DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) Craig R. Spiegel (SBN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) Craig R. Spiegel (SBN Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1169-3 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 174 1 Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice) Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) Craig R. Spiegel (SBN 122000) David G. Feher (pro hac vice) 2 Emilee N. Sisco (pro hac vice) David L. Greenspan (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Joseph A. Litman (pro hac vice) 3 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Seattle, WA 98101 200 Park Avenue 4 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 New York, NY 10166-4193 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Telephone: (212) 294-6700 5 [email protected] Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 [email protected] [email protected] 6 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 7 Jeff D. Friedman (SBN 173886) [email protected] HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 8 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Sean D. Meenan (SBN 260466) Berkeley, CA 94710 Jeanifer E. Parsigian (SBN 289001) 9 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 101 California Street 10 [email protected] San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 11 Bruce L. Simon (SBN 96241) Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Benjamin E. Shiftan (SBN 265767) [email protected] 12 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP [email protected] 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 13 San Francisco, CA 94104 Class Counsel for Jenkins and Consolidated Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Action Plaintiffs 14 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 [email protected] 15 [email protected] 16 Class Counsel for Jenkins and Consolidated Action Plaintiffs 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 OAKLAND DIVISION 21 IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC Case No. 4:14-md-2541-CW ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID 22 CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION DECLARATION OF STEVE W. 23 BERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ 24 FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF This Document Relates to: EXPENSES 25 ALL ACTIONS EXCEPT 26 Jenkins v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, Case No. 14-cv-02758-CW 27 28 DECLARATION OF STEVE W. BERMAN CASE NO. 4:14-MD-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1169-3 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 174 1 I, Steve W. Berman, declare: 2 1. I am the managing partner of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 3 (“Hagens Berman”), co-counsel of record for Plaintiffs. Based on personal knowledge or discussions 4 with counsel in my firm of the matters stated herein, if called upon, I could and would competently 5 testify thereto. 6 2. On December 4, 2015, this Court appointed Hagens Berman as co-lead counsel along 7 with Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP (“Pearson Simon”) and Winston & Strawn LLP (“Winston 8 Strawn”) for the injunctive relief classes in this litigation. [ECF No. 305]. 9 3. The background and experience of Hagens Berman and the principal attorneys who 10 performed work on this case are summarized in the updated firm resume attached hereto as Exhibit 11 A. 12 FEES AND COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DAMAGES PORTION OF THE CASE 13 4. As the Court is aware, a subset of plaintiffs (the “Damages Plaintiffs”) also pursued 14 claims for damages against Defendants. Those claims were settled in February 2017 for a total of 15 $208,664,445. 16 5. On September 5, 2017, counsel for the Damages Plaintiffs filed a motion for fees, 17 expenses, and service awards in connection with the damages settlement. [ECF No. 688]. On 18 September 6, 2017 and September 12, 2017, I submitted declarations in support of that motion. [ECF 19 Nos. 689 and 697]. 20 6. Those declarations explained the extensive work that my firm performed in 21 conjunction with the damages part of this litigation, including: investigation and fact discovery, 22 written discovery, document review, motion practice, depositions, client and class communications 23 and settlement negotiation. 24 7. Because only the damages portion of this case had settled at the time of my prior 25 declarations, Hagens Berman excluded fees or expenses that were exclusively or primarily related to 26 the injunctive relief portion of the case. [See ECF No. 697 at ¶ 3]. For example, time spent drafting 27 and editing the Rule 23(b)(2) injunction class certification brief, attending the Rule 23(b)(2) 28 1 DECLARATION OF STEVE W. BERMAN CASE NO. 4:14-MD-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1169-3 Filed 03/26/19 Page 3 of 174 1 injunction class certification hearing, working with experts on merits reports for the injunctive side 2 of the case, and working on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and Daubert motions, was 3 excluded. 