IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA
|
|
- Barnard Terry
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 v. ) ) KEITH E. BAILEY, et al. ) ) PHILIP HUMMEL and DOUGLAS MILLER, ) Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant ) THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., ) ) Case No. CJ v. ) ) STEVEN J. MALCOLM, et al. ) ) NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION TO: ALL SHAREHOLDERS OF THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. AS OF AUGUST 16, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A CURRENT SHAREHOLDER OF THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN COULD AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. THIS SETTLEMENT IS INTENDED TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. THIS IS NOT A SECURITIES CLASS ACTION AND THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT FUND ON WHICH TO MAKE A CLAIM. THIS NOTICE IS GIVEN pursuant to an Order of the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma (the Court ) in the above-captioned putative derivative actions (the Actions ). Plaintiffs brought claims in the Actions and sought to pursue them derivatively on behalf of The Williams Companies, Inc. ( Williams or the Company ). This Notice is given to advise you that a hearing (the Settlement Hearing ) will be held for the Actions on October 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Rebecca Nightingale at the District Court of Tulsa County, Tulsa County Courthouse, 500 S. Denver, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, to: (a) determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the terms and conditions of a proposed stipulated settlement between the parties to the Actions (the Settlement ) and whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter a Judgment thereon; and (b) rule upon the agreed-to fee award for Plaintiffs Counsel. No individual shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as a result of the settlement of this action. THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES OR THE FAIRNESS OR ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. I. BACKGROUND On or about February 27, 2002, plaintiff J. Wright Williamson commenced the action captioned Williamson v. Bailey, et al., Case No. CJ (the Williamson Action ). In his Petition, Williamson, derivatively on behalf of Williams, asserted claims against certain of the Defendants, all of whom were directors and/or officers of Williams, for, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with certain transactions involving Williams former subsidiary Williams Communications Group, Inc. ( WCG ). The Individual Defendants were Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green, W. R. Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis, Peter C. Meinig, Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams, present or former directors of Williams; Williams was listed as a nominal defendant. The Williamson Action was based on facts and circumstances related to those alleged in Cali v. The Williams Companies, Inc., Case No. 02-cv-72 (N.D. Okla.) (the Federal Class Action ), a securities fraud class action then-pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
2 On or about May 3, 2002, plaintiff Theophilus Herbst, Jr. commenced the action captioned Herbst v. Bailey, et al., Case No. CJ (the Herbst Action ). The Herbst Action was substantially similar to the Williamson Action. The Individual Defendants were Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green, W. R. Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis, Peter C. Meinig, Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams, present or former directors of Williams; Williams was listed as a nominal defendant. Accordingly, by an Order dated August 1, 2002, the Court consolidated the Williamson and Herbst Actions and stayed the consolidated action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Federal Class Action. On or about December 26, 2002, plaintiff Philip Hummel commenced the action captioned Hummel v. Malcolm, et al., Case No. CJ (the Hummel Action ). The Individual Defendants were Steven J. Malcolm, Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green, Ira D. Hall, William R. Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis, Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams, present or former directors of Williams; Williams was listed as a nominal defendant. In his Petition, Hummel, derivatively on behalf of Williams, asserted claims against certain of the Defendants, all of whom were directors and/or officers of Williams, for, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with certain energy trading transactions. The Hummel Action was based on facts and circumstances related to those alleged in the Federal Class Action. On or about December 26, 2002, plaintiff Douglas Miller commenced the action captioned Miller v. Malcolm, et al., Case No. CJ (the Miller Action ). The Individual Defendants were Steven J. Malcolm, Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green, Ira D. Hall, William R. Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis, Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams, present or former directors of Williams; Williams was listed as a nominal defendant. The Miller Action was substantially similar to the Hummel Action. Accordingly, by an Order dated July 29, 2003, the Court consolidated the Hummel and Miller Actions and stayed the consolidated action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Federal Class Action. The parties remained in contact during the duration of the stays of the Actions. Following arms-length negotiations, the parties came to an agreement to settle the Actions as set forth herein, as reflected in the Stipulation of Settlement between the parties filed in these Actions on August 16, 2006 (the Stipulation ). II. THE PARTIES POSITIONS REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiffs in the Actions. Defendants expressly have denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Actions. Defendants also have denied and continue to deny, inter alia, the allegation that Plaintiffs or Williams have suffered damages, that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or that Plaintiffs or Williams were harmed by the conduct alleged in the Actions. Defendants also state they acted in good faith and in a manner to be in the best interests of Williams and its stockholders at all times relevant hereto. Defendants also believe that the Actions lack merit. Defendants are entering into the Settlement solely in order to avoid further expense, inconvenience, risk and delay and to permit the continued operation of their affairs unhindered by expensive litigation and by distraction and diversion of Williams executive personnel, and thereby to put to rest all controversy with respect to the Released Claims (as defined herein). Based on Plaintiffs counsel s investigation of the facts and their legal analysis, Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the Actions have merit. However, Plaintiffs recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Actions against the Individual Defendants through trial and inevitable appeals. Plaintiffs also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex derivative litigation such as the Actions, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiffs are also mindful of the inherent problems of proof concerning, and the possible defenses to, the alleged violations asserted in the Actions. Plaintiffs believe that the Settlement confers substantial benefits upon Williams and Williams stockholders. III. THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT A. Definitions The following terms have the meanings specified below: 1. Current Williams Shareholder means any person who owned Williams common stock as of August 16, 2006 and who continues to hold Williams common stock as of the date of the Settlement Hearing (as defined herein). 2
3 2. Defendants means Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green, Ira D. Hall, William R. Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Steven J. Malcolm, Frank T. MacInnis, Peter C. Meinig, Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams. 3. Effective Date means the first date by which all of the events and conditions specified in Section VIII of the Stipulation have been met and have occurred. 4. Final means: (a) the date of final affirmance on an appeal of the Judgment, the expiration of the time for a petition for or a denial of a petition for review of the Judgment and, if review is granted, the date of final affirmance of the Judgment following review pursuant to that grant; or (b) the date of final dismissal of any appeal from the Judgment or the final dismissal of any proceeding on petition to review the Judgment; or (c) if no appeal is filed, the expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from the Court s Judgment approving the Order substantially in the form attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit C. Any proceeding or order, or any appeal or petition for review pertaining solely to any application for attorneys fees or expenses, shall not in any way delay or preclude the Judgment from becoming final. 5. Judgment means the judgment to be rendered by the Court, substantially in the form attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit C. 6. Person means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, professional corporation, limited liability partnership, partnership, limited partnership, association, joint stock company, estate, legal representative, trust, unincorporated association, government or any political subdivision or agency thereof, and any business or legal entity and their spouses, heirs, predecessors, successors, representatives and/or assignees. 7. Plaintiffs Counsel means Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, and Eric L. Zagar, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, Pennsylvania Related Persons means each of a Defendant s or Williams past or present directors, officers, executive officers, managers, employees, partners, members, principals, agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, reinsurers, excess insurers, advisors, investment advisors, auditors, accountants, predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, joint ventures, joint venturers, present or former spouses, immediate family members, heirs, executors, estates, related or affiliated entities, any person or entity in which any Defendant or Williams has or had a majority interest, or which is or was related to or affiliated with any Related Person, or any trust of which any Defendant or Williams is the settler or which is for the benefit of Williams or any Defendant and/or member(s) of their family. 9. Released Claims means and includes any and all claims (including Unknown Claims, as defined below), actions, causes of action, allegations, demands, rights, and liabilities of every nature and description whatsoever, known or unknown, whether or not concealed or hidden, at law or in equity (including but not limited to, any claims for damages, interest, attorneys fees, expert or consulting fees, and any other costs, expenses or liability whatsoever), fixed or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, matured or unmatured, including but not limited to claims for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, breach of duty of care and breach of duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, mismanagement, breach of contract, violations of any state or federal statutes, rules or regulations, that have been or could have been asserted directly or indirectly, against the Defendants or any of their Related Persons in the Actions or in any other forum or proceeding by Williams or one or more Williams stockholders (including all record and beneficial owners) derivatively on behalf of Williams, in any way relating to or arising out of or in connection with any of the claims, facts, allegations, transactions, events, occurrences, acts, disclosures, statements, omissions or failures to act which were or could have been alleged or asserted in the Actions. 