(3 1tNi\L UNITED STATES DISTRI COURT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "(3 1tNi\L UNITED STATES DISTRI COURT"

Transcription

1 (3 1tNi\L UNITED STATES DISTRI COURT jgoiniegyass, FILED NORTHERN DISTRICT 0 TEXAS - DALLAS DIVISIO -f418 I RICHARD MOORE, et al. ;.4 CLERK, Plaintiff, Deputy V Civi o.: - THIS DOCUMENT RELATES 006-C V 1 5a-- Ei HALLIBURTON COMPANY, et al. TO ALL ACTIONS Defendants. JACK FRIEDBERG, derivatively, and on behalf of Nominal Defendant HALLIBURTON COMPANY Civil Action No. 3:03 CV 0537-L Plaintiffs, V. DAVID J. LESAR, ROBERT L. CRANDALL, KENNETH T. DERR, CHARLES J. DiBONA, LAWRENCE S. EAGLEBURGER, WILLIAM R. HOWELL, RAY L. HUNT, JAY A. PRECOURT, AYLWIN B. LEWIS, JAY LANDIS MARTIN, DEBORAH L. REED, Defendants, and HALLIBURTON COMPANY Nominal Defendant. NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, DERIVATIVE ACTION HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS' FEE PETITION AND RIGHT TO SHARE IN SETTLEMENT FUND TO: (a) ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF HALLIBURTON COMPANY ("HALLIBURTON" OR "COMPANY") ON THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 18, 1998 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 28, 2002 ("CLASS PERIOD"). ALL SUCH PERSONS AND ENTITIES ARE ALLEGED IN THE SECURITIES ACTION (DEFINED BELOW) TO HAVE BEEN DAMAGED THEREBY AND ARE HEREAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE "CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS." AND EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE THE DEFENDANTS IN THE TWO ACTIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, ALL FORMER AND CURRENT DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF HALLIBURTON, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE IMMEDIATE FAMILIES (PARENTS, SPOUSES, CHILDREN AND SIBLINGS), HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES). (b) ALL CURRENT SHAREHOLDERS OF HALLIBURTON COMMON STOCK. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE TWO ACTIONS REFERENCED ABOVE: MOORE V. HALLIBURTON ET AL. ("SECURITIES ACTION") AND FRIEDBERG V. LESAR ET AL. ("DERIVATIVE ACTION"). IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER IN THE SECURITIES ACTION, YOU ULTIMATELY MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN. CLAIMS DEADLINE: CLAIMANTS MUST SUBMIT PROOFS OF CLAIM, ON THE FORM ACCOMPANYING THIS NOTICE, POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 27, EXCLUSION DEADLINE: REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SECURITIES ACTION MUST BE SUBMITTED POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 18, SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES: PLEASE SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 12 HEREIN.

2 - SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS Purpose Of This Notice 1. This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court dated June 7, The purpose of this Notice is to ii form you t at the Securities and Derivative Actions, and the proposed Securities Action and Derivative Action Settlements, will 'affect atl-ctais Members' rights and the rights of all current shareholders of Halliburton common stock. (All capitalized terms'not o1hrc,vise eefirtief-11/41;thiiis e ar4 used herein with the same meanings they have been given in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement :executed. by the Settlimfarties to the Securities Action for members of the Securities Class, and are used with the same meanings they have been given in the 'Stipulation an Agreement of Settlement executed by the Settling Parties in the Derivative Action for current shareholders.) Notice-describee-rights-you may have under the proposed Securities Settlement and/or Derivative Action Settlement and what steps you may take in relation to the Securities and/or Derivative Action. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of any claims or any defenses asserted by any party in the Securities or Derivative Actions, or the fairness or adequacy of the proposed Settlements of those Actions. Statement Of Plaintiff Recovery 2. The Securities Class Action Settlement Class: Pursuant to the Securities Action Settlement described herein, a Settlement Fund consisting of $6,000,000 in cash, plus the interest which has been accruing since July 1, 2003, has been established. The interests of the Class Members have been represented in the Securities Action by Richard Schiffrin, Esq. of the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, designated by the Court as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel estimates that there were approximately 485,276,561 shares of Halliburton common stock traded during the Class Period, the purchasers of which may have been damaged as a result of the alleged wrongdoing described at n below. Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel estimates that the average recovery per damaged share of Halliburton common stock under the Securities Settlement is $.012 per damaged share before deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses. Depending on the number of damaged shares for which claims are submitted, when during the Class Period a Class Member purchased his, her or its shares of Halliburton common stock, and whether those shares were held at the end of the Class Period or sold during the Class Period, and if sold, when they were sold, an individual Class Member may receive more or less than this average amount. 3. Under the relevant securities laws, a claimant's recoverable damages are limited to the losses attributable to the alleged securities law violations. For purposes of the Securities Settlement herein, a Class Member's distribution from the Net Settlement Fund will be governed by the proposed Plan of Allocation described below at , or such other Plan of Allocation as may be approved by the Court. 4. Shareholder Derivative Claims: The Derivative Action has been brought by a current Halliburton shareholder on behalf of the Company and against a number of current and former Halliburton officers and directors (collectively the "Derivative Defendants"). No Class Member or current shareholder of Halliburton will receive any direct compensation from the Derivative Settlement of the shareholder derivative claims asserted on behalf of Halliburton in the Derivative Action. Other benefits in the form of corporate governance measures adopted by the Halliburton Board of Directors have been obtained for the settlement of the derivative claims, as described more fully below. Statement Of Potential Outcome Of Case 5. The parties in both the Securities Action and the Derivative Action disagree on both liability and damages. In the case of the Securities Action, the Settling Lead Plaintiffs (as defined below) and the defendants (Halliburton and four of its current or former officers, hereafter collectively the "Settling Securities Defendants"), disagree, among other things, on: (a) whether, during the proposed Class Period and as alleged by the Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Action, the Settling Securities Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to make required or adequate disclosures on a timely basis regarding a change adopted by Halliburton in 1998 in its method of accounting for unapproved claims for cost overruns on large, fixed-price, primarily overseas, design, procurement and construction contracts; (b) whether the foregoing change in accounting method was appropriate under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and whether it was applied in the manner required by such accounting principles, or whether the Settling Securities Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to properly apply the subject method of accounting for unapproved claim revenue and, therefore, materially overstated revenues relating to unapproved claims for cost overruns during all or any portion of the Class Period (the allegations in the Complaint regarding the matters described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) are hereafter collectively referred to as the "Contract Accounting Claims"); (c) whether the Settling Securities Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to accurately disclose the extent of the potential, unreserved and uninsured asbestos liability exposure of Dresser Industries, Inc. ("Dresser") at and after the time of Halliburton's 1998 merger with Dresser; (d) whether the Settling Securities Defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially false and misleading representations, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding various other issues related to the Dresser merger, including the reasons for and effects of the sale of certain Dresser assets following the merger, the establishment and/or writedowns of certain reserve accounts relating to the merger, the method of accounting for the merger and Halliburton's ability to integrate Dresser's operations with its own (the allegations in the Complaint regarding the matters referred to in subparagraphs (c) and (d) are hereafter collectively referred to as the "Dresser Claims"); (e) the average amount of damages per share, if any, that would be recoverable if the Settling Lead Plaintiffs were to have prevailed on each claim alleged; (f) the appropriate economic model for determining the amount by which Halliburton common stock was allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the Class Period as a consequence of the conduct of the Settling Securities Defendants as alleged in the Complaint; (g) the effect that various market forces, unrelated to any alleged unlawful actions, inactions, representations, statements or omissions of the Settling Securities Defendants had on the trading price of Halliburton common stock at various times during the Class Period; (h) the extent to which the various matters that Lead Plaintiffs alleged were materially false or misleading influenced (if at all) the trading price of Halliburton common stock at various times during the proposed Class Period; (i) the extent to which the various allegedly adverse material facts that Lead Plaintiffs alleged the Settling Securities Defendants omitted influenced (if at all) the trading price of Halliburton common stock at various times during the Class Period; (j) whether all or some of the Class Members' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (k) whether the statements allegedly made or facts allegedly omitted from statements made by the Settling Securities Defendants were relied upon by the Class Members, were material or were otherwise actionable under the federal securities laws. 6. In the case of the Derivative Action, the parties disagree, among other things, on: (a) whether the claims in the Derivative Action are in fact securities fraud claims that are encompassed by the Securities Action; (b) whether the Derivative Action should be dismissed 2