4 8. Although a substantial amount of the work performed in connection with the damages 5 claims also related to, and bore significant fruit for purposes of our class-certification, summary- 6 judgment, and trial proceedings related to the injunctive claims, Hagens Berman does not seek now 7 to recover any portion of the attorneys’ fees and/or costs that were already awarded from the 8 damages settlement. Instead, we have calculated and included herein, only the fees and expenses 9 specifically attributable to work done for the injunctive portion of this case as outlined below. 10 WORK PERFORMED ON BEHALF OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASSES 11 9. Hagens Berman has had an integral role in performing and coordinating all manner of 12 tasks related to the injunctive relief portion of this case at each phase of the litigation, including 13 initial case investigation, filing of complaints, discovery, class certification, dispositive motion 14 practice, and trial preparation. 15 10. In the earlier phases of the case, Hagens Berman spent a significant amount of time 16 and resources briefing, arguing and obtaining injunctive-class certification, including extensive work 17 with Plaintiffs’ economics expert Dr. Daniel Rascher, who prepared a lengthy report in support of 18 class certification. The firm also prepared for and defended the depositions of several injunctive 19 relief class representatives. 20 11. Hagens Berman worked extensively with Plaintiffs’ experts throughout this case. My 21 firm retained and worked particularly closely with Dr. Rascher, including preparing for his 22 depositions and assisting as he drafted his merits reports and trial testimony. Over the course of this 23 litigation, Hagens Berman attorneys had numerous meetings and calls with Dr. Rascher as well as 24 Plaintiffs’ other experts. The firm assisted these experts and their staffs in identifying and gathering 25 the materials relevant to their expert analyses. 26 12. Hagens Berman played a critical role in nearly every aspect of Plaintiffs’ trial 27 preparation. This process was a tremendous undertaking, particularly due to the fact that the trial 28 2 DECLARATION OF STEVE W. BERMAN CASE NO. 4:14-MD-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1169-3 Filed 03/26/19 Page 4 of 174 1 schedule was expedited to accommodate defense counsel. Throughout the litigation, and even more 2 frequently in the months leading up to trial, Hagens Berman attorneys had numerous conference calls 3 and meetings with co-counsel regarding trial strategy, status and assignments, and internal case 4 management issues. 5 13. The firm devoted considerable time on work related to all of the major pre-trial 6 briefing and written submissions to the Court on behalf of Plaintiffs. Hagens Berman attorneys 7 contributed substantially to Plaintiffs’ legal research and briefing strategy, and worked closely with 8 co-counsel throughout all stages of drafting and editing. 9 14. For example, Hagens Berman was heavily involved in the analyzing, drafting and 10 editing of all briefing related to the parties’ motions for summary judgment and also spent substantial 11 time researching and drafting briefs in connection with the parties’ Daubert motions. In addition, the 12 Court ordered both parties to submit written opening statements and direct expert testimony in 13 advance of trial, along with deposition designations, witness and exhibit lists, and motions in limine. 14 Hagens Berman attorneys were extensively involved in each of these projects. 15 15. Hagens Berman attorneys spent hundreds of hours organizing and reviewing the 16 voluminous documentary record (in excess of 680,000 documents spanning more than six million 17 total pages) in order to identify materials for use at trial and in Plaintiffs’ pre-trial motions. Along 18 with co-counsel, Hagens Berman attorneys also went through the laborious process of analyzing all 19 of the materials proposed on Defendants’ initial exhibit list (totaling more than 1,000 documents). 20 Hagens Berman participated in lengthy meet and confer negotiations to address objections raised by 21 all parties with respect to documents on the exhibit lists. 22 16. Hagens Berman attorneys also expended significant amounts of time reviewing and 23 designating deposition testimony for trial and working with co-counsel to negotiate numerous 24 disputes regarding the admissibility of the parties’ proffered designations. The parties ultimately 25 jointly submitted final deposition designations from thirty-seven depositions, consisting of nearly 26 1,000 pages of testimony. 