10. Released Persons means each and all of the Defendants and the Related Persons. 11. Settling Parties means, collectively, each of the Defendants and Plaintiffs on their own behalf, and/or derivatively on behalf of Williams. 12. Unknown Claims means any claims or causes of action which any Settling Party does not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the time of the release of the other Settling Parties which, if known by him, her, or it might have affected his, her, or its settlement with and release of the other Settling Parties. With respect to any and all Released Claims, the Settling Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, the Settling Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived, the provisions, rights and benefits of California Civil Code The Settling Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly 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, that is similar, comparable or equivalent to California Civil Code 1542, which provides: 3
4 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. B. Corporate Governance Enhancement. Plaintiffs contend, and the Defendants do not contest, that due in part to the filing of the Actions, Williams has implemented and/or agreed to implement the following corporate governance and internal control enhancements: a. All committees of Williams Board of Directors ( Board ) are now comprised of non-management, independent directors; b. Williams has adopted a set of Corporate Governance Guidelines; c. Williams has adopted a Code of Ethics for senior officers; d. Williams has revised its all-employee Code of Business Conduct; e. All Board committee charters have been revised to ensure they are compliant with Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) and New York Stock Exchange requirements; f. The Board has implemented a formal evaluation process; g. Williams has implemented a formal CEO evaluation process; h. Williams has established a program for new director orientation, which includes private meetings with senior management for each business segment; i. Williams has formalized and documented its disclosure controls and procedures; j. The Board has appointed a Lead Director who is independent of management; k. Williams non-management directors meet regularly without the CEO present; l. The Board meets privately with the CEO at least six times per year; m. The Board has established procedures for communications to non-management directors and the Lead Director; n. The Lead Director works with the CEO and Corporate Secretary to establish the agendas for regular Board meetings; o. Williams has adopted rules of conduct for both in-house and outside counsel who practice before the SEC; p. Williams has established a disclosure committee to ensure full and timely disclosure of information in all public filings; q. Williams has established a policy that all directors attend its annual meeting of shareholders; r. Williams has established procedures for shareholder nomination of directors; s. Williams has adopted a mandatory retirement age for directors; t. Williams has implemented a process for reviewing corporate strategy; u. Williams has adopted a requirement for annual individual director evaluations; v. Williams has adopted a director resignation policy; w. Williams has adopted a policy limiting directors to service on five public boards, including Williams Board; 4
5 x. Williams seeks annual shareholder ratification for the appointment of its independent auditors; y. Williams has adopted stock ownership guidelines for directors and executive officers; z. Williams directors participate in initial orientation upon election to the Board and in periodic continuing education thereafter; aa. bb. cc. dd. ee. ff. Williams Director of Internal Audit serves as the Company s Chief Compliance Officer and is responsible for overseeing the Company s compliance programs; Williams has implemented and documented policies and procedures for compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) rules and regulations, including the appointment of a FERC Compliance Officer for energy trading, who reports to the FERC Compliance Officer for the Company, who in turn reports to the Chief Compliance Officer; Williams Audit Committee meets regularly with the Director of Internal Audit outside the presence of the CEO; The Audit Committee meets as needed with the Company s outside auditors and the Company s General Counsel outside the presence of management; The Audit Committee reviews all earnings releases, Form 10-Q s and Form 10-K s prior to release; The Chairman of Williams Compensation Committee meets with the CEO annually to provide an evaluation. C. Dismissal with Prejudice and Releases On October 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at the District Court of Tulsa County, Tulsa County Courthouse, 500 S. Denver, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, before the Honorable Rebecca Nightingale, the Court will hold a Settlement Hearing to consider the approval of the Settlement on the terms set forth above and in the Stipulation. If the Court approves the Settlement and enters the Judgment (substantially in the form attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit C), all Released Claims relating to Defendants and Related Persons will be compromised, settled, released, discharged and dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, at