DOCSLIB.ORG

Stipulation and Order Re 118 Re: Class Certification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stipulation and Order Re 118 Re: Class Certification Boston Retirement System v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al Doc. 119 1 Patrick D. Robbins (SBN 152288) Daniel H.R. Laguardia (SBN 314654) 2 Emily V. Griffen (SBN 209162) George B. Adams, III (SBN 321090) 3 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 4 535 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2997 5 Telephone: 415.616.1100 Facsimile: 415.616.1199 6 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 7 [email protected] 8 [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen 10 Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, 11 Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, H.E. Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John 12 Thain, and David Trujillo 13 [Additional counsel listed on signature page] 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 17 18 19 BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Case No.: 3:19-cv-06361-RS 20 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 21 v. CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION 22 AND MEDIATION AS MODIFIED BY UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., THE COURT 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEDIATION 1 CASE NUMBER: 3:19-CV-06361-RS Dockets.Justia.com 1 Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System (“Lead Plaintiff”), Defendants Uber 2 Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, 3 Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan 4 Ling Martello, H.E. Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the “Uber Defendants”), 5 and Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, 6 Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & 7 Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Deutsche Bank 8 Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho 9 Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros 10 Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak 11 Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, 12 Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond 13 James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., 14 and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the “Underwriter Defendants” and, together with the Uber Defendants, 15 “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants together referred to as the “Parties”), hereby stipulate and 16 agree as follows: 17 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on September 25, 18 2020 (Dkt. No. 104) (the “Class Certification Motion”); 19 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Parties’ Joint Case Management Statement filed on 20 August 20, 2020 (Dkt. No. 97) and the Court’s August 27, 2020 Case Management Scheduling 21 Order (Dkt. No. 100), the Defendants’ deadline to file their opposition to the Class Certification 22 Motion is December 18, 2020, Lead Plaintiff’s deadline to file its reply is February 5, 2021, and the 23 hearing on the Class Certification Motion is set for February 25, 2021; 24 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s August 27, 2020 Case Management Scheduling 25 Order (Dkt. No. 100), the Parties’ deadline to engage in private mediation discussions is currently 26 January 29, 2021; 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEDIATION 1 CASE NUMBER: 3:19-CV-06361-RS 1 WHEREAS, the Parties have commenced discovery related to both class certification 2 and the merits of the action; 3 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to conduct a private mediation to attempt to 4 resolve the claims asserted in this action, and plan to set a date for the mediation in February or 5 early March 2021, subject to mediator availability and the exchange of additional information to 6 facilitate the mediation; and 7 WHEREAS, the Parties have further agreed, in the interests of efficiency and 8 economy, to delay briefing and hearing on the Class Certification Motion, as well as further class 9 certification and merits discovery, while engaging in mediation discussions. 10 IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED that, subject to the Court’s 11 approval: 12 1. The Parties shall engage in a mediation session by the end of March 2021, and the 13 current deadline to engage in private mediation is extended to March 31, 2021. 14 2. The February 25, 2021 hearing on the Class Certification Motion is continued to 15 May 20, 2021 at 1:30 pm. 16 3. The Parties shall report to the Court no later than April 1, 2021 as to the status of the 17 mediation and if the action is not resolved to submit a revised Joint Case 18 Management Statement. 