DOCSLIB.ORG

Anderson V. Intel Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-Cv-04618-LHK 1 Case 5:19-Cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 136

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anderson V. Intel Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-Cv-04618-LHK 1 Case 5:19-Cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 136 Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 136 1 Joseph Creitz (Cal. Bar No. 169552) CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP 2 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 3 [email protected] Telephone: (415) 466-3090 4 Facsimile: (415) 513-4475 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 10 WINSTON R. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER M. Case No: 5:19-cv-04618-LHK SULYMA, and all others similarly situated, 11 (Consolidated with Plaintiffs, Case No. 16-cv-04977-NC, and 12 Case No. 16-cv-00522) v. 13 INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT POLICY COMMITTEE, INTEL RETIREMENT 14 PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, CLASS ACTION FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL 15 CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 16 CHRISTOPHER C. GECZY, RAVI JACOB, DAVID S. POTTRUCK, ARVIND SODHANI, 17 RICHARD TAYLOR, TERRA CASTALDI, RONALD D. DICKEL, TIFFANY DOON 18 SILVA, TAMI GRAHAM, CARY KLAFTER, STUART ODELL, CHARLENE 19 BARSHEFSKY, SUSAN L. DECKER, JOHN J. 20 DONAHOE, REED E. HUNDT, JAMES D. PLUMMER, FRANK D. YEARY, STACY 21 SMITH, ROBERT H. SWAN, TODD UNDERWOOD, AND GEORGE S. DAVIS 22 Defendants, 23 and 24 INTEL 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and INTEL RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN, 25 Nominal Defendants. 26 27 28 Anderson v. Intel Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-cv-04618-LHK 1 Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 136 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION ......................................................................................................... 1 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................... 6 4 III. PARTIES ...................................................................................................................................... 7 5 A. PLAINTIFFS ................................................................................................................... 7 6 7 B. DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................................ 7 8 IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................... 17 9 A. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder .............................................................. 17 10 B. Commonality .................................................................................................................. 18 11 C. Typicality ....................................................................................................................... 19 12 D. Adequacy ........................................................................................................................ 20 13 14 E. Rule 23(b)(1) .................................................................................................................. 20 15 F. Rule 23(b)(2) ................................................................................................................... 21 16 G. Rule 23(b)(3) .................................................................................................................. 21 17 V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 22 18 A. Overview of the Plans and the Intel Investment Options .......................................... 22 19 1. The 401(k) Savings Plan .................................................................................... 22 20 2. The Retirement Contribution Plans ................................................................. 25 21 22 3. The Target Date Funds and the Global Diversified Funds ............................ 28 23 4. Fiduciary Responsibilities of the Investment Committee Defendants .......... 37 24 B. The Investment Committee Defendants Subjected the Plans and 25 Participants to Unnecessary and Imprudent Expenses ......................................... 38 26 C. The Investment Committee Defendants Failed to Monitor and Replace the 27 Asset Allocation Models and Allocation Percentages for the Intel Funds ........... 56 28 Anderson v. Intel Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-cv-04618-LHK i Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 136 1 1. Excessive Allocations to the Non-Traditional Investment Accounts ............. 56 2 2. Deviation from Professional Standards for Target Date Funds and 3 Balanced Funds ............................................................................................. 61 4 3. The Intel Funds Imprudently Invested in Hedge Funds ................................ 66 5 4. Significant Investment in Hedge Funds and Private Equity Are 6 7 Generally Not Suitable For Balanced Funds .............................................. 71 8 5. Risks and Costs of Hedge Funds and Private Equity ..................................... 72 9 6. Opaque Disclosures ............................................................................................ 81 10 7. Self-Interest of the Investment Committee Defendants ................................. 83 11 8. Underperformance of the Non-Traditional Investments Accounts ............... 87 12 9. The Ongoing Failure of Fiduciaries of the Plans to Conduct an 13 14 Appropriate Investigation ............................................................................ 89 15 D. The Administrative Committee Defendants Made Inadequate Disclosures 16 About the Intel Funds and Provided Misinformation About Participants’ 17 Accounts and the Intel Funds ................................................................................ 100 18 VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................... 