the Settlement Hearing, Plaintiffs Counsel will request that the Court approve their proposed Fees and Expenses (as defined below). IV. PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES Plaintiffs Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses not to exceed in the aggregate one million two hundred thousand dollars (the Fees and Expenses ). Any such Fees and Expenses as are awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs Counsel shall be paid by Defendants insurer. The Fees and Expenses include fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs Counsel in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Actions. V. YOUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING If you are a Current Williams Shareholder, your rights may be affected by the Settlement. Any Current Williams Shareholder who objects to: (a) the Settlement or any of its terms, (b) the dismissal of the Actions, (c) the Judgment to be entered approving the Settlement, or (d) the application by Plaintiffs Counsel for Fees and Expenses, or who otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in person or through counsel at the Settlement Hearing and present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant; provided, however, that no person other than counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants shall be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings or other documents submitted by any such person shall be received and considered by the Court (unless the Court in its discretion shall thereafter otherwise direct, upon application of such person and for good cause shown), unless not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing such person: (i) files with the Tulsa County Court Clerk, Tulsa County Courthouse, Second Floor, 500 S. Denver, Tulsa, OK , a written objection containing (1) the name of the case and case number; (2) the Person s name, address and telephone number; (3) the number of shares of Williams common stock the Person owns; (4) the date(s) of purchase of such shares, and a statement as to whether the Person will own such shares as of the date of the Settlement Hearing; (5) a detailed statement of the basis for the Person s objections to or comments upon the Settlement, Plaintiffs Counsel s request for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses, or any other matter before the Court; (6) any supporting papers, including all documents and writings that the 5
6 person desires the Court to consider; (7) a representation as to whether the Person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (8) a representation as to whether the Person plans on calling any witness(es) at the Settlement Hearing; and (9) the identities of any witness(es) the Person plans to call at the Settlement Hearing; and (ii) on or before the date of such filing, serves the same documents by first-class mail upon the following counsel of record: Eric L. Zagar, Esquire Graydon Dean Luthey, Jr., Esquire Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, 280 King of Prussia Road Golden & Nelson, P.C. Radnor, PA S. Boston Avenue, Suite 400 Tulsa, OK Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendants Unless the Court otherwise directs, no person shall be entitled to object to the approval of the Settlement, to any Judgment entered thereon, to any award of Fees and Expenses, or to otherwise to be heard, except by serving and filing a written objection and supporting papers and documents as prescribed above. Any person who fails to object in the manner and within the time prescribed above shall be deemed to have waived the right to object (including the right to appeal) and forever shall be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection and will be barred for all time by the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal of the Court from ever asserting any of the Released Claims in any manner. VI. SCOPE OF THIS NOTICE The foregoing descriptions of the Actions, the Settlement Hearing, the proceedings to be held, the activities leading to the Settlement, the terms of the Settlement, the conditions of Settlement, and other matters described herein do not purport to be all inclusive. Accordingly, you are referred to the Complaints and the Stipulation, filed with the Court Clerk, which may be examined during regular business hours at the offices of the Tulsa County Court Clerk, Tulsa County Courthouse, Second Floor, 500 S. Denver, Tulsa, OK VII. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT If you have questions regarding the proposed Settlement, please do not call or write the Court. Questions may be directed to: Eric L. Zagar, Esquire Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA (610) Counsel for Plaintiffs VIII. NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS & OTHER NOMINEES Brokerage firms and other nominees for beneficial owners of Company common stock are requested to forward all such persons a copy of this Notice within seven (7) days after receiving this Notice. On request by any such brokerage firm or other nominee, additional copies of this Notice may be obtained without charge by sending a written request to The Williams Companies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6464, Merrick, NY Brokerage firms and other nominees will be reimbursed for documented reasonable and actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing copies of this Notice to beneficial owners or providing a list of the names and addresses of beneficial owners to the above address. 6
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 informationNOTICE 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 informationUNITED 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 informationIn The Circuit Court of The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, In and For Hillsborough County, Florida X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X