3 because the plaintiff failed to make the required demand upon the Company's current board of directors that they pursue plaintiffs claims on behalf of Halliburton if in their determination it is in the best interests of the Company to do so; (c) whether any one or more of the Derivative Defendants in fact committed the acts or omissions, or committed them in the manner, alleged by plaintiff; (d) whether, with respect to the acts and omissions alleged by plaintiff, any one or more of the Derivative Defendants failed to act with due deliberation and due diligence and in the honest, good faith and reasonable belief that their acts and/or omissions were in the best interests of Halliburton and its shareholders; (e) whether Halliburton suffered any injury due to any act or omission of any or all of the Derivative Defendants as alleged by the plaintiff; (f) whether any or all the claims in the Derivative Action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (g) the appropriate methodology for determining the amount of any injury allegedly suffered by Halliburton as a consequence of any of the acts or omissions alleged by plaintiff; and (h) whether the Derivative Defendants have other valid defenses to plaintiffs claims. 7. The Settling Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel considered that there was a substantial risk that the Settling Lead Plaintiffs and the other Class Members might not prevail on all or any of their claims on the merits and that there were risks that: (a) one or more of their claims may be time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (b) there was no material decline in the price of Halliburton common stock on or immediately after the date(s) on which Halliburton disclosed certain of the information that the Settling Lead Plaintiffs have alleged should have been disclosed earlier, and/or to the extent there was such a decline, it could be attributed, in whole or in part, to other factors unrelated to any alleged misconduct by the Settling Securities Defendants. Therefore, the Class Members (the individuals and Entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Halliburton common stock during the Class Period and were allegedly damaged by the alleged acts and omissions of the Settling Securities Defendants) could have recovered nothing or substantially less than the amount of the Settlement. Similarly, plaintiff and his counsel in the Derivative Action considered that there was a substantial risk that plaintiff might not prevail on all or any of his claims on the merits and that there were risks that all or substantially all of those claims could be barred by his failure to make prior demand on the Company's current board of directors and/or by the applicable statute of limitations, in which case Halliburton would recover nothing or substantially less than the amount of the Settlement. 8. The Settling Securities Defendants deny that they are liable to the Lead Plaintiffs or the other Class Members and deny that the Lead Plaintiffs or the other Class Members have suffered any damages. The Derivative Defendants deny that they are liable to Halliburton or its current shareholders and deny that Halliburton, the plaintiff in the Derivative Action or any other current shareholders of the Company have suffered any damages due to any unlawful conduct of any or all of the Derivative Defendants. Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, the Settling Lead Plaintiffs and their respective individual counsel, plaintiff in the Derivative Action and counsel for the plaintiff in the Derivative Action ("Derivative Plaintiffs Counsel") submit that in light of all the foregoing, the recovery set forth herein for the Class Members and the terms of the settlement of the Derivative Action, are fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court. IV. Circumstances Arising During The Settlement Negotiation 9. Under the terms of Pretrial Order No. 1 issued by the Court in the Securities Action, Schiffrin & Barroway was appointed Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and given express authority by the Court to conduct settlement negotiations with the Settling Securities Defendants, who were permitted by Pretrial Order No. 1 to conduct such negotiations solely with Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel as the party authorized to represent the interests of all the Lead Plaintiffs. (Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel represents in an individual capacity only one of the four Lead Plaintiffs appointed by the Court in Pretrial Order No. 1. Each of the other three Lead Plaintiffs is represented by other law firms, all of which are involved in the Securities Action. All four Lead Plaintiffs are collectively referred to herein as "Lead Plaintiffs.") 10. As noted above, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") for the Settlement of the Securities and Derivative Actions was signed on May 29, This MOU was signed on behalf of the Settling Parties by counsel for the Settling Securities Defendants, counsel for the Settling Derivative Defendants, Derivative Plaintiff's Counsel, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for two of the other three Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Action. One of the four Lead Plaintiffs, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. ("AMSF"), which is represented by the law firm of Scott & Scott, (AMSF and Scott & Scott are collectively referred to herein as AMSF) decided not to sign the MOU based on its belief, upon the advice of counsel, that the settlement is not fair and adequate. 11. Subsequent to the execution of the MOU, AMSF filed a motion with the Court to have Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel removed from that position on the grounds that Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel had not kept them adequately informed of the settlement negotiations, and requested that the Court appoint Scott & Scott lead counsel in their stead. AMSF further argued in support of their motion that the proposed settlement of the Securities Action as summarized below is allegedly not fair, is inadequate and not in the best interests of the Class Members because the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel allegedly did not properly value the Settled Claims. The Court denied AMSF's motion after a hearing, but did so without prejudice to renewal of the motion at the Final Fairness Hearing for the Settlement of the Securities Action. The Court noted that AMSF's arguments went primarily to the issue of the fairness of the Securities Action Settlement, and that the Court would not have a sufficient understanding regarding the claims at issue and the settlement terms to properly evaluate the merits until the matter was formally put before it at a fairness hearing held for that purpose. 12. Soon after AMSF refused to sign the MOU, in August 2003, and two months after Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel filed their motion to file the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (referred to in this Notice as the "Complaint") in the Securities Action, Scott & Scott filed a purported class action federal securities action against the Settling Securities Defendants in the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas, captioned Kimble v. Halliburton et al.v. Halliburton et al., 3:03-CV N (the "Kimble Action"). The Kimble complaint also sets forth the Contract Accounting Claims and the Asbestos Claims. The Kimble Action has been consolidated with, and is now part of, the Securities Action. V. Statement Of Attorneys' Fees And Costs Sought 13. In the Securities Action: Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel intends to apply for fees of up to one-third (33-1/3%) of the Gross Settlement Fund, and for reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of the Securities Action not to exceed $200,000. The requested fees and expenses would amount to an average of $.004 per share-estimated-to-be-damaged in total for tees and expenses. 14. In the Derivative Action: The Derivative Plaintiff's Counsel intends to apply for an award of $ 100,000. Any fees awarded to Derivative Plaintiffs Counsel will be expended from the Gross Settlement Fund. 3