109 19 COUNT I (VIOLATIONS OF ERISA § 404(A) BY THE INVESTMENT 20 COMMITTEE IN SELECTING AND MONITORING THE INVESTMENT 21 22 OPTIONS FOR THE PLANS) .......................................................................................... 108 23 COUNT II (VIOLATIONS OF ERISA § 404(A) BY THE INVESTMENT 24 COMMITTEE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS IN 25 ALLOCATING THE INTEL FUNDS’ ASSETS) ........................................................... 111 26 COUNT III (VIOLATIONS OF ERISA §§ 404(A)(1)(A) AND 404(A)(1)(B) BY THE 27 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO 28 Anderson v. Intel Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-cv-04618-LHK ii Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 136 1 MAKE ADEQUATE AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURES) .......................................... 114 2 COUNT IV (VIOLATIONS OF ERISA § 404(A) BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 3 AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO 4 MONITOR OTHER FIDUCIARIES) .............................................................................. 119 5 COUNT V (VIOLATION OF ERISA § 102(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1022(A) AGAINST THE 6 7 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS) .................................................. 122 8 COUNT VI (CO-FIDUCIARY LIABILITY UNDER ERISA § 405 AGAINST ALL 9 DEFENDANTS) ..................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 10 COUNT VII (FAILURE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS UPON REQUEST 11 PURSUANT TO ERISA § 104(B)(4), 29 U.S.C. § 1024(B)(4), & 29 C.F.R. § 12 2550.404A-5 AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE 13 14 DEFENDANTS) ..................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 15 VII. ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF .............................................................................................. 129 16 VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................... 129 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Anderson v. Intel Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-cv-04618-LHK iii Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 95 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 136 1 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 2 1. Plaintiffs Winston Anderson and Christopher Sulyma brings this action under 3 Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as 4 amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1132(a)(3), for breaches of fiduciary duties. This 5 action alleges that the fiduciaries of the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan (“the 401(k) Savings Plan”) and 6 the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan (“the Retirement Contribution Plan”) (collectively “the 7 Plans”) breached their fiduciary duties by investing billions of dollars in retirement savings in 8 unproven and unprecedented investment allocation strategies featuring high-priced, low-performing 9 illiquid and opaque hedge funds and private equity funds. Plaintiffs have been participants in the 10 Plans and bring this action on behalf of a class of similarly situated participants as a class action to 11 recover relief on behalf of the Plans against the Intel Retirement Plans Investment Policy Committee 12 (“the Investment Committee”) and its members, the Intel Retirement Plans Administrative 13 Committee (“the Administrative Committee”) and its members, the Finance Committee of the Intel 14 Corporation Board of Directors (“the Finance Committee”) and its members, and the Chief Financial 15 Officers of Intel Corporation (“the Chief Financial Officers”). 16 2. The Investment Committee designed and implemented retirement investment 17 strategies, a suite of target date portfolios (“Intel TDFs”) with a dynamic allocation model (meaning 18 allocations to asset classes changed over time) and a multi-asset portfolio with a fixed allocation 19 model (“Intel GDFs”)1 that deviated greatly from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patient Capital Outperformance
    Patient Capital Outperformance: The Investment Skill of High Active Share Managers Who Trade Infrequently Martijn Cremers Ankur Pareek University of Notre Dame Rutgers Business School First draft: December 2013 This draft: September 2014 This paper documents that among high Active Share portfolios – whose holdings differ substantially from the holdings of their benchmark – only those with patient investment strategies (i.e., with long stock holding durations of at least 2 years) outperform their benchmarks on average. Funds trading frequently generally underperform, regardless of Active Share. Among funds that infrequently trade, it is crucial to separate closet index funds – whose holdings largely overlap with the benchmark – from truly active funds. The average outperformance of the most patient and distinct portfolios equals 2.30% per year – net of costs – for retail mutual funds. Stocks held by patient and active institutions in general outperform by 2.22% per year and by hedge funds in particular by 3.64% per year, both gross of costs. JEL Classifications: G12, G24 Contact info: Martijn Cremers: 264 Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, Phone: 574‐631‐4476, Email: [email protected]. Ankur Pareek: Rutgers Business School, 1 Washington Park, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: 973‐353‐1646, Email: [email protected]. We thank the Q‐Group for financial support. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2498743 Introduction Which, if any, actively managed portfolios can outperform passive benchmarks? The previous literature has documented that, on average, the long‐term net performance of actively managed mutual funds is similar to the performance of their benchmark (with actively managed funds generally underperforming their benchmarks but without strong statistical significance on average).