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF STEVE W. BERMAN CASE NO. 4:14-MD-02541-CW Case 4:14-md-02541-CW Document 1169-3 Filed 03/26/19 Page 5 of 174 1 17. Hagens Berman worked extensively on Plaintiffs’ forty-seven-page opening 2 statement, including by taking the lead in drafting the sections refuting Defendants’ primary 3 purported procompetitive justification related to the NCAA’s concept of amateurism. 4 18. Hagens Berman played a leading role as a member of Plaintiffs’ trial team. Hagens 5 Berman prepared for and handled the direct and/or cross examinations of numerous live witnesses at 6 trial.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Delaware Limited Partnership, : PFM HEALTHCARE
    EFiled: Apr 11 2017 04:50PM EDT Transaction ID 60459576 Case No. 2017-0262-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PARTNER INVESTMENTS, L.P., : a Delaware limited partnership, : PFM HEALTHCARE MASTER FUND, L.P., : a Cayman Islands limited partnership, and : PFM HEALTHCARE PRINCIPALS : FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, : : Plaintiffs, : v. : C.A. No. 2017-0262-JTL : THERANOS, INC., a Delaware corporation, : Original Version Filed: ELIZABETH HOLMES, : April 6, 2017 FABRIZIO BONANNI, : WILLIAM H. FOEGE, and : Redacted Public Version DANIEL J. WARMENHOVEN, : Filed: April 11, 2017 : Defendants. : VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs Partner Investments, L.P. (“PIM”), PFM Healthcare Master Fund, L.P. (“HCMF”), and PFM Healthcare Principals Fund, L.P. (“HCP”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “PFM”), by and through their attorneys, allege upon knowledge as to themselves and their own conduct, and otherwise upon information and belief, as follows: NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING 1. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to, among other things, enjoin Defendants Theranos, Inc. (“Theranos” or the “Company”), Elizabeth Holmes (“Holmes”), Fabrizio Bonanni (“Bonanni”), William H. Foege (“Foege”), and Daniel J. Warmenhoven (“Warmenhoven”) (collectively, “Defendants”) from consummating a self-interested and coercive exchange offer that breaches their fiduciary duty of loyalty, constitutes corporate waste, and fails entire fairness review. 2. Through a string of repeated lies, misrepresentations, misleading statements, and omissions of material information, Theranos, Holmes, and former Chief Operating Officer and member of the Board of Directors Ramesh Balwani (“Balwani”) induced PFM to invest approximately $96.1 million in Theranos in February 2014. PFM became a holder of Series C-2 Preferred Stock in the Company, with a liquidation preference ahead of holders of the Company’s common stock and holders of the Company’s Series A and B Preferred Stock, and pari passu with the holders of Series C and C-1 Preferred Stock.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pro Hac Vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth
    Case 2:18-cv-04258-SVW-GJS Document 67 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 106 Page ID #:902 1 Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 2 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 3 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 4 [email protected] 5 Annika K. Martin (pro hac vice) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 6 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 7 (212) 355-9500 [email protected] 8 Daniel C. Girard (SBN 114826) 9 GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 10 San Francisco, California 94108 (415) 981-4800 11 [email protected] 12 Interim Class Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee 13 [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 WESTERN DIVISION 17 IN RE: USC STUDENT HEALTH No. 2:18-cv-04258-SVW 18 CENTER LITIGATION [Consolidated with: 19 No. 2:18-cv-04940- SVW-GJS, No. 2:18-cv-05010-SVW-GJS, 20 No. 2:18-cv-05125-SVW-GJS, and No. 2:18-cv-06115-SVW-GJS] 21 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 22 MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 23 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND TO DIRECT CLASS NOTICE; 24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 25 Date: April 1, 2019 26 Time: 1:30 p.m. 27 Ctrm: 10A Hon. Stephen V. Wilson 28 1694697.1 Case 2:18-cv-04258-SVW-GJS Document 67 Filed 02/12/19 Page 2 of 106 Page ID #:903 1 NOTICE OF MOTION 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 1, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon 4 thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Honorable Stephen V.
