12 unchanged sentences
2800 (the “U.S.
−Removed: Consumer MDL Litigation”), and the investigations of the FTC, the CFPB, the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (the "MSAG Group") and the NYDFS (collectively, the “Consumer Settlement”).
+Added: Consumer MDL Litigation”), and the investigations of the FTC, the CFPB, the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the NYDFS (collectively, the “Consumer Settlement”).
Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund (the “Consumer Restitution Fund”) to provide restitution for U.S.
14 unchanged sentences
Consumer MDL Litigation on acceptable terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
−Removed: Other Settlements.
−Removed: Financial Institutions MDL Class Action.
−Removed: On May 15, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated financial institutions class action cases pending before the MDL Court (the “Financial Institutions MDL Litigation”).
−Removed: Under the settlement, the Company agreed to pay for valid claims submitted by class members up to a maximum amount, reasonable settlement administration and notice costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.
−Removed: The Company also agreed to adopt and/or maintain certain business practices related to its information security program.
−Removed: The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 22, 2020.
−Removed: Pennsylvania State Court Financial Institution Class Action.
−Removed: The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the individual claims brought by one of the original named plaintiffs in the Financial Institutions MDL Litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and a class of financial institutions headquartered in Pennsylvania.
−Removed: The claims asserted in this matter were substantially similar to claims asserted by financial institutions that previously were dismissed in the MDL proceeding for lack of standing.
−Removed: The court granted approval of the settlement on July 13, 2020.
Other Matters.
23 unchanged sentences
We continue to respond to the information requirements and are cooperating with the investigation.
−Removed: The New York State Attorney General Investor Protection Bureau (“IPB”) issued a subpoena in September 2017 relating to its investigation of whether there has been a violation of the Martin Act.
−Removed: We have cooperated with the IPB in its investigation, and the IPB has not contacted us regarding the investigation since January 2019.
Although we continue to cooperate in the above investigations and inquiries, an adverse outcome to any such investigations and inquiries could subject us to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business or our results of operations.
−Removed: California Bankruptcy Litigation
−Removed: In consolidated actions filed in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Terri N.
−Removed: White, et al.
−Removed: Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v.
−Removed: Equifax Information Services LLC, Kathryn L.
−Removed: Equifax Information Services LLC, and Jose L.
−Removed: Acosta, Jr., et al.
−Removed: Trans Union LLC, et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge.
−Removed: On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files.
−Removed: That settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs’ claims for damages.
−Removed: On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims.
−Removed: The District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs’ counsel fee award.
−Removed: Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February
−Removed: 15, 2011 and the deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.
−Removed: On July 15, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement.
−Removed: Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S.
−Removed: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order vacating the settlement and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
−Removed: On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel for the settling plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel.
−Removed: On March 28, 2016, the U.S.
−Removed: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s lead counsel appointment.
−Removed: On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the objectors’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
−Removed: The parties re-engaged in settlement discussions, including participation in mediations in August 2016 and November 2016, and reached an agreement to again settle the monetary claims.
−Removed: Settlement documents were filed with the District Court on April 14, 2017.
−Removed: On June 16, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, conditionally certified the settlement class, and appointed class counsel and administrator.
−Removed: A Final Fairness Hearing was held on December 11, 2017 and on April 6, 2018, the Court granted final approval.
−Removed: A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 7, 2018.
−Removed: Following the Notice of Appeal, the parties reached a Stipulation Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs with the District Court subject to affirmance of the settlement with the U.S.
−Removed: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
−Removed: On December 12, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the settlement and remanded to the District Court for recalculation of the attorneys’ fee award to class counsel.
−Removed: On January 10, 2020, the objecting plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc which was denied.
−Removed: On March 16, 2020, the objecting plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied.
−Removed: On July 17, 2020, the district court signed an order granting the final award of attorneys’ fees and setting forth deadlines for payment of the settlement costs and the distribution of the non-monetary award.
−Removed: Equifax has now paid all settlement costs and is in the process of distributing the non-monetary award to consumers.
Equifax has been named as a defendant in various other legal actions, including administrative claims, regulatory matters, government investigations, class actions and other litigation arising in connection with our business.
4 unchanged sentences
For information regarding our accounting for legal contingencies, see Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-Q.
−Removed: There have been no material changes with respect to the risk factors disclosed in our 2019 Form 10-K and our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020.
+Added: There have been no material changes with respect to the risk factors disclosed in our 2020 Form 10-K.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.