    [Show full text]
  • The JOBS Act at Year One: a Changing Hedge Fund Communications Landscape
    The JOBS Act at Year One: A Changing Hedge Fund Communications Landscape The private world of hedge funds is looking more like Madison Avenue. Hedge funds today are everywhere – in daily headlines, social media, public web sites, live TV coverage, and even highly visible Las Vegas bashes. They are also increasingly in the portfolios of institutional and retail investors. Once a shadowy, inaccessible and little understood part of the asset management world, hedge funds are growing, diversifying, extending product lines, acquiring competitors, targeting new markets, stepping up client relations – in short, acting more and more like the large, sophisticated businesses they’ve become. Driving and supporting this business transition is a changing attitude toward and approach to marketing communications. As hedge funds have grown to $2-trillion-plus in assets, they are tackling issues and opportunities like brand, visibility and reputation, all in the face of stiff competition. September 23, 2014, marks the first anniversary of the enactment of the Jumpstart Our Businesses (JOBS) Act, and provides an opportunity to look at how hedge fund communications have evolved. The JOBS Act was designed to spark U.S. economic growth in part by allowing hedge funds to solicit accredited investors. As a result, hedge funds are now allowed to employ tactics such as engaging the media, building accessible web sites, advertising and even social media. And while neither we nor others point to the JOBS Act as the sole driving force behind the implementation of new communications strategies by hedge funds in recent years, no one denies that these changes are taking place.
    [Show full text]
  • 61610249.Pdf
    Requested Request ID Requester Name Organization Request Description Date 08-00033-FIFO Cohan, William - Westar Energy Inc 8/18/2008 10-00001-CONG McHenry, Patrick House of Representatives FOIA Log For 2009 and Explanation of Data 3/25/2010 10-00002-CONG Austria, Steve Congress of the United States Parsons Securities Inc aka Columbus Equities 7/19/2010 International Inc 10-00003-GOVT Reed, Ellen Cotton & Company Defense Contract Audit Agency Agreement 2/26/2010 10-00004-GOVT Thomas, Kenneth - Correspondence between Chairman Bernanke 8/4/2009 and Chairman of SEC from January 1 2009 to July 31 2009 10-00005-GOVT Galeassi, Christina US Department of Labor Deway and Boyle Capital Management X-17A- 3/22/2010 5's Annual Audit Repots 10-00006-GOVT Davies, Christopher The Financial Services Authority Calamos Advisors LLC 4/6/2010 10-00007-FIFO Christensen, Eric Snohomish PUD Morgan Stanley & CO Inc and Morgan Stanley 2/19/2010 Subsidiaries 10-00007-GOVT Learoyd, Jenna Moore & Van Allen PLLC Just For Feet Inc referral from FBI 3/13/2008 10-00008-GOVT Froot, Steven Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP American International Group (AIG) 9/24/2009 Independent Consultant Reports Referred by DOJ 10-00009-FIFO Dukes # 37823037, - Financial Warfare Club Inc and Marcus Dubois 5/14/2010 Marcus Dukes 10-00009-GOVT Osaki, Larry Federal Correctional Institute JT Wallenbrock and Associates Citadel Capital 7/26/2010 Management Group and Larry T Osaki 10-00010-FIFO Willingham, Brain Diligentia Yolanda Holtzee Communicaitons with the SEC 7/20/2010 10-00010-GOVT Barry,
    [Show full text]
  • CASTING the NET How Hedge Funds Are Using Alternative Data 2 ALTERNATIVE DATA
    CASTING THE NET How Hedge Funds are Using Alternative Data 2 ALTERNATIVE DATA 3 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 FOREWORD 6 INTRODUCTION 8 METHODOLOGY 10 CHAPTER 1 14 DEFINING ALTERNATIVE DATA CHAPTER 2 17 THE OPPORTUNITIES Alternative data sets used by hedge funds 18 A tool for generating outperformance 22 A risk management tool 26 CHAPTER 3 28 THE CHALLENGES Building the appropriate infrastructure 30 Demonstrating return on investment 35 Regulatory and compliance challenges 38 CHAPTER 4 41 WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR ALTERNATIVE DATA? PRACTICAL STEPS FOR HEDGE FUND MANAGERS 46 LOOKING TO USE ALTERNATIVE DATA CONCLUSION 50 4 CASTING THE NET How Hedge Funds are Using Alternative Data Acknowledgements We are very grateful to the following AIMA research committee members for their dedication towards the creation of this document: Carol Ward Hardik Shah (Chairperson) Business System Consultant COO Man GLG CIBC Man Group Michael Peltz Tom Kehoe Global Head of Content Managing Director, WorldQuant, LLC Global Head of Research Tess Shih and Communications Executive Director The Alternative Investment Capital Fund Management Management Association International Inc Matthew Newbon Waheed Aslam Chief Operating Officer Head of Marketing & Independent View BV Business Development Joanne Matthews – Asset Management Senior Vice President & Investments Funds Two Sigma Investments LP Simmons & Simmons LLP To the following third-parties for their valuable insights: Gene Getman Ronan Crosson Client Portfolio Manager Director, Data Strategy LOIM, 1798 Alternatives & Analytics Eagle Alpha Ltd. And to the following members of the SS&C team for their valued expertise: Kelly Ramsey Gooch Michael Megaw Director, Relationship Managing Director Management Regulatory Analytics and Data SS&C Technologies SS&C Technologies Alastair Hewitt Director or CORE-SightLine SS&C Technologies Co-authors: Lyndsay Noble Anton F.