Class Action Lawsuit Clause Samples
A Class Action Lawsuit clause restricts or governs the ability of parties to bring or participate in lawsuits as a group, rather than individually. Typically, this clause either prohibits parties from joining together in a class action or requires that any disputes be resolved on an individual basis, such as through arbitration or individual litigation. By doing so, it prevents the aggregation of claims, thereby limiting the legal exposure and potential liability of one party, often the drafter, and ensuring that disputes are handled on a case-by-case basis.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Class Action Lawsuit. In January 2014, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”), in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain financial statements previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”). To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Court under the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act (“Certification Motion”). The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing the action against the former senior officers and directors and allowing the action to proceed against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatement. The action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve of the Leave Motion. Both the plaintiffs and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed with the Class Action. Concurrently, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the Restatement. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Since December 2018, counsels for the parties have proceeded with the action as follows: (1) two case conferences before the motions judge; (2) production of certain documents by the Company to the plaintiffs; (3) review of those documents by plaintiffs’ counsel from May 2020 to November 2020; and (4) setting down examinations for discovery for February and March 2021. The Company is urging an early trial. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the Class A...
Class Action Lawsuit. On March 22, 1999, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 99-176) against Little Switzerland, Inc. ("Little Switzerland") certain of its former officers and directors, DRHC and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇.▇.
Class Action Lawsuit. In the first quarter of 2012, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Borrower, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ v. Powerwave Technologies. Inc. et. al. asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On July 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint purports to state claims on behalf of all persons who purchased our Common Stock between October 28, 2010 and October 18, 2011 and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning the Borrower’s operations and projected sales revenues and also engaged in improper revenue recognition accounting practices.
Class Action Lawsuit. Scope Of The Privacy Policy
Class Action Lawsuit. On May 24, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) granted the Company leave to appeal the decision made on November 5, 2015 (the “Corporation Appeal”), which granted the plaintiff permission to commence an action claiming damages under the Ontario Securities Act with respect to the Company’s restatement of consolidated financial statements as previously disclosed in the Company’s public filings. The plaintiff is also appealing the portion of the November 5, 2015 Ontario Court decision that dismissed the action against former officers and directors of the Company (the “Individual’s Appeal”). The Individuals’ Appeal and the Corporation Appeal will now be verbally argued together. The appeals are scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in June 2017. The Company disputes and is vigorously defending itself against the plaintiff’s claims through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company and the other defendants for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the appeals or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has judged a provision for this matter at December 31, 2016 is not required.
Class Action Lawsuit. In 2012, a class action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario by Class Counsel (the “Baja Mining Class Action Lawsuit”) on behalf of all persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who acquired securities in Baja Mining Corp. (“Baja”) between November 1, 2010 and April 23, 2012 (“the Class Period”) and who held some or all of those securities as of April 23, 2012 (“Class Members”). The lawsuit alleged that the defendants breached the Ontario Securities Act by making misrepresentations and/or failing to make timely disclosure of significant cost overruns and project delays related to Baja’s Boleo Project located in Baja California Sur, Mexico. It was alleged that the misrepresentations and failure to disclose important information affected the value of the securities to the detriment of Class Members.
Class Action Lawsuit. In addition to the indemnification by ATP and Seller of Buyer set forth in Section 12.2 hereof relating to the Class Action Lawsuit, each of ATP and Seller shall assign all insurance proceeds to Buyer to the extent of Buyer’s damages and costs of defense including the reasonable attorney fees of counsel selected by Buyer. ATP and Seller further agree to pay Buyer’s reasonable attorney fees and costs as incurred in any such matter involving the Class Action Lawsuit.
Class Action Lawsuit. Warrants may only be transferred in compliance with the conditions of the Warrant Agreement on the register to be kept by the Warrant Agent in Vancouver, British Columbia, or such other registrar as the Company, with the approval of the Warrant Agent, may appoint at such other place or places, if any, as may be designated, upon surrender of this Warrant Certificate to the Warrant Agent or other registrar accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form and execution satisfactory to the Warrant Agent or other registrar and upon compliance with the conditions prescribed in the Warrant Agreement and with such reasonable requirements as the Warrant Agent or other registrar may prescribe and upon the transfer being duly noted thereon by the Warrant Agent or other registrar. Time is of the essence hereof.
Class Action Lawsuit. In the event of any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of, related to, or in connection with the Websites, this Privacy Policy, or the Daily Journal User Agreement (a “Claim”), including the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined in Los Angeles, California, before one arbitrator. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS pursuant to JAMS’ Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. Judgment on the Award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. This clause shall not preclude parties from seeking provisional remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The parties shall maintain the confidential nature of the arbitration proceeding and the Award, including the Hearing, except as may be necessary to prepare for or conduct the arbitration hearing on the merits, or except as may be necessary in connection with a court application for a preliminary remedy, a judicial challenge to an Award or its enforcement, or unless otherwise required by law or judicial decision.