19 20 21 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 22 Dated: December 15, 2020 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 23 Jonathan Gardner (admitted pro hac vice) Alfred L. Fatale III (admitted pro hac vice) 24 Joseph N. Cotilletta (admitted pro hac vice) Marco A. Duenas (admitted pro hac vice) 25 140 Broadway 26 New York, New York 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 27 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: [email protected] 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEDIATION 2 CASE NUMBER: 3:19-CV-06361-RS [email protected] 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected] 3 /s/ Alfred L. Fatale III Alfred L. Fatale III 4 5 Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System 6 LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 7 Gregory M. Nespole (admitted pro hac vice) 55 Broadway, 10th Floor 8 New York, New York 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 9 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: [email protected] 10 Rosanne L. Mah (SBN 242628) 11 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, California 94111 12 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 13 Email: [email protected] 14 Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System 15 16 Dated: December 15, 2020 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 17 Patrick D. Robbins Daniel H.R. Laguardia 18 Emily V. Griffen George B. Adams, III 19 20 /s/ Daniel H.R. Laguardia Daniel H.R. Laguardia 21 Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, 22 Inc., Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett 23 Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna 24 Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, John Thain, and David Trujillo 25 26 Dated: December 15, 2020 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Todd G. Cosenza (admitted pro hac vice) 27 787 Seventh Avenue 28 New York, NY 10019-6099 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEDIATION 3 CASE NUMBER: 3:19-CV-06361-RS Telephone: (212) 728-8677 1 Facsimile: (212) 728-9677 2 Email: [email protected] 3 /s/ Todd G. Cosenza 4 Todd G. Cosenza 5 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 6 Simona Agnolucci (SBN 246943) One Front Street 7 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7447 8 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 9 Email: [email protected] 10 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Joseph G. Davis (SBN 157764) 11 1875 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1238 12 Telephone: (202) 303.1131 13 Facsimile: (202) 303-2131 Email: [email protected] 14 Attorneys for Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. 15 LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays 16 Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 17 Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., 18 Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, 19 Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, 20 Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy 21 Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and 22 Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., 23 Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., 24 William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams 25 Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEDIATION 4 CASE NUMBER: 3:19-CV-06361-RS 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 DATED: ________________________December 16, 2020 _____________________________________ United States District Judge 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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEDIATION 5 CASE NUMBER: 3:19-CV-06361-RS .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE RACE for AUTONOMOUS RIDE-HAILING: Developing a Strategy for Success
    THE RACE FOR AUTONOMOUS RIDE-HAILING: Developing a Strategy for Success BY CHANDRASEKAR IYER & RICH ALTON SEPTEMBER 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 The AV Landscape: A Snapshot 5 Group 1: Well-Resourced Players Targeting Established Ride-Hailing Markets 5 Group 2: Less-Resourced Players Initially Targeting Simpler Applications 6 Group 3: Incumbent Ride-Hailing Networks 7 AV Technology: Disruptive or Sustaining? 8 Diagnosis and Recommendations 11 To Well-Resourced Players: Become the Metaphorical Microsoft 11 To Less-Resourced Players: Own Your Niche 12 To Incumbent Ride-Hailing Networks: Pursue Partnerships but Retain Flexibility 13 Conclusion 14 Notes 15 About the Institute, About Tata Consultancy Services, About the Authors 18 CLAYTON CHRISTENSEN INSTITUTE 2 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The race to win in autonomous vehicles (AVs) is well underway, with scores of companies scrambling to make their mark in the new market. While AVs stand to advance industries from farming to long-haul trucking, it’s their ability to completely transform passenger transportation that has caught the imagination of the public. Because AVs are likely to be too expensive for personal ownership, there is 1. Well-resourced players new to ride-hailing should become the broad consensus that deploying them within ride-hailing networks will be, metaphorical Microsoft. Players like Waymo and GM Cruise should at least initially, one of the most commercially viable paths for autonomous avoid the temptation of using their vast amount of capital to engage in passenger transportation. But capturing a slice of the ride-hailing market head-on competition with entrenched incumbents.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware Julie