4 - 15. Counsel for the Settling Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Action, and Derivative Plaintiff's Counsel in the Derivative Action, have expended considerable time and effort in the prosecution of the Securities and Derivative Actions, respectively, on a contingent fee basis, and have advanced the expenses of the litigation, in the expectation that if they were successful in obtaining a recovery for the Class Members they would be paid from such recovery. In this type of litigation it is customary for counsel representing the Class to be awarded a percentage of the common fund recovery as their attorneys' fees. VI. Further Information 16. Further information regarding the Securities and Derivative Actions and this Notice may be obtained by contacting the following Plaintiffs' Counsel: (a) Securities Action Class Members: Richard Schiffrin, Esq., Marc I. Willner, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, 19004, Telephone (610) (b) Current Shareholders in Connection with the Derivative Action: Brian Felgoise, Law Offices of Brian Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York Rd., The Pavillion Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, (215) VII. Reasons For The Settlements 17. The principal reason for the Securities Action Settlement and for the Derivative Action Settlement is the benefit to be provided now to the Class and to Halliburton's current shareholders of common stock. These benefits must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a substantially smaller recovery might be achieved following continued litigation, including the filing and determination of motions to dismiss the Securities and Derivative Actions, or after the filing and determination of summary judgment, or after a contested trial and likely appeals, possibly years into the future. [END OF COVER PAGE] NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING 18. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Court") dated June 7, 2004, that a hearing will be held before the Honorable David Godbey, United States District Judge, in the United States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce, 1452 Floor, Dallas, TX 75242, at 2:00 p.m., on August 26, 2004 (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") to determine whether the proposed settlements of the above-captioned Securities Action and the Derivative Action (the "Actions") as set forth in the Stipulation for the Securities Action dated May 10, 2004, and the Stipulation for the Derivative Action dated May 14, 2004 (collectively the "Stipulations"), are in each case fair, reasonable and adequate, and to consider the proposed Plan of Allocation for the Securities Action Settlement proceeds and the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel in both Actions for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. 19. The Court, by Preliminary Approval Order In Connection With Settlement Proceedings, dated June 7, 2004, has preliminarily certified a plaintiff Class, for purposes of the Securities Action Settlement only, consisting of: "All persons or Entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Halliburton on the open market during the period from May 18, 1998 through and including May 28, 2002, and were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Settling Securities and the Settling Derivative Defendants, including members of their immediate families; the officers and directors of Halliburton, and their immediate families; any corporation, firm, partnership, trust or other person affiliated with any of the Settling Securities and/or Settling Derivative Defendants, and the heirs, beneficiaries and Legal Representatives of any excluded party. Also excluded from the Class are any putative Class Members who submit a valid and timely request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice. VIII. The Securities Action BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION 20. Throughout the Class Period, Halliburton was engaged in the business of providing a variety of services, products, maintenance, engineering, and construction services to energy, industrial and governmental customers. Both prior to and after Halliburton's September 1998 acquisition by merger of Dresser, Halliburton had two business segments: (1) the Energy Services Group, which provided services and products for the exploration, development and production of oil and gas and, in addition, what Halliburton calls "integrated solutions" to energy companies, ranging from the initial evaluation of producing formations to drilling, production, and well maintenance; and (2) the Engineering and Construction Group (known as Kellogg, Brown & Root following the Dresser Merger), which provided a wide range of engineering and construction services to energy, industrial and governmental customers. This segment conducts its business in over 100 countries worldwide. 21. Beginning on or about June 3, 2002, complaints in nineteen (19) purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Southern District of Texas, and the District of Illinois, cumulatively, against Halliburton and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 et seq., and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a class of all persons or Entities who purchased the common stock of Halliburton during the period July 22, 1999, through May 28, 2002, inclusive. 22. By an Order dated August 12, 2002, the Honorable Samuel A. Lindsey consolidated eleven of the securities class actions that had been filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. At the same time, the consolidated cases were transferred to the Honorable David Godbey. Subsequently, by "Pretrial Order No. 1", the Court consolidated the remainder of the initially-filed nineteen actions under the caption Moore et al. V. Halliburton etal. as set forth on the cover page of this Notice. 4

5 23. On April 11, 2003, pursuant to the terms of Pretrial Order No. 1, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, generally alleging violations, based on the Contract Claims, of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 et seq., and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a class of public investors who purchased the common stock of Halliburton on the open market during the period May 18, 1998 through May 28, 2002, inclusive, at allegedly artificially-inflated prices and were allegedly damaged thereby. Effective on May 29, 2003, following lengthy settlement negotiations between and among Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, Derivative Plaintiff's Counsel, counsel for the Settling Securities Defendants, counsel for the Derivative Defendants and counsel for Halliburton's insurers, a written Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth the principle terms of the Settlements of the Securities and Derivative Actions was executed by the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, the counsel for two of the other Settling Lead Plaintiffs, counsel for the plaintiff in the Derivative Action, counsel for the Settling Securities Defendants and counsel for the Settling Derivative Defendants. 24. Subsequently, on June 16, 2003, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel filed a motion asking the Court for leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint"). The Complaint generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 et seq., and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Halliburton on the open market during the period May 18, 1998, through May 28, 2002, inclusive, at allegedly artificially-inflated prices and were allegedly damaged thereby. The Court issued an order on January 28, 2004, granting the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for leave to file the Complaint. This Complaint generally alleges, in addition to the Contract Accounting Claims, the Dresser Claims, including, among other things, that the Settling Securities Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose in any of the Company's periodic financial statements as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and other Public Statements by the Settling Securities Defendants, during the Class Period: (i) that in connection with Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. the Company acquired substantial, unreserved and/or underinsured liability exposure from pending and likely future third party suits seeking recovery for injuries sustained from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products, which led to the material understatement of unreserved or underinsured liabilities for asbestos related claims; (ii) the true magnitude, following the Dresser merger, of the amount of Halliburton's unreserved and/or uninsured exposure to potential asbestos liabilities, both its own and those acquired in connection with the Dresser merger; and (iii) that following the merger and throughout the Class Period, the Settling Securities Defendants materially overstated the Company's reported assets by failing to properly write down the value of Dresser assets acquired in the merger. The Complaint alleges that as a consequence of their acts and omissions in connection with the Contract Accounting Claims and the Dresser Claims, the Settling Securities Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges further that two of the Individual Defendants, Messrs. Lesar and Morris, allegedly engaged in insider trading when they each sold a portion of their personally held Halliburton common stock in 2000 at allegedly artificially inflated values for total proceeds of over $1.1 million. 25. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that on or about February 26, 1998, Halliburton and Dresser Industries entered into a merger agreement, pursuant to which Halliburton issued 175 million new shares of Halliburton's common stock and Dresser's shareholders received one newly issued share for each common Dresser share. The transaction, which became effective in September 1998, was valued at $7.7 billion, and the combined company continued to be called Halliburton. 26. Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Settling Securities Defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing purportedly false and misleading statements of material fact regarding the Dresser merger and by allegedly concealing and/or failing to disclose material facts necessary to correct such statements, including, among other things, that: 1) Halliburton learned of Dresser's potential asbestos liabilities in May 1998, one month before the scheduled shareholders meeting for approval of the merger, scheduled for June 25, 1998 and instead of disclosing these potential liabilities to the shareholders, concealed the potential liabilities and continued to issue positive press to the public; 2) Halliburton failed to disclose any information regarding these potential asbestos liabilities until it filed its 1998 Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 23, 1999 (" K"), nearly a year after the merger was approved by Halliburton and Dresser shareholders; 3) in its allegedly inadequate 1998 Form 10-K disclosure, Halliburton stated that the asbestos claims pending against Dresser at the end of 1998 would "be resolved without material effect on Halliburton's financial position or results of operations." 27. Plaintiffs allege further that finally, on June 28, 2001, Halliburton disclosed for the first time that, as a result of the Dresser merger, it would be facing substantial asbestos liabilities. It specifically disclosed that as of June 30, 2001, the Company would require an additional reserve to cover the asbestos claims inherited from Dresser, net of insurance recoveries, of approximately $50 to $60 million, after-tax. Following the June 28, 2001 disclosure, the price of the Company's stock closed at $35.60 on June 29, 2001, down $3.05 per share, or 8%, from its closing price of $38.65 per share on June 27. In addition, the Lead Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that the Settling Securities Defendants overstated revenue following the Dresser merger by failing to properly write down the value of Dresser assets. 28. Plaintiffs allege further in connection with the Contract Accounting Claims that the Settling Securities Defendants materially misled the investing public by concealing and/or failing to disclose during the Class Period that in the fourth quarter of 1998, to mask declining revenue, Halliburton changed its long-standing accounting policy of recognizing as losses cost-overruns on fixed price construction contracts that had not been agreed to by its customers and began recognizing some cost-overruns as revenue under GAAP Statement of Position Lead Plaintiffs additionally allege that in connection with its change in accounting procedures, Halliburton was required by SEC rules, but failed, to provide a letter from its independent accountants, Arthur Anderson, to the SEC supporting the change in the first Form 10-Q filed by the Company subsequent to the change. These alleged acts are asserted by the Lead Plaintiffs to have been in violation of GAAP Statement of Position 81-1, which governs the accounting of long-term construction-type contracts, as well as the principles set forth in Opinions of the Accounting Principles Board ("APB") No. 20, and Rule 10-01(b)(6) of Regulation S-X. 29. The Complaint also alleges that on May 22, 2002, the New York Times published an article allegedly discussing for the first time the accounting change adopted by Halliburton in the fourth quarter of The next day, the price of Halliburton common stock did not decrease; rather, it increased. On May 28, 2002, the last day of the Class Period, Halliburton issued a press release after the close of trading announcing that the SEC had begun "a preliminary investigation of the Company's accounting treatment of cost-overruns on construction jobs" and that the Company expected to receive a formal request for documents or a subpoena in the next few days. The Company's press release stated, however, that it believed that it had accounted for construction claims and change orders in accordance with GAAP. In an alleged reaction to the Company's announcement, the price of Halliburton common stock price decreased by 3.3% to close at $18.72 on May 29, 2002, 5