    [Show full text]
  • AGAINST Continuing Edison Research
    The Eight Edison Debate 2 Peyton Chiotti• Miranda Vanlith Thomas Rolfs • Claire Johnson Position: AGAINST continuing Edison research. Perspective: (Elizabeth) HOLMES' INTERESTS Strategy: Discontinuing Edison, redirecting Holmes’ career so she can start paying debts instead ​ of prison. Background ● In the last days of Theranos, December 2017 Theranos was forced to mortgage all of their assets to an investment group called fortress investment group for a 100M$ loan. ● One of the main conditions of the loan agreement was that Theranos was to produce audited financial statements. According to Phillipe, they had not done so since 2009. ● Over 700M$ was given to Theranos between 2015 and 2013. Not one of the investors had ever asked for financial audits. ● In the spring of 2018, Theranos received the final audit, forcing them to disclose that they didn't have enough money to continue any further research. ● On March 14, 2018, the SEC filed charges against Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes (CEO), and Ramesh Balwani (COO). The SEC claimed that Theranos had been lying when they said that they were conducting blood tests on The Edison. ● Theranos and Holmes settled immediately. Holmes was stripped of voting control of Theranos, could not become a director of any company for 10 years and she was fined 500K$ ● After battling multiple charges, she and Balwani stand trial in summer 2020 for 11 accounts of wire fraud totaling over 100 million ● Character of circumstances ○ Concerns that matter the most ■ Holmes has proven she cannot be trusted to run a company by enacting several accounts of fraud and deception. ■ Her intentions of creating a device that could provide affordable in-home blood testing were whole, however, her means of creating such a device were flawed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Work Project Presented As Part of the Requirements for the Award of a Master’S Degree In
    A Work Project presented as part of the requirements for the Award of a Master’s degree in Finance from the Nova School of Business and Economics. THERANOS: BETTING ON BLOOD DIOGO JESUS NETO Work project carried out under the supervision of: Paulo Pinho 06-01-2020 Abstract Theranos was a Silicon Valley start-up founded by Elizabeth Holmes in 2003. Holmes claimed to have developed a new blood-testing device that had the potential to revolutionize the healthcare industry. She established partnerships with Walgreens and Safeway to make her technology available nationwide. She also secured a prestigious board of directors and an equally impressive investor base that raised over $700 million at a peak valuation of $9 billion. However, an investigation by The Wall Street Journal revealed the company had misled investors and endangered patients’ lives. In 2018, Theranos collapsed after years of battling lawsuits and federal charges. Keywords: Theranos, Corporate Governance, Fundraising, Due Diligence This work used infrastructure and resources funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UID/ECO/00124/2013, UID/ECO/00124/2019 and Social Sciences DataLab, Project 22209), POR Lisboa (LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-007722 and Social Sciences DataLab, Project 22209) and POR Norte (Social Sciences DataLab, Project 22209). 1 Theranos: Betting on Blood “One of the most epic failures in corporate governance in the annals of American capitalism”. - John Carreyrou1 On June 28, 2019, a crowd of journalists awaited Elizabeth Holmes at the door of the San Jose Federal Court in California for a pre-trial hearing2. She was accused of engaging in a multi-million- dollar scheme to defraud investors, doctors, and patients alongside her former partner, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.