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JULIE FRIEDMAN, derivatively on behalf of ) EXPEDIA, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, BARRY ) C.A. No. 9161-CB DILLER, VICTOR A. KAUFMAN, A. ) GEORGE BATTLE, JONATHAN L. ) DOLGEN, CRAIG A. JACOBSON, PETER ) M. KERN, JOHN C. MALONE, JOSE A. ) TAZON and WILLIAM R. FITZGERALD, ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) EXPEDIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, ) ) Nominal Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: June 16, 2014 Date Decided: July 16, 2014 David A. Jenkins and Neal C. Belgam of Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Eduard Korsinsky and Steven J. Purcell of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Gregory P. Williams, Lisa A. Schmidt and Susan M. Hannigan of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Warren R. Stern and Jonathon R. LaChapelle of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants. BOUCHARD, C. 1 I. INTRODUCTION This action involves a seemingly increasing area of litigation in this Court: claims challenging the payment of compensation to an officer or director of a Delaware corporation based on an alleged violation of the terms of a compensation plan. Asserting such claims derivatively, stockholders invariably argue that demand is excused on the theory that a violation of an unambiguous provision of a compensation plan raises a reasonable doubt the transaction resulted from a valid exercise of business judgment and, as the plaintiff here put it, “ ipso facto establishes demand futility under the second prong of Aronson. ”1 In this case, plaintiff Julie Friedman asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count II) concerning the decision of the compensation committee of the board of directors of Expedia, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uber Board Deliberates: Is Good Governance Worth the Firing of an Entrepreneurial Founder? by BRUCE KOGUT *
    ID#190414 CU242 PUBLISHED ON MAY 13, 2019 The Uber Board Deliberates: Is Good Governance Worth the Firing of an Entrepreneurial Founder? BY BRUCE KOGUT * Introduction Uber Technologies, the privately held ride-sharing service and logistics platform, suffered a series of PR crises during 2017 that culminated in the resignation of Travis Kalanick, cofounder and longtime CEO. Kalanick was an acclaimed entrepreneur, building Uber from its local San Francisco roots to a worldwide enterprise in eight years, but he was also a habitual rule- breaker. 1 In an effort to put the recent past behind the company, the directors of Uber scheduled a board meeting for October 3, 2017, to vote on critical proposals from new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi that were focused essentially on one question: How should Uber be governed now that Kalanick had stepped down as CEO? Under Kalanick, Uber had grown to an estimated $69 billion in value by 2017, though plagued by scandal. The firm was accused of price gouging, false advertising, illegal operations, IP theft, sexual harassment cover-ups, and more.2 As Uber’s legal and PR turmoil increased, Kalanick was forced to resign as CEO, while retaining his directorship position on the nine- member board. His June 2017 resignation was hoped to calm the uproar, but it instead increased investor uncertainty. Some of the firm’s venture capital shareholders (VCs) marked down their Uber holdings by 15% (Vanguard, Principal Financial), while others raised the valuation by 10% (BlackRock).3 To restore Uber’s reputation and stabilize investor confidence, the board in August 2017 unanimously elected Dara Khosrowshahi as Uber’s next CEO.
    [Show full text]
  • Uber-Technologies-Inc-2019-Annual-Report.Pdf
    2019 Annual Report 69 Countries A global tech platform at 10K+ massive scale Cities Serving multiple multi-trillion dollar markets with products leveraging our core technology $65B and infrastructure Gross Bookings We believe deeply in our bold mission. Every minute of every day, consumers and Drivers on our platform can tap a button and get a ride or tap a button and get work. We revolutionized personal mobility with ridesharing, and we are leveraging our platform to redefine the massive meal delivery and logistics 111M industries. The foundation of our platform is our MAPCs massive network, leading technology, operational excellence, and product expertise. Together, these elements power movement from point A to point B. 7B Trips UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 OR TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number: 001-38902 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 45-2647441 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 1455 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94103 (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code) (415) 612-8582 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Name of each exchange Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.00001 per share UBER New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis Communication Plan Kyle Werner, Olivia Buffington, Sloan Taylor, Lauren Miller
    Crisis Communication Plan Kyle Werner, Olivia Buffington, Sloan Taylor, Lauren Miller Table of Contents Section 1. Crisis Overview 1.1 Crisis Definition………………………………………………………………………..……...3 1.2 Crisis Communication Plan Overview…………...……………………………………….…...3 1.3 Situation Analysis……………………………………………………………………..….…...4 1.4 Crisis Response Guidelines………..……………………………………………………….….6 1.5 Crisis Communication Team Members…………………….……………………………........7 Section 2. Uber Crisis Team Guidelines 2.1 Information Flow Chart…………………………………………………………………….....9 2.2 Fact Sheet……………………………………………………………………………...……..10 2.3 Social Media Plan………………………………………………………………………...….14 2.4 Social Media Sample Posts…………………………………………………………..............15 Section 3. Media Guidelines 3.1 Potential Media Questions........................……………………………………………….......17 3.2 Media Guidelines………………………………………………………….............................22 3.3 Key Media Contacts………………………………………..…………...................................23 Section 4. Crises by Category: 4.1 Challenges………………………………………………........................................................25 4.2 Malevolence………………………………………………….................................................29 4.3 Organizational Misdeeds……………………………………….............................................34 4.4 Workplace Violence………………………………………………….....................................39 Section 5. Sample Media Kit………………………...……………………..……………..........45 Appendix: Forms Incident Report……………...…………………………………………........................................57 Press Conference/Media Sign-in Sheet……………………..…………………………………....59