6 on extraordinary trading volume of over 13 million shares, many times the Company's average daily trading volume. The Complaint alleges that as a result of the foregoing, the Lead Plaintiffs and the other Class Members purchased Halliburton common stock during the Class Period at prices that were artificially inflated. The Settling Securities Defendants assert that in the days immediately following the May 22, 2002 New York Times article, which Plaintiffs allege revealed Halliburton's change in accounting methodology for the first time, the price of the Company's common stock increased materially, indicating that the fact that such disclosure had not been made earlier in the Class Period did not result in any Class Member purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. IX. The Derivative Action 30. On March 12, 2003, a derivative action (an action filed by a shareholder asserting claims on behalf of Halliburton), Jack Friedberg, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Halliburton Company v. David J. Lesar, et al. No CV-0637-L, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, against Halliburton as a nominal defendant and the current and former Halliburton Directors: David J. Lesar, Robert L. Crandall, Kenneth T. Derr, Charles J. DiBona, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, William R. Howell, Ray L. Hunt, Alwyn B. Lewis, J. Landis Martin, Jay A. Precourt, Deborah L. Reed, and C.J. Silas (collectively the "Derivative Defendants." The plaintiff in the Derivative Action subsequently dismissed that Action with respect to Defendant C.J. Silas, who is no longer a defendant in the Derivative Action.). Derivative Plaintiffs claims arise out of alleged improper accounting practices carried-out by Halliburton over a three-year period. Derivative Plaintiff claims that during the fourth quarter of 1998, Halliburton made a change in its accounting practices by recognizing revenue on disputed cost-overruns, claims, and change orders in connection with long-term fixed-price construction contracts. Derivative Plaintiff alleges further that as a result of the accounting changes, Halliburton materially overstated its revenues and earnings, thus causing injury to Halliburton. Plaintiff claims that as a result of this alleged conduct, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Halliburton. 31. A derivative action making allegations similar to those in the federal Derivative Action had previously been filed in Texas state court under the caption Equitec-Cole Roesler, LLC v. Lesar et al., and had been dismissed because of the unexcused failure of the plaintiff to make demand on Halliburton's current board of directors to pursue the claims alleged by the plaintiff. 32. The Honorable Sam A. Lindsay entered three successive orders extending the Derivative Defendants time to respond to the Derivative Complaint to June 30, 2003, and on May 29, 2003, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the Settlement of the Derivative Action. 33. On August 22, 2003, Equitec-Cole Roesler, LLC, the named plaintiff in the previously-filed state court derivative action that had been dismissed, filed a Plea in Intervention in the Derivative Action. Plaintiff Friedberg filed a response objecting to the Plea in Intervention on September 11, 2003, and on January 23, 2004, the Plea to Intervene was denied. 34. On September 11, 2003, plaintiff in the Derivative Action filed a First Amended Derivative Complaint. 35. On November 5, 2003, the parties filed a Joint Motion to transfer the Action to the Honorable David Godbey, the Judge presiding over the consolidated Securities Action. By an Order dated November 7, 2003, the Derivative Action was so transferred. BACKGROUND TO THE SETTLEMENT 36. The three Settling Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel, including Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, and the Settling Securities Defendants, for the reasons discussed above and below, believe that the Securities Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate because, among other things, the Lead Plaintiffs' Contract Accounting Claims and Dresser Claims remain subject to a motion to dismiss by the Settling Securities Defendants, who will argue that Lead Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead a securities fraud claim, that Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on conclusory allegations without specific factual support, are time barred, and are subject to numerous other defenses asserted by the Settling Securities Defendants, including numerous defenses on the merits and relating to the issues of damages, as a consequence of which the AMSF and the other Class Members could recover nothing or substantially less than the settlement amount. In fact, on May 10, 2004, the Settling Securities Defendants filed such a motion with respect to the Kimble Action, which remains outstanding as of the date of this Notice. 37. The Settling Securities Defendants and Derivative Defendants (both as defined above and below) have denied all averments of wrongdoing or liability in the Securities Action and the Derivative Action, respectively, and all other accusations of wrongdoing or violations of any federal, state, local or foreign statutory or common law, rule or regulation, including without limitation any breach or violation of any fiduciary duty or standard of care, any fraud, recklessness, gross negligence or negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract or Halliburton internal policies or procedures or any other conduct (including by omission) that might give rise to any legal or equitable Claim whatsoever. The Stipulation is not and shall not be construed or be deemed to be evidence or an admission or a concession on the part of any of the Settling Securities Defendants or the Derivative Defendants of any fault, liability or responsibility of any kind for any damages, injuries or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever, and the Settling Securities Defendants and Derivative Defendants do not concede any infirmity in the defenses which they have asserted or intended to assert in the Securities and Derivative Actions, respectively. 38. Prior to entering into the Stipulation, Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Derivative Plaintiffs Counsel each conducted an investigation relating to the events and transactions underlying their respective claims and conducted discovery on the merits for the purpose of determining whether the Settlements of the Actions are in each case fair, adequate, reasonable and in the best interests of the Class, the Company and its current shareholders, including: (a) review and analysis of the public filings made by Halliburton with the SEC; (b) review and analysis of Halliburton's public conference calls, as well as press releases and other public statements issued on behalf of Halliburton; (c) review and analysis of securities analysts' reports concerning Halliburton; (d) review and analysis of sworn deposition testimony of current and former Halliburton officers, directors and employees and members of Halliburton's outside auditing firm during the Class Period taken by members of the enforcement staff of the SEC's Ft. Worth, Texas Regional Office in connection with their investigation of Halliburton with respect to the Contract Claims and related matters; (e) interviews with current Halliburton employees regarding the claims arising out of and relating to the Dresser merger; (f) review and analysis of the Halliburton documents marked as exhibits by the SEC at the foregoing depositions; (g) review and analysis of other documents regarding the Contract Claims and other matters provided to the SEC by Halliburton; (h) review and analysis of documents relating to the Dresser merger and Dresser Claims; (i) discussions with individuals with experience in Halliburton's industry; and (j) review and analysis of other publicly available information concerning Halliburton, including news articles. 6