    [Show full text]
  • Theranos' Bad Blood
    Theranos’ Bad Blood In 2003, Stanford University student Elizabeth Holmes founded the health care company Theranos. The goal of the company was to revolutionize health care. Beginning with the goal of creating a patch to deliver drugs, the company instead shifted focus to developing a simple and effective method for blood diagnosis. Holmes dropped out of Stanford and began raising millions of dollars in funding. The company claimed that its technology could offer over 240 tests from just a prick of the finger. Test results could be delivered to a patient’s phone in hours, and a single test would cost less than half of the reimbursement rate of Medicare and Medicaid. Blood could be diagnosed easily without the need for many vials of blood drawn from patients’ veins or expensive lab work. By 2014, the company was valued at $9 billion, of which Holmes held a majority stake. Many investors backed the company based on the promise of the technology. Holmes received glowing profiles in news magazines, was featured on television shows, and presented keynote addresses at tech conferences. But the excitement of investors and the promise of the technology did not translate into success. Operating largely in a cloak of secrecy, the company could never validate its claims about its blood sampling technology, and many of its lab results went unchecked. In 2015, journalist John Carreyrou investigated the company for an article in The Wall Street Journal. He disclosed problems in the company’s equipment and testing methods. He found that the company did not even use its own technology in tests and often relied on older technology from other companies.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pro Hac Vice) Mark S. Carlson (Pro Hac Vice) 2 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Ste
    Case 3:17-cv-04187-JST Document 148 Filed 01/31/19 Page 1 of 5 1 Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice) Mark S. Carlson (pro hac vice) 2 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 2000 3 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 4 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Rio S. Pierce, CBA No. 298297 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 7 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 8 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 Rearden LLC and Rearden Mova LLC 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 REARDEN LLC, REARDEN MOVA LLC, 16 California limited liability companies, Case No. 3:17-cv-04187-JST 17 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 18 v. ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO 19 CRYSTAL, INC., a California corporation, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SQUARE ENIX INC., a Washington Corporation, SEAL 20 Defendants. Date: February 28, 2019 21 Time: 2:00 p.m. Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar 22 Ctrm: 9, 19th Floor 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Case No.: 3:17-cv-04187-JST Case 3:17-cv-04187-JST Document 148 Filed 01/31/19 Page 2 of 5 1 STIPULATION 2 The above-captioned parties through their undersigned attorneys of record hereby stipulate 3 and agree as follows: 4 Whereas, on January 22, 2019, Rearden attorney Mark Carlson served and filed Rearden’s 5 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal certain documents designated by defendants and non-
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law's Reproducibility Paradox
    SHERKOW IN PRINTER FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/5/2017 11:59 AM PATENT LAW’S REPRODUCIBILITY PARADOX JACOB S. SHERKOW† ABSTRACT Clinical research faces a reproducibility crisis. Many recent clinical and preclinical studies appear to be irreproducible—their results cannot be verified by outside researchers. This is problematic for not only scientific reasons but also legal ones: patents grounded in irreproducible research appear to fail their constitutional bargain of property rights in exchange for working disclosures of inventions. The culprit is likely patent law’s doctrine of enablement. Although the doctrine requires patents to enable others to make and use their claimed inventions, current difficulties in applying the doctrine hamper or even actively dissuade reproducible data in patents. This Article assesses the difficulties in reconciling these basic goals of scientific research and patent law. More concretely, it provides several examples of irreproducibility in patents on blockbuster drugs—Prempro, Xigris, Plavix, and Avastin—and discusses some of the social costs of the misalignment between good clinical practice and patent doctrine. Ultimately, this analysis illuminates several current debates concerning innovation policy. It strongly suggests that a proper conception of enablement should take into account after-arising evidence. It also sheds light on the true purpose—and limits—of patent disclosure. And lastly, it untangles the doctrines of enablement and utility. Copyright © 2017 Jacob S. Sherkow. † Associate Professor, Innovation Center for Law and Technology, New York Law School. Thanks, for their comments, to Kevin Emerson Collins, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Yaniv Heled, Dmitry Karshtedt, Mark A. Lemley, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, W. Nicholson Price II, Jason Rantanen, Betsy Rosenblatt, Norman V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regental Laureates Distinguished Presidential
    REPORT TO CONTRIBUTORS Explore the highlights of this year’s report and learn more about how your generosity is making an impact on Washington and the world. CONTRIBUTOR LISTS (click to view) • The Regental Laureates • Henry Suzzallo Society • The Distinguished Presidential Laureates • The President’s Club • The Presidential Laureates • The President’s Club Young Leaders • The Laureates • The Benefactors THE REGENTAL LAUREATES INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS / Lifetime giving totaling $100 million and above With their unparalleled philanthropic vision, our Regental Laureates propel the University of Washington forward — raising its profile, broadening its reach and advancing its mission around the world. Acknowledgement of the Regental Laureates can also be found on our donor wall in Suzzallo Library. Paul G. Allen & The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Microsoft DISTINGUISHED PRESIDENTIAL LAUREATES INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS / Lifetime giving totaling $50 million to $99,999,999 Through groundbreaking contributions, our Distinguished Presidential Laureates profoundly alter the landscape of the University of Washington and the people it serves. Distinguished Presidential Laureates are listed in alphabetical order. Donors who have asked to be anonymous are not included in the listing. Acknowledgement of the Distinguished Presidential Laureates can also be found on our donor wall in Suzzallo Library. American Heart Association The Ballmer Group Boeing The Foster Foundation Jack MacDonald* Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Washington Research Foundation * = Deceased Bold Type Indicates donor reached giving level in fiscal year 2016–2017 1 THE PRESIDENTIAL LAUREATES INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS / Lifetime giving totaling $10 million to $49,999,999 By matching dreams with support, Presidential Laureates further enrich the University of Washington’s top-ranked programs and elevate emerging disciplines to new heights.
