Cases
Cases 11 - 20 of 27
Smokestack Lightening Ltd,, et al v. New Mexico State Investment Co, et al
as 10-56436
Plaintiff: SONAM BAKSHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BAKERS LOCAL NO. 433 PENSION FUND, MINNESOTA BAKERS UNION PENSION FUND and others
Plaintiff - Appellee: NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, Lead Plaintiff
Objector - Appellant: SMOKESTACK LIGHTENING LTD "MARISCO"
Defendant: HENRY SAMUELI, WILLIAM J. RUEHLE, DAVID A. DULL and others
Defendant - Appellee: BROADCOM CORPORATION
Movant: JUSTIN SHENKAROW, STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO and LECG, LLC
Stmokestack Lightening Ltd, et al v. New Mexico State Investment Co, et al
as 10-56435
Plaintiff: SONAM BAKSHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BAKERS LOCAL NO. 433 PENSION FUND, MINNESOTA BAKERS UNION PENSION FUND and others
Plaintiff - Appellee: NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, Lead Plaintiff
Objector - Appellant: SMOKESTACK LIGHTENING LTD "MARISCO"
Defendant: HENRY SAMUELI, WILLIAM J. RUEHLE, DAVID A. DULL and others
Defendant - Appellee: BROADCOM CORPORATION
Movant: JUSTIN SHENKAROW, STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO and LECG, LLC
L A Murphy, et al v. Henry Samueli, et al
as 10-55055
Plaintiff - Appellee: L A MURPHY, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp, YEN SHEI, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp, GORDON POSTLMAYR and others
Intervenor: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Defendant - Appellant: HENRY SAMUELI
Defendant: BROADCOM CORPORATION, SCOTT A. MCGREGOR, MAUREEN E. GRZELAKOWSKI and others
L A Murphy, et al v. William J. Ruehle, et al
as 10-55034
Plaintiff - Appellee: L A MURPHY, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp, YEN SHEI, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp, GORDON POSTLMAYR and others
Intervenor: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Defendant: HENRY T. NICHOLAS, III, BROADCOM CORPORATION, SCOTT A. MCGREGOR and others
Defendant - Appellant: WILLIAM J. RUEHLE
L A Murphy, et al v. Henry Nicholas, III, et al
as 10-55028
Plaintiff - Appellee: L A MURPHY, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp, YEN SHEI, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp, GORDON POSTLMAYR and others
Intervenor: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Defendant - Appellant: HENRY T. NICHOLAS, III
Defendant: BROADCOM CORPORATION, SCOTT A. MCGREGOR, HENRY SAMUELI and others
Randy Soderstrom v. Henry Nicholas, III, et al
as 09-16463
Plaintiff - Appellant: RANDY LEE SODERSTROM
Defendant - Appellee: HENRY T. NICHOLAS, III, HENRY SAMUELI, WILLIAM J. RUEHLE and others
In Re: Broadcom Corporation Derivative Litigation
as 1:2009mc00526
Defendant: William J. Ruehle
Intervenor: United States Of America and United States Of America
Movant: Teacher Retirement System of Texas and Teacher Retirement System of Texas
Respondent: William J. Ruehle
In Re: Broadcom Corporation Derivative Litigation
as 1:2009cv00526
Defendant: William J. Ruehle
Intervenor: United States Of America and United States Of America
Movant: Teacher Retirement System of Texas and Teacher Retirement System of Texas
Respondent: William J. Ruehle
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash
Type: Other Statutes None
New Mexico State Investment Co, et al v. Ernst & Young LLP, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 09-55632
Plaintiff - Appellant: NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, Lead Plaintiff
Plaintiff: SONAM BAKSHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BAKERS LOCAL NO. 433 PENSION FUND, MINNESOTA BAKERS UNION PENSION FUND and others
Defendant - Appellee: ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Defendant: HENRY SAMUELI, WILLIAM J. RUEHLE, BROADCOM CORPORATION and others
L A Murphy, et al v. Scott McGregor, et al
as 09-55590
Plaintiff: L A MURPHY, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp., YEN SHEI, Derivatively on Behalf of Broadcom Corp., POSTLMAYR and others
Appellant: KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Defendant: SCOTT A. MCGREGOR, HENRY SAMUELI, GEORGE L. FARINSKY and others
Defendant - Appellee: HENRY T. NICHOLAS, III

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.


Why Is My Information Online?