7 - -. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel's decision to enter into the Securities Settlement was made with knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying the claims alleged in the Complaint and the strengths and weaknesses of those claims. In determining to settle the Securities Action, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel have evaluated the SEC discovery and other information obtained from Halliburton, and taken into account the substantial expense and length of time necessary to prosecute the Securities Action through trial,. post-trial motions, and likely appeals, taking into consideration the significant uncertainties in predicting the outcome of this complex litigation. All counsel for the Settling Lead Plaintiffs believe that the Settlement described herein confers very substantial benefits upon the Class. Based upon their consideration of all of these factors, the Settling Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel have concluded that it is in the best interest of the Settling Lead Plaintiffs and the Class to settle the Securities Action on the terms described herein. 39. The Settling Lead Plaintiffs recognize the uncertainty and the risk of the outcome of any litigation, especially complex litigation such as this, and the difficulties and risks inherent in the trial of such an action. The Settling Lead Plaintiffs and their respective counsel all desire to settle their Claims and the Claims of the Class that have been or could have been alleged in the Securities Action, in connection with or arising out of the purchase or other acquisition of Halliburton common stock, and arising out of and/or relating in any way to any of the facts, transactions, acts, events, conduct, statements, representations and/or omissions described or referred to, or that could have been described or referred to, in the Complaint against the Settling Securities Defendants on the terms and conditions described herein which provide substantial benefits to the Class. The Settling Lead Plaintiffs' respective counsel, including Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, deem such settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. 40. The Settling Securities Defendants, while continuing to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, desire to settle and terminate all existing or potential claims against them, without in any way acknowledging any fault or liability. 41. The amount of damages, if any, that the Lead Plaintiffs could prove was a matter of serious and material dispute, and the Securities Settlement's use of a Recognized Claim formula for distributing the Settlement proceeds does not constitute a finding, admission or concession by or on behalf of either the Settling Securities Defendants or the Settling Lead Plaintiffs or their counsel, including Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, that provable damages could be measured by the Recognized Claim formula. No determination has been made by the Court as to liability or the amount, if any, of damages suffered by the Class Members, either individually or collectively, nor on the proper measure of any such damages. The determination of damages, like the determination of liability, is a complicated and uncertain process, typically involving conflicting expert opinions. During the course of the Securities Action, the Settling Securities Defendants, in addition to denying any liability, disputed that Lead Plaintiffs and the other purported Class Members were damaged by any wrongful conduct on the part of the Settling Securities Defendants. The Securities Settlement herein provides an immediate and substantial cash benefit and avoids the risks that liability or damages might not have been proven at trial. 42. The Court has not determined the merits of the claims or the defenses thereto asserted in either the Securities or the Derivative Action. This Notice does not imply that there has been or would be any finding of violation of the law or that recovery could be had in any amount if the two Actions were not settled. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 43. The terms of the Securities Settlement and the Derivative Action Settlement are set forth in detail in the respective Stipulations, both of which are on file with the Court and are available on the web at The following description of the Settlements' terms is only a summary. Reference should be made to the Stipulations on file with the Court for a full statement of their provisions. 44. In full and complete settlement of the Securities Action, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Securities Stipulation, the Settling Securities Defendants have paid into escrow $6,000,000 (the "Gross Settlement Fund"), for the benefit of the Class Members. The Gross Settlement Fund has been earning interest for the benefit of the Class since July 1, In full and final settlement of the Derivative Action, the Board of Directors of Halliburton has agreed to cause Halliburton to maintain in effect corporate governance initiatives set forth below: Halliburton Company ("Halliburton" or "Company") was advised by its independent outside auditors at all relevant times that the financial statements at issue in the Consolidated Securities Action and the Derivative Action, and all its financial statements issued thereafter, were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Practices ("GAAP"). Accordingly, Halliburton believes that its accounting procedures and practices with respect to its accounting for both revenue on fixed-price engineering, procurement and construction contracts and for potential liability of the Company with respect to current and possible future asbestos claims (collectively, "the accounting items"), have been and are now appropriate to result in the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Nevertheless, in order to resolve all claims that have been, could have been or could be asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action and/or the Derivative Action in connection with, arising out of or in any way related to the acts or omissions described or referred to in either such action, Halliburton hereby undertakes to instruct the Company's Internal Auditor to undertake a review of the Company's current accounting procedures with respect to both of the accounting items. Halliburton's Internal Auditor will thereafter report to the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors the results of the Internal Auditor's review of such accounting procedures, and such recommendations, if any, as the Internal Auditor deems necessary and appropriate. Based upon such report and recommendations (if any) of the Internal Auditor, the Audit Committee will, to the extent necessary, direct that any revisions in accounting procedures be reduced to writing for consideration and approval by the Audit Committee at its next following regularly scheduled meeting. Halliburton also believes that the current provisions of the charter of the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors are reasonable, appropriate and sufficient to permit the Audit Committee to discharge fully and adequately its obligations and responsibilities. Nevertheless, in order to resolve all claims that have been, could have been or could be asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action and/or the Derivative Action in connection with, arising out of or in any way related to the acts or omissions described or referred to in either such action, Halliburton undertakes to cause its Board of Directors to review the charter of the Audit Committee to ensure that its provisions are, to the extent necessary, amended so as to reflect the following practices of or with respect to the Audit Committee: 7

8 1. The Board of Directors shall, on an annual basis, appoint one of the members of the Audit Committee to be its Chairman. 2. The Audit Committee shall have the authority to conduct investigations of such matters as it deems appropriate, and, in connection with such investigations, shall have the authority independently to hire outside counsel or other consultants or experts to assist it as it may deem necessary or appropriate. 3. The Audit Committee will meet on a quarterly basis with Company management and the Company's outside auditors to review the Company's quarterly financial statements. 4. The Audit Committee will meet annually with Company management and the Company's outside auditors to review the Company's annual report and financial statements. 5. The Audit Committee will cause minutes to be kept of each regular and special meeting of the Committee, and will further undertake to provide the Board of Directors with copies of all such minutes for review at each subsequent Board of Directors' meeting. 46. The "Settled Claims" as referred to herein, shall have the following meanings: (a) In the Moore Action: "Settled Claims" means any and all Claims asserted or that could have been asserted by any of the Releasors, whether directly, indirectly, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity, in the Moore Action and/or in any other federal, state, local or foreign forum (judicial, administrative, arbitral or other), against any of the Released Parties, arising out of or relating in any way to any transaction, fact, occurrence, conduct, act, event, representation, statement or omission alleged or that could have been alleged in the Complaint in connection with or relating to any purchase or other acquisition of Halliburton common stock by any Class Member at any time during the proposed Class Period, whether known or unknown (as "unknown" is defined in Paragraph 1(c) of the Securities Stipulation), arising under any federal, state, local statutory or common law, rule or regulation, including the law of any foreign jurisdiction. The "Settled Claims" include, without limitation, any and all Claims under any federal or state securities laws, any and all Claims arising out of or relating in any way to the prosecution, defense or settlement of, or settlement negotiations with respect to, the Moore Action and/or any of the actions consolidated therein, and any and all Claims for attorneys' fees, fraud, breach of Halliburton's policies or procedures, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, negligent misrepresentation and or for declaratory judgment; (b) In the Derivative Action: "Settled Claims" means any and all claims, rights, demands, suits, matters, issues, or causes of action, including both known and Unknown claims, for actual or exemplary damages, losses, fees, costs and other recoveries and remedies of any kind, nature and/or description whatsoever, matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, accrued or unaccrued, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, whether or not asserted, threatened, alleged or litigated, at law, equity or otherwise, that have been or could have been asserted against the Released Parties in connection with or relating to the Dresser merger and/or the contract accounting claims, whether directly, indirectly, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity, in the Federal Derivative Action, the Securities Action, or any other forum (judicial, administrative, arbitral or other) against the Released Parties. "Settled Claims" with respect to the Derivative Action, includes, without limitation, claims for contribution, indemnification, attorneys' fees, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of Halliburton's policies and procedures, waste, mismanagement, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, breach of any applicable duty of care, breach of duty of loyalty, recovery of costs and expenses (including, without limitation, amounts paid in settlement) and any other breaches or violations of any federal, state or local statutes, common law doctrines, rules or regulations, that now exist or heretofore existed. (c) "Unknown" or "unknown" as used in the definition of Settled Claims below, includes Claims that any or all of the Releasors or the Released Parties do not now know or suspect to exist, which, if known by him, her or it, might affect his, her or its agreement to release the Settled Claims or the Settled Defendants' Claims, as the case may be, or might affect his, her or its decision to object or not to object to the Settlement as set forth in this Stipulation. (d) With respect to any and all Settled Claims, the parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, each of the Settling Lead Plaintiffs and Settling Securities Defendants shall expressly, and each of the other Class Members and other Releasors and Released Parties shall be deemed to, and by operation of the Final Order shall, with respect to the releases given by them in this Stipulation, have waived any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, or the law of any foreign jurisdiction, which is similar, comparable or equivalent to Section 1542 of the California Civil Code. Section 1542 of the California Civil Code provides: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. Settling Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of the Releasors, and Settling Securities Defendants on behalf of the Released Parties, acknowledge that they may discover facts in addition to or different from those that they now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of their respective releases, but that it is their intention, on behalf of the Releasors and the Released Parties, respectively, to fully, finally and forever settle and release the Settled Claims, including unknown Claims as that term is defined in I 46(c). The Settling Lead Plaintiffs and the Settling Securities Defendants acknowledge, and the other Class Members, current Halliburton shareholders and other Releasors by operation of law shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that the inclusion of "unknown" Claims in the definition of both Claims and Settled Claims was separately bargained for and was a key element of the Settlement. 8 _. _

