Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Radcliffe v. Aetna, Inc.
as 22-2757
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Raymond Radcliffe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and Carol Flaim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Defendant / Appellee:
Aetna, Inc., CVS Health Corporation, Aetna Benefits Finance Committee and others
Defendant:
Frank M. Clark, Betty Z. Cohen, Jeffrey Garten and others
Falberg v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
as 22-2689
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Leonid Falberg, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan
Defendant / Appellee:
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan Retirement Committee
Defendant:
John Does 1-20
Giantonio v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
as 18-2034
Plaintiff:
John J. Giantonio, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Ramesh C. Kinra
Defendant:
John Does 1-20 and Richard Roes, 1-20
Defendant - Appellant:
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Investment Committee, Plan Administrator and others
Giantonio v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
as 18-1886
Plaintiff:
John J. Giantonio, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee:
Ramesh C. Kinra
Defendant - Appellee:
Travis Stricker
Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant:
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Investment Committee, Plan Administrator and others
Defendant:
John Does 1-20 and Richard Roes, 1-20
Cooper v. DST Systems, Inc.
as 17-2805
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Clive V. Cooper, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated plan participants, on behalf of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan
Defendant - Appellee:
Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc.
Defendant:
DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc. and others
In Re: Bank of New York Mellon
as 13-3064
Plaintiff:
State of Oregon By and Through the Oregon State Treasurer on Behalf of the Common School Fund and, Together with the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board, on Behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Re, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Isabel F. Sansano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Marilyn Clark, Derivatively on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Iron Workets Mid-South Pension Fund, Derivatively on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Defendant - Appellee:
Gerald L. Hassell, Arthur Certosimo, James P. Palermo and others
In Re UBS Erisa Litigation
as 12-1662
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Debra Taveras, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Mary McKevitt, Brian Ludlum and others
Defendant - Appellee:
UBS AG, Peter Kurer, Stephan Haeringer and others
In re: American Express Co
as 10-4915
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Renee Obester, Kam K. Tang, Individually amf on Behalf of all others similarly situated, Ida DiLorenzo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and others
Defendant - Appellee:
American Express Company, American Express Company Compensation and Benefits Committee, Employee Benefits Administration Committee of the Company and others
Gearren v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc
as 10-792
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Patrick L. Gearren, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated and Jan Deperry, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated, The Pension Investment Committee of McGraw-Hill, Marty Martin and others
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