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedge Fund Managers, Illustrating That Running Successful Hedge Funds Can Be a Very Lucrative Business
    17 May 2016 Executive Summary New research by SCM Direct reveals 4.8 million UK individuals, are invested in hedge funds via their pension schemes. Shockingly, these pension savers are being charged c.36 times the fees of low cost alternatives, whilst receiving as little as 1/3rd of the performance they would from a low cost index- based strategy. SCM estimates that members of UK pension schemes paid c. £2.85 billion in fees and charges via their hedge fund investments in 20151. These significant costs are not being fully disclosed to pension schemes, or their underlying beneficiaries, resulting in savers being unaware of the risks and returns associated with having their saving in this asset class. Findings - SCM Direct research into hedge funds: - Costs: UK pension funds are paying up to 36 times the amount in total fees and charges to invest via hedge funds compared to alternative low cost index funds. - Risks: Many hedge funds are more concentrated and less liquid than simpler, low cost index funds. In June 2015, the FCA analysed 52 hedge fund firms managing $265 billion from the UK. The FCA stated ‘since the financial crisis, institutional investors (largely pension funds and endowment-like institutions) have become the largest source of new money for hedge funds. High net worth individuals and family offices now only own 13% of hedge fund assets.’ - Returns: Over the last 5 years a simple 60/40 strategy or the strategy proposed by Warren Buffett for his own legacy2, via index funds, would have beaten the average hedge fund return by 3 to 4 times.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory, Accompanying the Map, Presents All the Company Information in One Document
    Corporate Watch Wreckers of the Earth: a guide to ecocidal capitalism in London February 2020 For maps and more see: https://corporatewatch.org/londonmap2020/ Table of Contents Wreckers in London....................................................................................................................4 1. Primary planet-killers.......................................................................................................................6 1.1 Hydrocarbon majors..................................................................................................................6 1.1.1 The national oil companies................................................................................................6 1.1.2 The multinational “oil majors”...........................................................................................9 1.2 Hydrocarbons: smaller oil companies, frackers and UCG......................................................12 1.2.1 Smaller “conventional” oil and gas companies................................................................12 1.2.2 The frackers: “unconventional fossil fuels” specialists...................................................14 1.3 Oil and gas services and shipping............................................................................................16 1.3.1 Oilfield services...............................................................................................................16 1.3.2 Liquefied Natural Gas......................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Family Offices Group.Com
