to comply, on behalf of the Sellers, with sections 4(b) and 4(c) thereof as long as Xx. Xxxxx is an employee of the Buyer), the employment contract, dated February 2, 1999, between the Company and Xxxxxx Xxxxx, and the employment contract, dated April 30, 1998, by and between the Company and Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx and the severance plan, dated as of May 1, 1996, amended January 1, 1997, of the Company, (xxi) the failure of any Plan or any Multiemployer Plan to be fully funded in accordance with the terms of said plan and applicable Law as of the date hereof and (xxii) any third party claim against the Company or any Subsidiary or Affiliate, or any predecessor of any of the foregoing, result...
IN RE. Horseshoe Entertainment, : a Louisiana limited partnership : Licensee : : License No.: R010800198 : --------------------------------- STIPULATION NOW COMES Horseshoe Entertainment, a Louisiana limited partnership ("Horseshoe"), Licensee, and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Louisiana State Police, Casino Gaming Division ("Division"), each duly represented by counsel who respectfully represent:
IN RE. VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY : ANTITRUST LITIGATION : MASTER FILE NO. : CV-96-5238 : This Document Relates To: : : ALL ACTIONS : (Xxxxxxx, J.) (Xxxx, X. X.) :
IN RE. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION 18 This Document Relates To: 19 ALL ACTIONS 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO: 5:20-cv-02155-LHK DECLARATION OF XXXXXXX X. XXXXX, ESQ. ON ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES Xxx. Xxxx X. Koh Crtrm: 8 Date: October 21, 2021 Time: 1:30 X.X.
IN RE. NATURAL GAS COMMODITY LITIGATION : : x Master File No. 03 CV 6186 (VM) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS : : Xxx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, USDJ : x STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT THIS STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT (the “Settlement Agreement”) is made and entered into on February 28, 2006, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Settlement Agreement is entered into on behalf of plaintiffs and the Class (as defined in Section l(c) hereof), by and through plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel (as defined in Section 1(j) hereof), and behalf of CMS Field Services (now known as Cantera Gas Company LLC) and CMS Marketing Services & Trading Company (now known as CMS Energy Resource Management Company) (both entities collectively, “CMS”), by and through its counsel of record in this action.
IN RE. L'acte de fiducie portant la date nominale du 15 avril 1993 en faveur de RICHXXX XXXXXXX xx qualite de fiduciaire a l'emission d'obligations en premiere hypotheque au montant de 2 000 000 $ portant interet au taux de 20 % par annee par INGENIERIE ELECTRO-OPTIQUE EXFO INC ORDRE DE REMISE A: RICHXXX XXXXXXX, X.A. 9035, de l'Amazone, Quebec (Quebec) G2B 3Z7 Monsieur, Nous vous avons livre en votre qualite de fiduciaire designe a l'acte de fiducie ci-haut mentionne, une obligation 20 %, premiere hypotheque, de notre compagnie, pour une somme principale de 2 000 000 $. Nous vous prions de certifier ladite obligation en date du 15 avril 1993, d'inscrire a votre registre les nom et adresse des titulaires de celle-ci et de la remettre immediatement et sans consideration auxdits titulaires, savoir: GEXFO INVESTISSEMENTS TECHNOLOGIQUES INC. 465, rue Godin Ville Vanier (Quebec) G1M 0X0 Xxnne a Quebec ce 15 avril 1993. INGENIERIE ELECTRO-OPTIQUE EXFO INC. Par: /s/ Signature ------------------------------- Par: /s/ Signature ------------------------------- 44 CANADA PROVINCE DE QUEBEC INGENIERIE ELECTRO-OPTIQUE EXFO INC. (incorporee en vertu des lois xx Quebec) OBLIGATION HYPOTHECAIRE 20 % NO: 1 2 000 000,00 $ --------- -------------- INGENIERIE ELECTRO-OPTIQUE EXFO INC. (ci-apres appelee "la corporation"), pour valeur recue, promet de payer a demande a son adresse au Quebec a RICHXXX XXXXXXX xx a tout detenteur immatricule contre presentation et remise de cette Obligation la somme de DEUX MILLIONS DE DOLLARS (2 000 000,00 $) en monnaie canadienne et de payer aussi, a demande, interet en meme monnaie et a la meme place, sur ladite somme a compter de la date de l'Obligation, jusqu'a parfait paiement, au taux de VINGT pour cent (20 %) par annee. L'interet du et impaye portxxx x xon tour interet, calcule mensuellement au meme taux, a compter de la date de la demande de paiement jusqu'a la date de son paiement. Toutes les Obligations en cours prennent rang et sont garanties egalement et proportionnellement par l'acte de fiducie portant la date de reference du 15 avril 1993 (ci-apres appele "l'acte de fiducie") fait par la corporation en faveur de RICHXXX XXXXXXX x xitre de fiduciaire, lequel acte definit la nature et les particularites de la garantie qui y est creee ainsi que l'etendue des droits afferents aux obligations. Cette Obligation est cessible par son detenteur en autant que les dispositions de l'acte de fiducie a cet effet soient observees. Pour etre valide, cett...