    [Show full text]
  • THE UNIVERSITY of MICHIGAN REGENTS' COMMUNICATION Item for Information April 30, 2018 Report on Voluntary Support Summary By
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS' COMMUNICATION Item for Information April 30, 2018 Report on Voluntary Support Summary by Source The following figures include outright gifts and pledge payments for all purposes, from all fundraising efforts within the University. Not included are pledges at original face value, bequests not yet distributed, or deferred payment devices such as insurance policies. Year-To-Date Year-To-Date Gifts for Gifts for Source of Gifts 2016-2017 2017-2018 April2017 April2018 Individuals Living Individuals $230,420,243 $231,652,294 $12,814,523 $10,270,823 Realized Bequests 62,205,280 72,615,206 2,395,133 891,801 Total Individuals 292,625,524 304,267,500 15,209,656 11,162,624 Corporations 33,065,411 31,525,110 2,407,003 6,068,781 Foundations 59,215,391 63,323,045 5,463,762 8,556,580 Associations/Others 22,067,860 20,690,901 5,557,352 4,885,004 TOTAL Dollars $406,974,186 $419,806,557 $28,637,773 $30,672,989 Summary by Type of Gift Year-To-Date Year-To-Date Gifts for Gifts for Source of Gifts 2016-2017 2017-2018 April2017 April2018 Cash and Equivalents $377,820,269 $403,542,828 $27,620,863 $28,525,645 Gifts-In-Kind 5,101,817 4,189,764 341,238 1,572,344 Life Income Agreements 24,052,100 12,073,965 675,672 575,000 Outside Managed Irrevocable Trusts 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Dollars $406,974 ,186 $419,806,557 $28,637,773 $30,672,989 Respectfully submitted, ay ~~~dent for vel pment May 2018 Item for Information April 30, 2018 Report on Voluntary Support Summary by Source State of Michigan Outside of State State of Michigan Outside of State Year to Date Year to Date Year to Date Year to Date Source of Gifts 2017-2018 2017-2018 2017-2018 2017-2018 Gifts Received % of Gift Receipts Individuals Living Individuals $97,810,723 $133,841,571 42.2% 57.8% Realized Bequests 34,510,501 38,104,705 47.5% 52.5% Total Individuals 132,321,224 171 ,946,276 .