In The Circuit Court of The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, In and For Hillsborough County, Florida MATILDA FRANZITTA, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant AEROSONIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff vs. DAVID
More informationUNITED 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 informationNOTICE 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 informationCase 4:02-cv SPF-FHM Document 1550 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 12
Case 4:02-cv-00072-SPF-FHM Document 1550 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA IN RE WILLIAMS SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document
More informationUNITED 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 informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE CABLEVISION/RAINBOW MEDIA TRACKING STOCK LITIGATION Cons. C.A. No. 19819-VCN NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
More informationUNITED 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 informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
GORDON D. LOBINS, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST, v. Plaintiff, EDWARD S. BROWN, BETSY Z. COHEN, DANIEL G. COHEN, SCOTT L.N. DAVIDSON, FRANK A. FARNESI, KENNETH R. FRAPPIER,
More informationPolycom, Inc. Settlement c/o Garden City Group, LLC PO Box 10281
Must be Postmarked No Later Than August 23, 2016 PLC Polycom, Inc Settlement c/o Garden City Group, LLC PO Box 10281 *P-PLC-POC/1* Dublin, OH 43017-5781 1-855-907-3170 wwwgardencitygroupcom/cases-info/polycomsettlement
More informationIN 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 informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION ESSEX COUNTY. Docket No. ESX-L
In re Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION ESSEX COUNTY Docket No. ESX-L-4370-07 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION OFFICIAL
More informationUNITED 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 informationGLS Dublin OH *P-GLS$F-POC/1*
Must be Postmarked No Later Than March 26, 2010 Ladmen Partners v Globalstar Settlement c/o The Garden City Group, Inc PO Box 9349 GLS Dublin OH 43017-4249 1-866-396-5584 *P-GLSF-POC/1* Claim Number: Control
More informationNOTICE 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS. Plaintiff, Index No.: /2006 Justice Carolyn E. Demarest
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ADELE BRODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, Index No.: 008835/2006 Justice Carolyn E. Demarest ROBERT
More informationUNITED 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 informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND OF SETTLEMENT HEARING TO ALL HOLDERS OF BARNES & NOBLE, INC. STOCK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND OF SETTLEMENT HEARING TO ALL HOLDERS OF BARNES & NOBLE, INC. STOCK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 This Notice is being sent to let you know of the proposed
More informationIN 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 informationUNITED 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 informationIN 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 informationNOTICE 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 informationUNITED 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 informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MARY JO SMITH, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No. 07CC01359 Netlist, Inc., V. Plaintiff, CHUNG K. HONG, CHRISTOPHER LOPES,
More informationUNITED 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 informationNOTICE 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 informationCase5:09-cv JW Document146-3 Filed08/25/11 Page1 of 13. Exhibit A-2
Case5:09-cv-02147-JW Document146-3 Filed08/25/11 Page1 of 13 Exhibit A-2 Case5:09-cv-02147-JW Document146-3 Filed08/25/11 Page2 of 13 1 SCOTT+SCOTT LLP MARY K. BLASY (211262) 2 WALTER W. NOSS (pro hac
More informationUNITED 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 informationIn 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 informationNOTICE 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 informationUNITED 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 informationA 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 informationNOTICE 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 informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE THOMAS D. KEELEY and LINDA TALLEY HEWITT, On ) Master Case File No. 737787 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) (Consolidated
More informationCAUSE 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 informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Derivatively on Behalf of THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., v. Plaintiff, JOSE B. ALVAREZ, ALAN M. BENNETT,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA SAMCO PARTNERS, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, JOSEPH M. O DONNELL, EDWARD
More informationCase3:11-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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM AND SUBSTITUTE FORM W-9
In re American Business Financial Services Inc. Noteholders Litigation I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA X X Master File No. 05-232 PROOF OF
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION
In re ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE Case No. 30-2009-00236910 CLASS ACTION Assigned
More informationPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM
Enzymotec Securities Litigation Toll-Free Number: 844-418-6627 Claims Administrator Website: www.enzymotecsecuritieslitigation.com PO Box 4079 Email: info@enzymotecsecuritieslitigation.com Portland OR