9 47. As used herein, all capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this Notice shall have the same meanings as defined in the Securities Stipulation, for Securities Class Members, or the Derivative Stipulation, for current Shareholders. 48. The Securities Stipulation provides that the Settling Securities Defendants may terminate the Securities Settlement in the event that in excess of a certain percentage of claimants exclude themselves from the Class. 49. The Settlements will become effective at such time as Final Orders and Judgments in the Securities Action and the Derivative Action, entered by the Court approving the Settlements, shall become final and not subject to appeal or review (the "Effective Date"). If the Effective Date does not occur, none of the terms of the Settlements shall apply. ALLOCATION OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS AMONG CLASS MEMBERS 50. The $6,000,000 Cash Settlement Amount and the interest earned thereon shall be the Gross Settlement Fund. The Gross Settlement Fund, less all taxes, approved costs, fees and expenses (the "Net Settlement Fund") shall be distributed to members of the Class who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim ("Authorized Claimants"). 51. The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized Claimant's pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized Claimant's "Recognized Claim." The Recognized Claim formula is not intended to be an estimate of the amount that a Class Member might have been able to recover after a trial; nor is it an estimate of the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement. The Recognized Claim formula is the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately allocated to the Authorized Claimants. 52. An Authorized Claimant's "Recognized Claim" shall mean: (a) For shares of common stock purchased or acquired between May 18, 1998 and June 28, 2001, inclusive, and retained at the end of trading on May 28, 2002, the Recognized Loss shall be the lesser of: (1) $0.40 per share; or (2) the difference between the purchase price per share and the sales price per share for each share sold between May 29, 2002 and August 26, 2002; or (3) the difference between the purchase price per share and $14.71 for each share still held at the close of trading on August 26, (b) For shares of common stock purchased or acquired, and sold between May 18, 1998 and June 28, 2001, inclusive, there shall be no Recognized Loss. (c) For shares of common stock purchased or acquired between May 18, 1998 and June 28, 2001, inclusive, and sold between June 29, 2001 and May 28, 2002, the Recognized Loss shall be the lesser of: (1) $0.15 per share; or (2) the difference between the purchase price per share and the sales price per share for each share sold. (d) For shares of common stock purchased or acquired between June 29, 2001 and May 28, 2002, inclusive, and retained at the end of trading on May 28, 2002, the Recognized Loss shall be the lesser of: (1) $0.25 per share; or (2) the difference between the purchase price per share and the sales price per share for each share sold between May 29, 2002 and August 26, 2002; or (3) the difference between the purchase price per share and $14.71 for each share still held at the close of trading on August 26, (e) For shares of common stock purchased between June 29, 2001 and May 28, 2002, inclusive, and sold between June 29, 2001 and May 28, 2002, inclusive, there shall be no Recognized Loss. 53. Each Authorized Claimant shall be allocated a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on his, her or its Recognized Claim as compared to the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants. 'Pursuant to Section 21(D)(e)(1) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, "in any private action arising under this title in which the plaintiff seeks to establish damages by reference to the market price of a security, the award of damages to the plaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received, as appropriate, by the plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of that security during the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the information correcting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated." $14.71 was the mean closing price of Halliburton Company common stock during the 90-day period beginning on May 29, 2002 and ending on August 26, _

10 54. Class Members who do not submit acceptable Proofs of Claim will not share in the settlement proceeds. Class Members who do not either submit a request for exclusion or submit an acceptable Proof of Claim will nevertheless be bound by the Settlement and the Final Order and Judgment of the Court dismissing this Action. 55. Checks will be distributed to Authorized Claimants after all claims have been processed and after the Court has finally approved the Securities Settlement. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, then, after the Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Class Members who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund cash their distribution checks, any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund one (1) year after the initial distribution of such funds shall be re-distributed to Class Members who have cashed their checks and who would receive at least $10.00 from such re-distribution. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund six months after such re-distribution, then such balance shall be contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization(s) designated by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. THE RIGHTS OF THE SECURITIES CLASS MEMBERS 56. The Court has certified the Securities Action to proceed as a class action. If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Halliburton on the open market during the period from May 18, 1998 through and including May 28, 2002, and were allegedly damaged thereby, and you are not excluded by the definition of the Class and do not elect to exclude yourself, then you are a Class Member. Class Members have the following options pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) If you wish to remain a member of the Class, you may share in the proceeds of the Securities Settlement, provided that you timely submit an acceptable Proof of Claim. Class Members will be represented by the Settling Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel, unless you enter an appearance through counsel of your own choice at your own expense. You are not required to retain your own counsel, but if you choose to do so, such counsel must file an appearance on your behalf on or before August 18, 2004, and must serve copies of such appearance on the attorneys listed in j 63 below. (b) If you do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you may exclude yourself from the Class by following the instructions in j 62 below. Persons who exclude themselves from the Class will NOT receive any share of the Settlement proceeds and will not be bound by the Settlement. (c) If you object to the Settlement or any of its terms, or to Plaintiffs Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and if you do not exclude yourself from the Class, you may present your objections by following the instructions in II 63 below. SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING OF PROOFS OF CLAIM FOR SECURITIES SETTLEMENT CLASS 57. In order to be eligible to receive any distribution from the Settlement Fund, you must complete and sign the accompanying Proof of Claim and Release form and send it and the required documentation by first class mail postmarked on or before September 27, 2004, addressed as follows: Moore v. Halliburton Securities Litigation do The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 9000 #6117 Merrick, NY If you do not submit a proper Proof of Claim form, you will not be entitled to any share of the Settlement Fund. 59. If you are a Class Member and you do not properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and the Final Order and Judgment of the Court dismissing this Action, even if you do not submit a Proof of Claim. If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by the judgment but you will not be entitled to any share of the Settlement Fund. Court. 60. All Proofs of Claim must be submitted by the date specified in this Notice unless such period is extended by Order of the 61. Each Claimant shall be deemed to have submitted to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas with respect to his, her or its Proof of Claim. EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS 62. Each Class Member shall be bound by all determinations and judgments in this Action concerning the Securities Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such person shall mail, by first class mail, a written request for exclusion from the Class, postmarked no later than August 18, 2004, addressed to Moore v. Halliburton Securities Litigation, Attn: Exclusions Dept., do The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9000 #6117, Merrick, NY No person may exclude himself from the Class after that date. In order to be valid, each such request for exclusion must set forth the name and address of the person or entity requesting exclusion, must state that such person or entity "requests exclusion from the Class in the Moore v. Halliburton, Civil Action No. 3: 02-CV-1152-N" and must be signed by such person or entity. Persons and Entities requesting exclusion should also provide the following information: their daytime telephone number, the date(s), price(s), and number(s) of shares of all purchases and sales of Halliburton common stock during the Class Period. The request for exclusion shall not be effective unless the request for exclusion provides the required information and is made within the time stated above, or the exclusion is otherwise accepted by the Court. 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RICHARD MOORE, et al. : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No.: 3:02-CV-1152-N : THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: HALLIBURTON COMPANY, et

