Cases 1 - 4 of 4
Fredrick Herold, Jr. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc
as 22-2235
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FREDRICK W. HEROLD, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED, BRADFORD E. BUGHER, KRISTINA HEROLD and others
Delila Uwasomba v. Merrill Lynch
as 21-1091
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DELILA UWASOMBA
Defendant:
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Defendant / Appellee:
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED
Aberdeen City Council v. Under Armour, Incorporated
as 19-2032
Defendant / Appellee:
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED, PNC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BYRON K. ADAMS, JR. and others
Defendant:
BRAD DICKERSON and ANTHONY W. DEERING
Plaintiff:
MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, BEN STENGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, BRIAN BREECE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL, as Administrating Authority for the North East Scotland Pension Fund and BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Petitioner:
WILLIAM DENT, BERNARDO MEDELLIN, SACRAMENTO CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM and others
Joseph Shanis v. Putnam Investments Trust
as 09-1792
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSEPH SHANIS and LEAD PLAINTIFF OHIO TUITION TRUST AUTHORITY
Plaintiff:
DIANE SAUNDERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, THOMAS W. FORSTER, THE CITY OF SUNRISE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN and others
Defendant - Appellee:
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS TRUST, PUTNAM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, JAMES PRUSKO and others
Defendant - None:
PUTNAM FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY, PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, LINCOLN FINANCIAL ADVISORS CORPORATION and others
Movant - None:
JILL LYNN BAILIN, PUTNAM FUNDS, JOANNE S. BASEMAN 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.