    2009 Family Offices Group.com The Family Office Report is a free resource created by the Family Offices Group for family office professionals and those businesses that work with family offices. Sponsored by: FamilyOfficesGroup.com FamilyOfficesDatabase.com Sponsored by: FamilyOfficesGroup.com | FamilyOfficesDatabase.com Page 2 Single Family Office Investment Performance Just found a recent article on the performance of investments made of single-family offices claiming that their returns were likely below those of other high net worth individuals. First off it is important to note when discussing single family offices that they need not relay their performance to anyone and often will not return the phone calls of journalists, publicists or surveys seeking information. This means that any reporting on this sector is skewed at best. I believe the article noted below to be off base in several ways. First, single family offices conduct more due diligence on hedge fund investments than their high net worth peers so if we are really comparing apples to apples here it would be hard to believe that those who conducted 4-10x as much research on their investments would perform worse in the markets. Second, single-family office HNW individuals are more likely to have their investments more diversified and invested in less straight equity portfolios. While diversification may not have helped much over the past year it could prevent 60%+ drops in portfolio value seen within some concentrated equity portfolios. The last reason why I believe this article is off base is because it refers to alternative investments made by single-family offices as a negative aspect of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Bloomberg Briefs
    Tuesday Feb. 23, 2016 www.bloombergbriefs.com INTRODUCTION Feb. 23, 2016 Bloomberg Brief Hedge Funds 2 INTRODUCTION Bloomberg Brief: HEDGE FUNDS BY MELISSA KARSH AND NATHANIEL E. BAKER Bloomberg Brief Managing Editor Hedge funds attracted a net $44 billion in assets globally last year, the smallest Jennifer Rossa • [email protected] amount since 2012, according to data compiled by Hedge Fund Research Inc. That reflects a volatile year, when unanticipated economic events rattled markets and led to Executive Editor, Finance declines and losses for many funds. Others were hurt by crowded and sometimes Christine Harper • [email protected] concentrated trades and poorly timed bets on energy as oil prices continued to fall. Still, there were bright spots: many long-term holdings paid off and some managers Hedge Fund Brief Editors made well-timed Melissa Karsh • [email protected] buys, while others Net Flows Into Hedge Funds by Assets Nathaniel E. Baker • [email protected] combed through Anne Riley • [email protected] small-caps or illiquid securities to Bloomberg News Editors find opportunities Christian Baumgaertel • for arbitrage. Even [email protected] some funds that Vincent Bielski • [email protected] didn't perform particularly well Reporters were diversified or Katherine Burton • [email protected] hedged enough to Simone Foxman • [email protected] protect their Bei Hu • [email protected] investors from the Saijel Kishan • [email protected] worst of the Nishant Kumar • [email protected] "downside," in a Hema Parmar • [email protected] year that had Katia Porzecanski • [email protected] Larger hedge funds remained more successful at attracting money last plenty of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Pensions While Retaining Shareholder Voice
    REFORMING PENSIONS WHILE RETAINING SHAREHOLDER VOICE DAVID H. WEBBER* ABSTRACT Public pension and labor union funds have been the driving force in diversified shareholder activism. They have also fended off attacks on jobs and proactively created jobs for fund contributors. These funds currently represent almost $4 trillion in assets over which workers have substantial control. That worker control—and the collective nature of defined benefit pension plans—is the necessary precondition for their shareholder activism. Both worker control and collective investment are directly threatened by the rise of defined contribution funds, particularly by well-funded efforts to promote the 401(k) in the public sector, the last bastion of the traditional pension plan (unlike traditional pensions, defined contribution funds do not guarantee fixed payments to retirees). Due to a purported nationwide underfunding crisis for public pensions in particular—a crisis whose scale, scope, and even existence is contested by economists and actuaries—many states and cities have wholly or partly abandoned, or are contemplating abandoning, collectively managed defined benefit pension plans in favor of 401(k) plans that are outsourced to existing private mutual funds. Far more than legal reforms, like changing shareholder voting thresholds or the prospect of mandatory arbitration provisions, these reforms pose an existential threat to the ability of workers to wield the collective shareholder voice they now wield via defined benefit pension plans. This Article does not concede that traditional pensions should be reformed out of existence. There are excellent reasons to defend them, and excellent reasons to attack defined contribution funds. That said, to the extent that traditional pensions continue to be reformed out of existence, this Article illustrates that there are defined contribution alternatives to the 401(k) that would still preserve collective shareholder voice.