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X IN RE ENGINEERING ANIMATION SECURITIES CIVIL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS X In re NUTRAMAX PRODUCTS, INC. SECURITIES : Civil Action No. LITIGATION : 00-CV-10861 (RGS) : This document relates to: : : Each action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION AT MEMPHIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION AT MEMPHIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION AT MEMPHIS In re ) Thomas & Betts Securities Litigation ) Civil Action No. 00-CV-2127 ) TO: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS

More information

Case 2:09-cv CMR Document Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT A-1

Case 2:09-cv CMR Document Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 2:09-cv-04730-CMR Document 184-2 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 2:09-cv-04730-CMR Document 184-2 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Master File No. 05-CV H(RBB) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Master File No. 05-CV H(RBB) CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re PETCO CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 05-CV-0823- H(RBB) CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. NOTICE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. Master File No. 02-CV-2775-MRP (PLAx) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. Master File No. 02-CV-2775-MRP (PLAx) CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION In re GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 02-CV-2775-MRP (PLAx) CLASS ACTION This Document

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN F. HUTCHINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. NBTY, INC., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. Civil Action No.

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DIVISION IN RE ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. Master File No. 07 C 7083 SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To:

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION x In re GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC. : Master File No. 02-CV-2775-MRP (PLAx) SECURITIES LITIGATION : : CLASS ACTION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION MARVIN E. SIKES, v. Plaintiff, CRAIG A. WINN, THOMAS MORGAN, REX SCATENA and DEAN M. JOHNSON, Civil Action

More information

: : CLASS ACTION : : : : : : : : : NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

: : CLASS ACTION : : : : : : : : : NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Civil Action FILE No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Civil Action FILE No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION x IN RE PROFIT RECOVERY GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION x ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action FILE No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION. v. Case No Civ - Moreno/Dube

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION. v. Case No Civ - Moreno/Dube UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION JAMES P. MORIARTY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 99-0225 Civ - Moreno/Dube

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION In re BLUE RHINO CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. ) Master File No. ) CV-03-3495-MRP(AJWx)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TERRI MORSE BACHOW, Individually on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. C.A. No. 3:09-CV-0262-K

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION LOUIS GRASSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. CV 06-02639 vs. Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION VITESSE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly

More information

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY!

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (Consolidated for all purposes with Civil Action No. 14-cv- 01402-CMA-KMT) UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:12-cv-11044-DJC Document 70-4 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CASE NO. 1:12-CV-11044

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION In re DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION Master Docket No. 4:03-CV-212 This Document Relates To: CLASS ACTION ALL ACTIONS. TO: NOTICE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION BERNARD FIDEL, et al., On Behalf of Themselves and Lead Case No. C-1-00-320 All Others Similarly Situated, (Consolidated with No.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION RAMON GOMEZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. BIDZ.COM, INC., and DAVID ZINBERG, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No.: 3:13-cv-00580-BEN-RBB NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION. No. 3:15-cv EMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION. No. 3:15-cv EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 3:15-cv-00265-EMC NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE RAYTHEON COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 19018 NC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA J. WRIGHT WILLIAMSON and THEOPHILUS ) HERBST, JR., Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal ) Defendant THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., ) ) Case No. CJ 2002-1144

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND SANDRA KAFENBAUM and STEVEN SCHULMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, CA 00 413L vs. GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA In re STRATOSPHERE CORPORATION SECURITIES ) Master File No. LITIGATION ) CV-S-96-00708-PMP-(RLH) ) This Document Relates To: ) CLASS ACTION ) ALL ACTIONS.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Civil Action No. 05-cv-01265-WDM-MEH (Consolidated with 05-cv-01344-WDM-MEH) WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, STARTEK, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, AEROPOSTALE, INC., THOMAS P. JOHNSON and MARC

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAREN LEVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:15-cv-07081-LLS Hon. Louis L. Stanton v. RESOURCE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV RWS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV RWS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) IN RE: EBIX, INC. ) SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-02400-RWS NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. x : : : : : : : x CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. x : : : : : : : x CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re FOREST LABORATORIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To ALL ACTIONS. x x Civil Action No. 05-CV-2827-RMB ELECTRONICALLY

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION THE ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., et al., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:02-CV-1152-M

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE 360NETWORKS SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ) 02 CV 4837 (MGC) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH ALL DEFENDANTS, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH ALL DEFENDANTS, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA SARATOGA ADVANTAGE TRUST and THEODORE HYER, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. ICG, INC. a/k/a INTERNATIONAL COAL

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS FEE PETITION AND RIGHT TO SHARE IN SETTLEMENT FUND

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS FEE PETITION AND RIGHT TO SHARE IN SETTLEMENT FUND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE GLOBALSTAR SECURITIES LITIGATION 01 Civ. 1748 (PKC) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE ELETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 15-cv-5754-JGK NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No. 3:04CV99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No. 3:04CV99 IN RE SPX CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) This Document Relates To: ) ALL ACTIONS ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No. 3:04CV99

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. C.A. No JLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. C.A. No JLT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE CVS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION X : : : X C.A. No. 01-11464 JLT NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS

More information

NOTICE OF (i) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, (ii) REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEYS EXPENSES, AND (iii) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

NOTICE OF (i) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, (ii) REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEYS EXPENSES, AND (iii) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL MONAHAN, on behalf of himself And all persons similarly interested Civil Action No. 02-CV-496M Plaintiffs, v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN

More information

District of New Hampshire X :: : X

District of New Hampshire X :: : X United States District Court District of New Hampshire In re: StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation. X :: : X Master File No. 1:05cv00177-SM CIVIL ACTION NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION In re PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL CORP. SECURITIES ) Master File No. C 01-3952 CRB LITIGATION ) ) ) This Document Relates to:

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA : : Civil Action No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA : : Civil Action No. IN RE NETBANK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA : : Civil Action No. : 1:07-cv-2298-TCB : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION IN RE BROADWING INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. C-1-02-795 JUDGE WALTER H. RICE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION In re BROADCOM CORPORATION CLASS ACTION LITIGATION Lead Case No.: CV-06-5036-R (CWx) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:10-cv-00851-SRN-TNL Document 431-3 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN GAUQUIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH, INC., WILLIAM MARTH,

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT United States District Court Northern District of California San Jose Division In re: TVIA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document relates to: ALL ACTIONS. X :: X :: : : X No. C-06-06304-RMW CLASS ACTION

More information

A Federal Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

A Federal Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Case 2:05cv00204DB Document 1053 Red 11/07/07 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Exhibit B IN RE imergent SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No.: 2:05-cv-0204

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE REVLON, INC. SECURITIES : Master File No. LITIGATION : 99-CV-10192 (SHS) x This Document Relates to: : All Actions : x NOTICE OF PROPOSED