    [Show full text]
  • Waymo, Uber Reach Settlement.Indd
    THE RECORDER POWERED BY LAW.COM FEBRUARY 09, 2018 Waymo, Uber Reach $244.8M Settlement on Driverless Car Trade Secrets Less than a week into their blockbuster trade secret showdown, Waymo and Uber have settled their dispute over driverless car technology. Ross Todd and Caroline Spiezio | February 09, 2018 SAN FRANCISCO — Less than a week into their blockbuster trade secret showdown, Waymo and Uber have settled their dispute over driverless car technology. The parties announced they reached an agreement Friday morning as jaws dropped in a half-full courtroom, on what was set to be a technology-heavy fifth day of trial before U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California. According to a statement from Waymo, the settlement includes a payment from Uber that includes 0.34 percent of Uber eq- uity—or about $244.8 million in stock based on a $72 billion valuation. Reuters previ- ously reported that Waymo demanded $1 billion in settlement talks last year and had asked Uber for an apology. On Friday, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi expressed “re- grets” in a prepared statement, but stopped Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s couldn’t comment on the case or settlement. short of a full-blown apology. Charles Verhoeven, who announced the Boies Schiller Flexner partner Karen Dunn, “This case is ancient history,” Alsup told parties had reached a settlement and who represented Uber, was also smiling, the court with a smile after the settlement moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, saying she’ll head back home Saturday. was announced. thanked Alsup for his devotion to the Arturo González of Morrison & Alsup then thanked the jury, telling them case.
    [Show full text]
  • Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan V. Diller Et
    EFiled: Jul 29 2019 05:08PM EDT Transaction ID 63637764 Case No. 2019-0571-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN, directly on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of EXPEDIA GROUP INC. and derivatively on behalf of EXPEDIA GROUP INC., Plaintiff, C.A. No. 2019-0571-JTL v. BARRY DILLER, SUSAN ATHEY, A. Public Redaction Version GEORGE BATTLE, COURTNEE Filed July 29, 2019 CHUN, CHELSEA CLINTON, PAMELA COE, JONATHAN DOLGEN, ALEX VON FÜRSTENBERG, CRAIG JACOBSON, VICTOR KAUFMAN, PETER KERN, DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, MARK OKERSTROM, CHRISTOPHER SHEAN, and THE DILLER FOUNDATION D/B/A THE DILLER – VON FURSTENBERG FOUNDATION, Defendants, -and- EXPEDIA GROUP INC. Nominal Defendant. VERIFIED CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan (“Plaintiff”), directly on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated holders of Expedia Group Inc. (“Expedia” or the “Company”) common stock and derivatively on behalf of the Company, brings the following Verified Class Action And Derivative Complaint (the “Complaint”) against the defendants named herein for breaches of fiduciary duty in their capacities as officers, directors, and/or controlling stockholders of Expedia and unjust enrichment. The allegations of the Complaint are based on the knowledge of Plaintiff as to itself, and on information and belief, including the investigation of counsel, the review of publicly available information, as to all other matters. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This entire fairness action arises out of Barry Diller’s latest attempt to pass his outsized voting influence over a publicly traded Delaware corporation to his unqualified stepson, Alexander von Furstenberg (“AVF”).
    [Show full text]
  • Uber Technologies, Inc. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter) ______
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ____________________________________________ FORM 8-K ____________________________________________ CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 November 9, 2020 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) ____________________________________________ Uber Technologies, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) ____________________________________________ Delaware 001-38902 45-2647441 (State or other jurisdiction of (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) incorporation) 1455 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94103 (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code) (415) 612-8582 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations of the registrant under any of the following provisions: x Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.00001 per share UBER New York Stock Exchange Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).
