Cases

15‐2229 In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and ERISA Litig. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: January 14, 2016 Decided: March 18, 2016) Docket No. 15‐2229 ____________

SELYA, Circuit Judge. The state of Rhode Island seeks interlocutory review of a decision by the Environmental Appeals Board (the EAB) denying its motion to intervene in a pollution-discharge permit proceeding. The case presents a threshold question about the availability of judicial review with respect to such interlocutory administrative determinations. We hold, as a matter of firs

658 F.Supp.2d 1188 (2009) ADOBE LUMBER, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. F. Warren HELLMAN and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustees of Trust A created by the Estate of Marco Hellman; F. Warren Hellman as Trustee of Trust B created by the Estate of Marco Hellman; The Estate of Marco Hellman, Deceased; Woodland Shopping Center, a limited partnership; Joseph Montalvo, an individual; Harold Taecker, an individual; Geraldine Taecker, an in

418 F.3d 277 In re: COMMUNITY BANK OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA and Guaranty National Bank of Tallahassee Second Mortgage Loan Litigation.Stephanie Spann; Leonila T. Nini; Eufronio Nini; John Hardt; Robbin Verbeck; Stephanie Hafford; Charles B. Poindexter; Maureen F. Poindexter; David B. Walker; Shundra R. Walker; Jessie Dodd; James Beckius; Linda Whitehead; Lynell B. Wingfield; Jario Ivan Sarrie; Beatriz Sarrie; Michelle K. Morgan; Sharon Finnerty; Do

OPINION OF THE COURT SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. Table of Contents I. Facts and Procedural History A. The Alleged Illegal Lending Scheme B. The Separate Class Actions C. Consolidation of the Class Actions D. The Opt-Out Solicitations <

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-1894L Filed: May 2, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ELIZABETH ORR, et al., * * * Plaintiffs, * * v.

Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Tx~ 78711 C.M.R.R.R.# 7014 2870 0001 6610' 6407 .:JJ.:in~ 28, 2015 Re: Relators Leave of Court to iile Mandamus Petition. for Writ of Mandamus TEX~ R. APP. p. 9 .J (b}(l) Trial Co~rt Nd'~ 5591;5593 and 5617 1A'Judicial District Cqurti~N~wtbn County Texas RECEIVED IN . COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Style

746 F.Supp.2d 692 (2010) ASHLEY II OF CHARLESTON, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PCS NITROGEN, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Ross Development Corporation; J. Holcombe Enterprises, L.P.; James H. Holcombe; J. Henry Fair, Jr.; Allwaste Tank Cleaning, Inc. n/k/a PSC Container Services, LLC; Robin Hood Container Express, Inc.; City of Charleston, South Carolina, Third-Party Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-2782-MBS.<

*992TABLE OF CONTENTS ORDER PAGE Order on Motion for Reconsideration (1/9/13) 993 Order on Motion for Referral to Settlement Judge (2/1/13) 994 Order on Suquamish Motion for Reconsideration (2/5/13) 994 Order on Lummi Motion for Reconsideration (2/15/13) ' 996 Memorandum a

791 F.Supp.2d 431 (2011) ASHLEY II OF CHARLESTON, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PCS NITROGEN, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Ross Development Corporation; J. Holcombe Enterprises, L.P.; James H. Holcombe; J. Henry Fair, Jr.; Allwaste Tank Cleaning, Inc. n/k/a PSC Container Services, LLC; Robin Hood Container Express, Inc.; City of Charleston, South Carolina, Third-Party Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-2782-MBS.<

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) ■ the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation and Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes, filed July 23, 2012 (Doc. 391)(“Motion for Final Approval”); and (ii) Co-Lead Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Memo

ACCEPTED 15-25-00028-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/27/2025 4:56 PM NO. 15-25-00028-CV-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

PER CURIAM: This case returns to the Court for the second time since 2013. After the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“Lehman”), Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit on behalf of a putative class, of former participants in an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) invested exclusively in Lehman’s common stock. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants-Appellees (“Plan Committee Defendants”