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement And
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 5:15-cv-231 GARY and ANNE CHILDRESS, THOMAS ) and ADRIENNE BOLTON, STEVEN and ) MORGAN LUMBLEY, RAYMOND and ) JACKIE LOVE, HARRY and MARIANNE CHAMPAGNE, and RUSSELL and MARY ) BETH CHRISTE, on behalf of themselves ) and others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) Defendant. ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS Plaintiffs Gary and Anne Childress, Thomas and Adrienne Bolton, Steven and Morgan Lumbley, Raymond and Jackie Love, Harry and Marianne Champagne, and Russell and Mary Beth Christe (collectively “plaintiffs”), with agreement of the Defendant, Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America” or “Defendant”), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Local Rule 7.1, respectfully move the Court for an order: 1. Certifying, for settlement purposes, a proposed nationwide class of persons defined as: All persons identified in Bank of America’s records as obligors or guarantors on an obligation or account who, at any time on or after September 11, 2001, received and/or may have been eligible to receive additional compensation related to military reduced interest rate benefits from Defendant, but excluding persons who have executed a release of the rights claimed in this action; 2. Granting preliminary approval of a settlement of this action between the class and Case 5:15-cv-00231-BO Document 106 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 5 Bank of America; 3. Granting preliminary approval of the proposed distribution plan; 4. Appointing named plaintiffs in this action as class representatives and the law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Smith & Lowney, PLLC, and Shanahan Law Group, PLLC as class counsel; 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Steve Berman Media Features & Interviews
    Steve Berman Media Features & Interviews Meet the Lawyer Trying to Make Big Oil Pay for Climate Change VICE News When you want to sue the largest, most powerful companies on the planet, Steve Berman is the guy you call. He forced Jack-in-the- Box to pay $12 million for causing an E. coli outbreak that killed four children. He won a $215 million settlement against Enron for defrauding investors and wiping out employee retirement accounts. He represented auto dealers in a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Volkswagen for cheating on diesel emissions. ... The reason not to dismiss Berman is that he has a history of proving doubters wrong. When he entered the legal fight against tobacco companies in the 1990s, mainstream opinion was that he would be unsuccessful. The owners of brands like Marlboro and Camel had crushed hundreds of lawsuits attempting to link cigarettes to cancer and emphysema. “No one had ever won a tobacco case,” Berman said... more » (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43qw3j/meet-the-lawyer-trying-to-make-big-oil-pay-for- climate-change) Steve Berman: Putting the Brakes on Alleged Emissions Cheating Super Lawyers When the scandal involving Volkswagen’s self-acknowledged cheating on emissions tests rocked the auto industry and shocked consumer advocates in 2015, Seattle lawyer Steve Berman had to wonder if the German manufacturer was the only one trying to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes. ... “We want the cars fixed, a fraud premium paid or a complete buyback if they can’t be fixed,” says Berman, dubbed “the one-man EPA” around his office.
    [Show full text]
  • Williams V. Boeing
    CLOSED, CONSOL, REOPEN U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:98−cv−00761−MJP Williams, et al v. Boeing Company, et al Date Filed: 06/04/1998 Assigned to: Judge Marsha J. Pechman Date Terminated: 05/04/2007 Demand: $0 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Member case: (View Member Case) Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Case in other court: 06−35196 Jurisdiction: Federal Question 99−36086(McClallamInvesto Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) Plaintiff Solomon Williams represented by Oscar Edward Desper , III TERMINATED: 01/09/2007 501 E ROY ST. SEATTLE , WA 98112 206−931−2905 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Steven J Toll COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &TOLL LLC 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE NW STE 500 WEST WASHINGTON , DC 20005 202−408−4600 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bruce A Harrell CONNELL CORDOVA HUNTER &GAUTSCHI PLLC 1325 4TH AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE , WA 98101−2359 206−583−0050 Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 01/04/2007 Christine E Webber COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &TOLL LLC 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE NW STE 500 WEST WASHINGTON , DC 20005 202−408−4600 Fax: FAX 1−202−408−4699 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Craig R Spiegel HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1918 8th AVE STE 3300 SEATTLE , WA 98101 206−623−7292 Fax: FAX 623−0594 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ivy D Arai HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1918 8th AVE STE 3300 SEATTLE , WA 98101 206−623−7292 Fax: 206−623−0594 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Todd Sprung HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1918 8th AVE STE 3300 SEATTLE , WA 98101 206−623−7292 Fax: FAX 623−0594 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Steve W.
    [Show full text]