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION In re ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civ. No. 0:10-cv-00851-SRN-TNL CLASS ACTION TO: NOTICE OF PROPOSED

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA S SHERMAN DIVISION FILE D U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MAR 21200 7 DAVID J. MALANu, t;lerk BY DEPUTY PLA, LLC, individually and on

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION In re VELTI PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Master File No. 3:13-cv-03889-WHO (Consolidated

More information

Case 1:12-cv VEC Document Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 21 EXHIBIT A-1

Case 1:12-cv VEC Document Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 21 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 177-1 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 21 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 177-1 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

More information

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM BY JULY 14, 2008 The only way to get a payment. OBJECT BY AUGUST 1, 2008

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM BY JULY 14, 2008 The only way to get a payment. OBJECT BY AUGUST 1, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X ANTHONY CAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE SINOHUB SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All Actions No. 1:12-cv-08478-WHP NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY x JOANN KRAJEWSKI, PAUL Consolidated Case No. 02-CV-221038 MCHENDRY, and MICHAEL LAMB, Division No. 8 Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 2:14-cv CBM-E

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 2:14-cv CBM-E MICHAEL J. ANGLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION v. UTI WORLDWIDE INC., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants.

More information

Case 1:14-cv JPO Document Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-1

Case 1:14-cv JPO Document Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 1:14-cv-03251-JPO Document 190-2 Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 1:14-cv-03251-JPO Document 190-2 Filed 10/02/18 Page 2 of 14 Exhibit A-1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND DIVISION PETER KALTMAN, MALCOLM LORD, CELESTE NAVON, DAVID W. ORTBALS, PAUL E. STEWARD, GARCO INVESTMENTS, LLP Individually

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- X PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE MBIA, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION File No. 08-CV-264-KMK NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS

More information

Case3:11-cv EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43

Case3:11-cv EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page2 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page3 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION IN RE GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civ. A. No. 3:14-cv-00682-JAG Hon. John A. Gibney, Jr. NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY

More information

Case l:14"cv~09418~at~hbp Document 20-4 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 12

Case l:14cv~09418~at~hbp Document 20-4 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 12 Case l:14"cv~09418~at~hbp Document 20-4 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Altair Nanotechnologies Shareholder Derivative Litigation CASE NO.:

More information

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE IN RE COINSTAR INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: The Securities Class Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Case No. C11-133 MJP NOTICE OF PENDENCY

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TRADING STRATEGIES FUND, on CIVIL DIVISION Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, No. 12-11460 Plaintiff, -against- NOORUDDIN S.

More information

Case 1:11-cv CM Document Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-2

Case 1:11-cv CM Document Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-2 Case 1:11-cv-02279-CM Document 103-3 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-2 Case 1:11-cv-02279-CM Document 103-3 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ROBERT WINN, JAMES WINN and MARVIN GILL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, No. IP00-0310

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------x IN RE CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES : Civil Action No. W-04-CA-177 SECURITIES LITIGATION

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION HERBERT CROWELL, On Behalf of

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION HERBERT CROWELL, On Behalf of IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION HERBERT CROWELL, On Behalf of Himself and All ) Case No. 98-009023-AI Others Similarly

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WILLIAM E. BURGES and ROSE M. BURGES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. BANCORPSOUTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF

More information

In re Altair Nanotechnologies Shareholder Derivative Litigation CASE NO.: 14-CV TPG-HBP

In re Altair Nanotechnologies Shareholder Derivative Litigation CASE NO.: 14-CV TPG-HBP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Altair Nanotechnologies Shareholder Derivative Litigation CASE NO.: 14-CV-09418-TPG-HBP AMENDED NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ALTAIR

More information

Case 8:04-cv SCB-EAJ Document 166 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 1 of 31

Case 8:04-cv SCB-EAJ Document 166 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 1 of 31 Case 8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ Document 166 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 1 of 31 Case 8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ Document 166 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 2 of 31 Case 8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ Document 166 Filed 11/15/2006 Page

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION AMY COOK, derivatively on behalf of CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, vs. Plaintiff, GARY E. MCCULLOUGH, STEVEN H. LESNIK, LESLIE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GUY RATZ, Individually and on behalf of : all others similarly situated, : : Plaintiff, : : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:13 cv 06808

More information

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: The only way to get a payment. See Questions

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: The only way to get a payment. See Questions UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE HIBERNIA FOODS, PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION ------------------------------------------------------------- THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL

More information

CAUSE NO

CAUSE NO CAUSE NO. 2002-55406 x DYNEGY INC. and DYNEGY HOLDINGS, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs v. 129 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT BERNARD D. SHAPIRO and PETER STRUB, Individually and On Behalf of Themselves and

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. KPMG, LLP, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION If you purchased or otherwise acquired Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ( Corinthian ) common stock between August 23, 2010 and April 14, 2015 (both dates inclusive)

More information

x : : x NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT, AND HEARING THEREON

x : : x NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT, AND HEARING THEREON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re LUXOTTICA GROUP S.p.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION x : : x No. CV 01-3285 (JBW) (MDG) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. File No. 07-CV-5867 (PAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. File No. 07-CV-5867 (PAC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO. SECURITIES LITIGATION File No. 07-CV-5867 (PAC) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION. Consol. Case No

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION. Consol. Case No IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION IN RE SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. BONDHOLDERS LITIGATION ) ) ) Consol. Case No. 3-00-1145 17 NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED PARTIAL

More information

X : : X NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

X : : X NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: THERAGENICS CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION X : : X CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:99-CV-0141 (TWT) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:11-cv-02072-KHV-JPO Document 77-2 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS STAN BETTER and YRC INVESTORS GROUP, Individually and On Behalf of All

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IN RE PINNACLE HOLDINGS CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION TO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION / No. 8:01-CV-624-T-27-MSS NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, HEARING ON

More information

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, COLORADO 4000 Justice Way, Suite 2009 Castle Rock, CO 80109 IN RE ADVANCED EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case CIV WPD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case CIV WPD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In re: Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. Securities Litigation Case 14 81156 CIV WPD NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IN RE SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Consolidated Civil Action Case No. 8:00-CV-212-T-26F THIS MATTER PERTAINS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) In Re: ) No. 03 C 00287 ) MOTOROLA SECURITIES LITIGATION ) Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA IN RE SHUFFLE MASTER, INC. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv KJD-RJJ SECURITIES LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA IN RE SHUFFLE MASTER, INC. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv KJD-RJJ SECURITIES LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA IN RE SHUFFLE MASTER, INC. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00715-KJD-RJJ SECURITIES LITIGATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND HEARING If you

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : : : : : (ECF CASE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : : : : : (ECF CASE) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE CELESTICA INC. SEC. LITIG. : : : : : Civil Action No.: 07-CV-00312-GBD (ECF CASE) Hon. George B. Daniels NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. x In re PALL CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. x In re PALL CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION : : : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re PALL CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION : : : This Document Relates To: : ALL ACTIONS. : : x Master File No. 2:07-cv-03359-JS-GRB CLASS ACTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 8:12-cv CJC(JPRx) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 8:12-cv CJC(JPRx) CLASS ACTION PAWEL I. KMIEC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

More information

Plaintiff, Defendants.

Plaintiff, Defendants. United States District Court For the District Court of Massachusetts WILTOLD TRZECIAKOWSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GSI GROUP INC., SERGIO EDELSTEIN and ROBERT BOWEN,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A SAN JOSE DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A SAN JOSE DIVISION In re McKESSON HBOC, INC. Master File No. -CV-0 RMW (PVT) SECURITIES LITIGATION And Related Cases CLASS ACTION This Document

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION In re VELTI PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Master File No. 3:13-cv-03889-WHO (Consolidated

More information