More informationUNITED 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 informationProof of Claim and Release Form DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: AUGUST 4, 2017
Must be Postmarked No Later Than August 4, 2017 In re Energy Recovery, Inc Securities Litigation c/o GCG PO Box 10358 Dublin, OH 43017-0358 (844) 634-8908 Fax: (855) 409-7129 Questions@EnergyRecoverySecuritiesLitigationcom
More informationP.O. Box Dublin, OH Toll-Free: (877) Settlement Website:
SAP Must be Postmarked No Later Than Arena Securities Litigation April 13, 2018 c/o GCG *P-SAP-POC/1* PO Box 10526 Dublin, OH 43017-0526 Toll-Free: (877) 981-9683 Settlement Website: wwwarenapharmaceuticalsclassactionsettlementcom
More informationEXHIBITB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
Case 1:17-cv-00869-RDM Document 33 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 765 Case 1:17-cv-00869-RDM Document 31-2 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1of20 PagelD #: 731 EXHIBITB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
More informationCase 2:16-cv ADS-AKT Document 24 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 161
Case 2:16-cv-05218-ADS-AKT Document 24 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICHARD SCALFANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
More informationPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION IN RE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION MDL DOCKET NO. 1506 (CAS) ALL CASES STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC,
More information: : 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 informationUNITED 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 informationPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE
Autoliv Securities Litigation Website: www.autolivsecuritieslitigation.com Claims Administrator Email: info@autolivsecuritieslitigation.com P.O. Box 4259 Toll Free: 1-877-880-0181 Portland, OR 97208-4259
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION MDL DOCKET NO: 3:12-MD-2384-GCM ALL MEMBER CASES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE SWISHER HYGIENE, INC. SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION X X MDL DOCKET NO: 3:12-MD-2384-GCM ALL MEMBER
More informationDistrict 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 informationCase 2:14-cv JAK-SS Document 86 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 56 Page ID #:1281
Case :-cv-00-jak-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: Case :-cv-00-jak-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: Case :-cv-00-jak-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: Case :-cv-00-jak-ss Document
More informationUNITED 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 informationNOTICE 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 informationUNITED 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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) CONSOLIDATED C.A. No VCG
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE BOISE INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION ) ) CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 8933-VCG NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 1:11-CV JGK PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM
OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, - against - U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (as Trustee Under Various Pooling and Servicing Agreements), Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationUNITED 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 informationPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM
In the United States District Court For the Western District of Oklahoma NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
More informationPROOF OF CLAIM FORM AND RELEASE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM
MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 14, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS VACATION FUND, et al., v. THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP, PLC, et al.
More informationPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE. Gentiva Securities Litigation PO Box 3058 Portland, OR
Gentiva Securities Litigation Website: www.gentivasecuritieslitigation.com Claims Administrator Email: info@gentivasecuritieslitigation.com P.O. Box 3058 Toll Free: 888-593-7570 Portland, OR 97208-3058
More informationPlaintiffs, NOTICE TO CURRENT ARCA STOCKHOLDERS
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Other Civil DAVID GRAY and MICHAEL BOLLER, Derivatively and on Behalf of APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:17-cv-00869-RDM Document 31 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 701 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NICHOLAS W. FULTON, derivatively on behalf of OVASCIENCE, INC., vs. Plaintiff,
More informationPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM
Must be Postmarked (if Mailed) or Received (if Submitted Online) No Later Than June 29, 2018 PO Box 10552 1-866-281-1098 info@plygemsecuritiessettlementcom wwwplygemsecuritiessettlementcom PGH *P-PGH-POC/1*
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE X THE EDITH ZIMMERMAN ESTATE, By And : Through STANLEY E. ZIMMERMAN, JR., : A Personal Representative Of The Estate; : THE ESTATE OF GEORGE E. BATCHELOR,
More informationBERGEN COUNTY. Docket No. BER-L EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NOTICE
In Re: Pascack Bancorp Shareholder Litigation SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION BERGEN COUNTY Docket No. BER-L-7277-15 EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NOTICE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO IN RE CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lead Case No. CV-14-827803 (Consolidated with Case No. CV-14-829259
More informationIN 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation Case No.
MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation Case No.: 1:07-cv-1757-RC For Official
More informationUNITED 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 informationYOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear If You Were a Stockholder of Windstream Holdings, Inc. to whom its April 26, 2015 One-for-Six Reverse Stock Split Shares
More informationCase 2:11-cv CMR Document 25-6 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 13 EXHIBIT D
Case 211-cv-03535-CMR Document 25-6 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 13 EXHIBIT D Case 211-cv-03535-CMR Document 25-6 Filed 02/06/12 Page 2 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
More informationIN 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 informationUNITED 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 informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
JAMES SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION v. Plaintiff, TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
More informationUNITED 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 informationIN 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 informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS W. BROYLES, MARVIN D. BURKETT, STEPHEN L. DOMENIK, DR. NORMAN GODINHO, RONALD
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JOSEPH BULWA, MICHAEL MOHAMADIFAR, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiffs, PARADIGM TECHNOLOGY, INC., ROBERT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS, On Behalf of Itself and Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, CFC INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANNMARIE MALLOZZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, CASE No.: 07-CV-10321 (GBD) INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO DIVISION BRAD MAUSS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, NUVASIVE, INC., ALEXIS V. LUKIANOV,
More informationCase l:14"cv~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 informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLfEAS p H. D H lit ui Item 4u.i CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
]' STUART ROSENBERG Plaintiff 93723077 93723077 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLfEAS p H D H lit ui Item 4u.i CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Case No: CV-l$fetffift) I U P 2: 0 I lllll it CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC ET
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION X MICHAEL BAILEY, Derivatively on Behalf of HOUSEHOLD Case No. 02 CH 16476 INTERNATIONAL, INC., NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT Plaintiff,
More information[~DJ FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Case 1:11-cv-08066-JGK Document 130 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:11-cv-08066-JGK Document 108-6 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OKLAHOMA POLICE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 01-cv-1451-REB-CBS (Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 01-cv-1472-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1527-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1616-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
More informationTHE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) Consolidated C.A. No VCL
THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE REHABCARE GROUP, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION Consolidated C.A. No. 6197 - VCL NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
More informationUNITED 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION MARSHA BRODERICK, et al., On Behalf of ) No. 98-1658-MRP(AJWx) Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) CLASS ACTION
More informationCase 1:12-cv VEC Document Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT A-3
Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 177-3 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT A-3 Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 177-3 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit A-3 Must Be Postmarked No Later Than, 2015 City of
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CAMDEN COUNTY Docket No. L IN RE METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
IN RE METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CAMDEN COUNTY Docket No. L-6430-06 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND CLASS CERTIFICATION, PROPOSED
More informationUniroyal Technology Corporation Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator PO Box 9000 #6388 Merrick, NY
Must be Postmarked No Later Than June 28, 2006 UNR Uniroyal Technology Corporation Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator *P-UNRF-APOC/1* PO Box 9000 #6388 Merrick,
More informationDISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 MUCKLEROY JOHNSON MARTIN A. MUCKLEROY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 00 DUSTIN A. JOHNSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 000 W. Tropicana Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, NV 0 Telephone: (0-0 martin@muckleroyjohonson.com dustin@muckleroyjohnson.com
More informationRepresentative or Custodian Name (if different from Beneficial Owner(s) listed above) City State ZIP Code
Rentrak Corporation Shareholders Litigation Website: www.rentrakcorporationshareholderslitigation.com Claims Administrator Email: info@rentrakcorporationshareholderslitigation.com PO Box 4234 Phone: (888)
More informationCase 2:13-cv RSM Document 90-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cv-0-rsm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation Civil Action No. -cv-0-rsm 0 STIPULATION AND
More information