    [Show full text]
  • AIP Client List 2021 0823.Xlsx
    Weekly Update 2021-09-20 #DTCC Public (White) AIP Member List (Distributors - Broker-Dealers/ Custodians / Clearing Firms) Participant Name Participant Type NSCC AIP Number Membership Live Date American Enterprise Investment Services Inc. {Ameriprise} Firm 3433 2/17/2012 American Portfolios Financial Services, Inc. Firm 9846 12/21/2015 Axos Clearing LLC Firm 0648 10/31/2016 Beta Capital Securities, LLC Firm 4394 12/9/2019 Cetera Investment Services LLC Firm 1768 9/5/2018 Charles Schwab & Co, Inc. Firm 3401 12/31/2009 Crowdkey, Inc. Firm 7291 12/13/2016 Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC Firm 5261 11/7/2016 Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. Firm 1871 1/16/2013 Grove Point Investments, LLC Firm 3911 5/6/2021 HD Vest Investment Securities, Inc Firm 7242 7/24/2018 Hilltop Holdings, Inc. (formerly Southwest Securities, Inc.) Firm 1956 4/19/2013 ICapital Securities, LLC Firm 6523 5/18/2018 J.W.Korth & Company Limited Partnership Firm 9893 3/3/2016 Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC Firm 4073 4/16/2019 LPL Financial LLC Firm 3477 6/19/2013 LPL Financial LLC (AXA) Firm 6989 8/24/2015 # DTCC Public (White) AIP Member List (Distributors - Broker-Dealers/ Custodians / Clearing Firms) Participant Name Participant Type NSCC AIP Number Membership Live Date Matrix Trust Company Firm 1531 5/26/2015 Millennium Trust Company, LLC Firm 1659 7/20/2020 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC Firm 1287 8/29/2014 National Financial Services LLC (NFS) Firm 3409 2/22/2011 National Securities Corporation Firm 9389 5/12/2016 Orion Advisor Services, LLC. Firm 8843 6/8/2018 Pershing LLC Firm 0838 10/1/2008 Provident Trust Group, LLC Firm 1237 7/11/2014 RBC Capital Markets, LLC Firm 3428 2/11/2011 Robert W.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Leading Women in Hedge Funds 2020
    Fifty Leading Women in Hedge Funds 2020 IN ASSOCIATION WITH 50 LEADING WOMEN IN HEDGE FUNDS 2020 50 LEADING WOMEN IN HEDGE FUNDS 2020 Introduction HAMLIN LOVELL, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE HEDGE FUND JOURNAL his is the eighth edition of our managers of all time – according to LCF Edmond 50 Leading Women in Hedge de Rothschild analysis – namely Bridgewater Funds report and is published Associates and Lone Pine. The two Lone Pine in association with EY for the women in this year’s report are two of the three seventh time. Whilst Covid-19 portfolio managers who succeeded Lone Pine’s has denied us the opportunity founder Steve Mandel. Three of the report’s to host accompanying events discretionary equity portfolio managers specialize in London and New York, at in the healthcare and biotechnology sector, which least this year, the professional achievements has attracted more attention this year for obvious Tof the women featured in this year’s report reasons. Four of the investment professionals shine through, nonetheless. We are so pleased work for systematic and quantitative hedge fund An analysis of the S&P to be publishing this report just a few days after managers, which is notable given the general Kamala Harris made history by becoming the dearth of women in STEM. Another noteworthy first female, first black and first Asian-American cluster is three women managing multi-billion Composite 1500 found US Vice-President-elect. s the leading global evidence is clear. Having more amounts in liquid credit strategies. that firms with women provider of services women in senior roles helps Previous reports have sometimes repeated Women in the report sit on a wide variety of to alternative funds, businesses to innovate and two or three names from earlier reports, most A committees including: management, operating, at the top were worth on EY is proud to sponsor this perform better.
    [Show full text]
  • AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 12 V
    Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 113 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 168 1 Joseph Creitz (Cal. Bar No. 169552) CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP 2 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 3 [email protected] Telephone: (415) 466-3090 4 Facsimile: (415) 513-4475 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 10 WINSTON R. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER M. Case No: 5:19-cv-04618-LHK SULYMA, and all others similarly situated, (Consolidated with No. 15-cv-04977-NC 11 & No. 16-cv-00522) Plaintiffs, 12 AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT v. 13 INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT CLASS ACTION POLICY COMMITTEE, INTEL RETIREMENT 14 PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL 15 CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 16 CHRISTOPHER C. GECZY, RAVI JACOB, DAVID S. POTTRUCK, ARVIND SODHANI, 17 RICHARD TAYLOR, TERRA CASTALDI, RONALD D. DICKEL, TIFFANY DOON 18 SILVA, TAMI GRAHAM, CARY KLAFTER, STUART ODELL, CHARLENE 19 BARSHEFSKY, SUSAN L. DECKER, JOHN J. 20 DONAHOE, REED E. HUNDT, JAMES D. PLUMMER, FRANK D. YEARY, STACY 21 SMITH, ROBERT H. SWAN, TODD UNDERWOOD, AND GEORGE S. DAVIS 22 Defendants, 23 and 24 INTEL 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and INTEL RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN, 25 Nominal Defendants. 26 27 28 Anderson v. Intel Amended Consolidated Complaint Case No. 5:19-cv-04618-LHK 1 Case 5:19-cv-04618-LHK Document 113 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 168 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................................ 1 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................................... 6 4 III. PARTIES .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]