Cases 1 - 4 of 4
Automotive Industries Pension v. Textron Inc., et al
as 11-2106
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND AND THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Plaintiff:
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Defendant - Appellee:
TEXTRON INC., LEWIS B. CAMPBELL, TED R. FRENCH and others
Interested Party:
CLEVELAND BAKERS & TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CLEVELAND BAKERS & TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND and others
In Re: Alcon Shareholder Litig
as 10-2872
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Erica P. John Fund, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, City of Monroe Employees' Retirement System, Massachusetts Bricklayers, on Behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and others
Defendant:
Nestle S.A., Werner J. Bauer, Paul Bulcke and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Novartis AG, Daniel Vasella, Cary R. Rayment and others
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Novartis AG et al
as 1:2010cv00210
Plaintiff:
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and others
Defendant:
Novartis AG, Alcon, Inc., Nestle S.A. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
In Re: Alcon Shareholder Litigation
as 1:2010cv00139
Plaintiff:
Erica P. John Fund, Inc., Erica P. John Fund, Inc., Erica P. John Fund, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Novartis AG, Nestle S.A., Daniel Vasella and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Massachusetts Bricklayers, Massachusetts Bricklayers, Massachusetts Bricklayers and others
Consolidated Defendant:
Alcon, Inc., Lodewijk J.R. De Vink and Kevin J. Buehler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
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.
