NATURE OF THE ACTION Sample Clauses

NATURE OF THE ACTION. In an effort to advance its nationwide consumer credit and banking business, ▇▇▇▇▇ Fargo violated federal law by making unauthorized automated text message and telephone calls (together “robocalls”) to the cellular telephones of individuals throughout the nation.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. In an effort to advance its digital transportation service, Uber violated federal law by sending unauthorized text message calls to the cellphones of individuals throughout the nation.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. As alleged in United States v. Bank Hapoalim B.M. and Hapoalim (Switzerland) Ltd., 20 Cr. ( ) (the “Hapoalim Information”, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein), from at least in or about January 2002 up through and including at least in or about December 2014, Bank Hapoalim B.M. (“BHBM”), an Israeli bank, and Hapoalim (Switzerland) Ltd. (“BHS”), its Swiss subsidiary bank (collectively, “the Bank”), conspired with others known and unknown to defraud the United States of certain taxes due and owing by concealing from the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) undeclared accounts owned by U.S. taxpayers at the Bank. On or about April [x], 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Department of Justice Tax Division (the “Offices”) and BHBM entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (the “BHBM DPA,” attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein). On or about April [x], 2020, the Offices and BHS entered into a plea agreement (the “BHS Plea Agreement,” attached as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein).

NATURE OF THE ACTION. As alleged in United States ▇. ▇▇▇▇+▇▇▇▇▇▇ Co., 21 Cr. (the “R+B Information”), attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein), from at least in or about 2004 up through and including at least in or about 2012, ▇▇▇▇+▇▇▇▇▇▇ Co. (“R+B”), a Swiss bank, conspired with others known and unknown to defraud the United States of certain taxes due and owing by concealing from the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) undeclared accounts owned by U.S. taxpayers at R+B. On or about , the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “Office”), the United States Department of Justice Tax Division, and R+B entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (the “DPA” or the “R+B DPA,” attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein).

NATURE OF THE ACTION. 3. For decades, the Crown has systematically discriminated against First Nations children on the grounds of race and national or ethnic origin. The discrimination has taken two forms. 4. First, the Crown has knowingly underfunded child and family services for First Nations children living on Reserve and in the Yukon. This underfunding has prevented child welfare service agencies from providing adequate Prevention Services to First Nations children. The underfunding persists despite the heightened need for such services on Reserve due to the inter-generational trauma inflicted on First Nations peoples by the legacy of the Residential Schools and the Sixties Scoop, and despite numerous calls to action by several official, independent fact-finders. The Crown has known about the severe inadequacies of its funding formulas, policies, and practices for years, but has not adequately addressed them. 5. At the same time that the Crown has underfunded Prevention Services to First Nations children living on Reserve and in the Yukon, it has fully funded the costs of care for First Nations children who are removed from their homes and placed into out- of-home care. This practice has created an incentive on the part of First Nations child welfare service agencies to remove First Nations children living on Reserve and in the Yukon from their homes and place them in out-of-home care. Because of these funding formulas, policies, and practices, a child on Reserve must often be removed from their home in order to receive public services that are available to children off Reserve. 6. The removal of a child from their home causes severe and, in some cases, permanent trauma. It is therefore only used as a last resort for children who do not live on a Reserve. Because of the underfunding of Prevention Services and the full funding of out-of-home care, however, First Nations children on Reserve and in the Yukon have been removed from their homes as a first resort, and not as a last resort. The funding incentive to remove First Nations children from their homes accounts for the staggering number of First Nations children in state care. There are approximately three times the numbers of First Nations children in state care now than there were in Residential Schools at their apex in the 1940s. 7. The incentivized removal of First Nations children from their homes has caused traumatic and enduring consequences to First Nations children. Many of these children already suffer the effec...

NATURE OF THE ACTION. Plaintiffs ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) independently and in pari materia with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (“MVSFA”) due to BANA’s alleged failure to comply with the MVSFA’s minimum notice period requirements relating to its Notices of Repossession. ▇▇▇▇ disputes and denies all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendants’ manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, distribution, and sale of Wahlburgers pickles (“Products” or “Pickles”)1 that are sold in grocery stores nationwide and marketed as, among other things, “fresh,” 1 The Products refer to the following Wahlburgers Pickles varieties: Fresh ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇; Fresh ▇▇▇▇ Chips; Fresh ▇▇▇▇ Chips Hot. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complete list of Pickles subject to this lawsuit based on facts obtained in discovery. 33420572.1 “all natural,” and containing “no preservatives” (“Representations”). Unfortunately for all reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, these claims are false and misleading.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. 1. This is a civil penalty proceeding pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 136l(a) (FIFRA), and pursuant to the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), 40 C.F.R. Part 22. Complainant is the Director of the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Respondent is Zep Inc. 2. The authority to take action under Section 14(a) of FIFRA is vested in the Administrator of the EPA. The Administrator of the EPA delegated this authority to the Regional Administrators, including the Regional Administrator of Region 4 by EPA Delegation 5-14, dated May 11, 1994. The Region 4 Regional Administrator has redelegated this authority to the Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division by EPA Region 4 Delegation 5-14, dated September 7, 2005. Pursuant to these Delegations, the Director of the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division has the authority to commence an enforcement action as the Complainant in this matter, and has the authority to sign Consent Agreements memorializing settlements between the EPA and Respondent. 3. Complainant and Respondent have conferred for the purpose of settlement pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.18 and desire to resolve this matter and settle the allegations described herein without a formal hearing. Therefore, without the taking of any evidence or testimony, the making of any argument, or the adjudication of any issue in this matter, and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), this Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) will conclude this matter.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This Action was filed by Named Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (“Named Plaintiff”) in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Ventura, on September 25, 2018, against Defendants ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Retail, Inc. and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Corporation (“Defendants”). Named Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs are represented by the Mara Law Firm, PC (“Class Counsel”). Named Plaintiff’s Operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay all straight time wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (6) failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination of employment; (7) violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”); and (8) violation of unfair competition law. For these allegedly improper actions, Named Plaintiff is demanding various amounts for wages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and other damages (collectively, the “Claims”). ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Retail, Inc. strongly denies liability for all of Named Plaintiff’s claims, and contends that it fully complied with California law during the Class Period. The Court has not decided whether Named Plaintiff or Defendants are correct. Named Plaintiff would still have had to successfully certify the class and prove her claims at trial on a classwide basis. However, the Parties have concluded that it is in their respective best interests and the interests of the Plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit on the terms summarized in this Notice.