    [Show full text]
  • US Looking Into Whether Uber Bribed Foreign Officials 30 August 2017
    US looking into whether Uber bribed foreign officials 30 August 2017 appeared to confirm the choice in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. "As you probably know by now, Dara Khosrowshahi has been asked to lead Uber," read a copy of a memo from Expedia board chairman Barry Diller to Expedia employees included in an SEC filing. "Nothing has been yet finalized, but having extensively discussed this with Dara, I believe it is his intention to accept." Uber and Expedia did not respond to AFP requests for comment regarding the CEO choice. San Francisco-based Uber said it was cooperating with Whoever takes charge at Uber will face challenges an investigation into possible violations of the Foreign including conflicts with regulators and taxi Corrupt Practices Act operators, a cut-throat company culture and board members feuding with investors over Kalanick. The US government earlier this year was reported The US Justice Department is investigating to have launched an investigation into Uber for the whether Uber broke American laws against bribing use of secret software that enabled the company to foreign officials to promote business interests, the operate in areas where it was banned or restricted. company confirmed Tuesday. A software program, called Greyball, first revealed San Francisco-based Uber said it was cooperating by The New York Times in March, enabled drivers with an investigation into possible violations of the to avoid detection from the transportation Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but did not disclose authorities by identifying regulators posing as Uber details. customers in order to deny them rides.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Control: the Truth and Proof About Gig Companies As Employers
    FACT SHEET | OCTOBER 2020 Remote Control: The Truth and Proof About Gig Companies as Employers Gig companies sell themselves to the public, to policymakers, and to their own workers as mere facilitators of business relationships between users of their services and independent businesspeople offering services. The facts are otherwise. The companies exert, via algorithm and via their contracts with workers, control over the important details of work. These controls mean that their workers are forbidden from operating as an independent business would: They cannot build a client base, often know little about the details of a job before they accept it, and cannot set prices so that they have an opportunity to profit. This table compares what the companies say with their actual practices. App-based companies THE TRUTH IS: THE PROOF IS: argue: Workers are surveilled, their every move tracked by GPS.2 Through the use of GPS, Uber and Lyft monitor excessive speed, whether each individual Labor platforms use instance of braking or acceleration is sufficiently technology to exert control smooth, and how often drivers are moving their over workers in order to phones around. This data is collected, analyzed, and deliver that service. retained by the apps. Technology even monitors whether or not drivers are “feeling tired” and need “to recharge,” or whether they have taken an “inefficient route.”3 Uber and Lyft direct drivers in how to handle passenger pick-ups, including how long to wait, and We exert no control how and when to communicate with passengers over workers.1 regarding pick-ups and drop-offs.4 Uber and Lyft control which models of vehicles Platforms exert strong control drivers may or may not use while working for the over how the work is done.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIPADVISOR, INC. (Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 14A (Rule 14a-101) Information Required in Proxy Statement Schedule 14A Information Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Filed by the Registrant þ Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨ Check the appropriate box: ¨ PreliminaryProxy Statement ¨ Confidential,for Use of the Commission Only ¨ DefinitiveProxy Statement (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) þ DefinitiveAdditional Materials ¨ SolicitingMaterial Under Rule 14a-12 TRIPADVISOR, INC. (Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box): þ No fee required. ¨ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11. (1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: (2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: (3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): (4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: (5) Total fee paid: ¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. ¨ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. (1) Amount Previously Paid: (2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: (3) Filing Party: (4) Date Filed: *** Exercise Your Right to Vote *** Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting to Be Held on June 26, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIPADVISOR, INC. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED): June 26, 2012 TRIPADVISOR, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 001-35362 80-0743202 (State or other jurisdiction (Commission (I.R.S. Employer of incorporation) File Number) Identification No.) 141 Needham Street Newton, MA 02464 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code) (617) 670-6300 Registrant’s telephone number, including area code Not Applicable (Former name or former address if changed since last report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: ¨ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ¨ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Item 5.07. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders. The TripAdvisor, Inc. (the “Company”) annual meeting of stockholders was held on June 26, 2012 (the “Annual Meeting”). According to the inspector of elections, stockholders present in person or by proxy voted on each proposal presented as follows: Proposal 1—Election of directors. The stockholders elected ten directors of the Company, seven of whom were elected by holders of common stock and Class B common stock voting together as a single class (“Combined Stock Nominees”), and three of whom were elected by holders of common stock only (“Common Stock Nominees”), and, each to serve for a one-year term from the date of his or her election and until such director’s successor is elected or until such director’s earlier resignation or removal.
    [Show full text]