Source: http://audetlaw.com/our-experience/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:01:06+00:00

Document:
In recognition of their commitment to the legal profession and outstanding results for their clients, the firm and its attorneys have been appointed to leadership positions in dozens of class action cases and serve as court-appointed plaintiffs’ counsel in federal and state litigation nationwide. The firm utilizes cutting edge technology to better serve its clients and the courts in each and every case it files.
Please visit our Current Investigations to view some of our current case investigations. To download a copy of our firm’s resume click here.
Galanti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, No. 03-209, United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Audet & Partners, LLP partners William M. Audet and Michael McShane served as Court-appointed Class Counsel with pending $300 million settlement involving a defective radiant heating system.
In re Certainteed Corp. Roofing Shingles Products Liability Litigation,MDL No. 1817, pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as Court appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in a nationwide class action involving claims of a defective roofing product.
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Litigation, MDL 08-MDL-1958, United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as class counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in a nationwide class action involving claims of a defective plumbing product installed in thousands of residences throughout the United States.
In re Menu/Pet Food Recall Litigation, MDL No. 1850. Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet was appointed on of the Co-Lead Class counsel in a case involving recalled pet food. The groundbreaking case resulted in a significant monetary settlement, along with court supervised remedial action to prevent similar recalls of potentially poisoned pet products in the future. Over 100 class action cases were filed and consolidated in New Jersey federal court.
In re Thomas Train Parts Recall, Case No. MSC99 00499. William M. Audet was appointed lead counsel in a case involving recall of a well known toy product and was directly involved in the negotiations and class-wide resolution that provided for full refunds for class members, as well as other relief.
In re Planet Toys Recall, case no. 08-CV-0592(HB) (SDNY). William M. Audet was appointed lead counsel in a case involving recall of certain of defendants’ toy products. Despite the fact that the company declared bankruptcy, lead counsel William M. Audet and his co-counsel were able to obtain relief and compensation for class members.
In re Kitec Plumbing Litigation, pending in numerous District Courts throughout the United States. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as court-appointed lead counsel in a nationwide class action prosecuting claims relating to defective plumbing products.
In re Uponor Plumbing Litigation, pending in numerous District Courts. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane acts as class counsel in a nationwide class action alleging claims relating to a defective plumbing product.
In re Chinese Drywall Litigation, MDL 2047. Nationwide class action pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana involving claims relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane represents putative class of plaintiffs seeking to recover damages as a result of the installation of the drywall in their homes.
Ross, et al., v. Trex Company, Inc. Case No. 09-670, United States District Court, Northern District of California. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as class counsel in a nationwide class action involving claims of defective composite decking sold by the defendant.
Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, San Francisco County Superior Court, California, No. 995787, and Chambers, et al., v. Weyerhaeuser, King County Superior Court, Washington, No. 98‑2‑21084‑2 KNT. Audet & Partners, LLP’s attorneys served as one of three counsel in a class action involving allegations of defective siding manufactured by Weyerhaeuser.
Roy v. Cemwood Corporation, Contra Costa County Superior Court, California, No.: MSC99‑00499. William M. Audet and Audet & Partners, LLP firm attorneys served as one of four co-lead counsel in a national class action involving allegations of defective roofing products.
In re Stucco Litigation (Ruff v. Parex) County of New Hanover, North Carolina, No. 96-CVS-0059. William M. Audet, serves on the court-appointed Plaintiffs Steering Committee. The case was filed on behalf of homeowners who had defective synthetic stucco installed in their homes.
Stuart Hanlon, et al., v. Chrysler Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-95-2010 CAL. Attorneys from Audet & Partners, LLP worked on a case seeking correction of defective rear hatch door lock failures in nominal impacts for 3,300,000 owners of Chrysler minivans.
In re Google, Inc., Android Consumer Privacy Litigation – MDL No. 2264, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. William M. Audet was appointed as one of two co-lead counsel in a case involving claims of privacy violation relating to Google’s Android Operating System and its method of collecting data from users.
In re iPhone Application Litigation – MDL No. 2250, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The firm serves as court appointed class liaison counsel for the class of consumers involved with Apple’s use of information from its Apple OS line of iPhones and iPads.
In re Zynga Litigation(Sigala v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-505324) – The firm served as class counsel for the California class action against a video game company that allegedly distributed private and confidential information to third parties.
California IOU Litigation – (Baird v. Chiang, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2010-00081797) – The firm has filed a class action for monetary and other damages arising out of the State of California’s illegal issuance of “IOU’s” to small businesses.
Russell, et al. v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al. – No. C 07 3993 CW, United States District Court, Northern District of California. Audet & Partners, LLP serves as co-class counsel in a class action case representing thousands of former and current employees of Wells Fargo for overtime. The case settled after 3 years of litigation with millions of dollars paid to the class.
Johns v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC– MDL No. 2558, pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. The firm filed one of a number of class actions cases that lead to an MDL proceeding involving invasion of privacy by Sony for its users of Sony PlayStation product line.
Confidential Plaintiffs v. Finish Line Case No. CV113874, United States District Court, Northern District of California. The firm represents individual plaintiffs with claims for invasion of privacy against Finish Line.
Whistleblower Case The firm represented an executive who was fired after reporting financial irregularities. Confidential settlement reached after trial set.
Confidential Misclassification Case The firm filed claims for misclassification of employees as “managers.” Confidential settlement reached after one year of litigation.
Allen Loretz v. Regal Stone, Ltd. C 07-5800 SC and John Tarantino v. Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., CGC 07 469379 (In re Cosco Busan Oil Spill Litigation). The firm filed class and individual claims and represented various individuals, corporations and small business groups, including seafood processors, crab and herring fisheries, marinas, and captains/crews of commercial and recreational vessels. Mr. Audet was appointed Co-Lead Counsel in the State and Federal litigation. The firm was responsible for seizure of Cosco Busan, voiding waivers obtained by the Defendants and obtaining other significant orders that benefitted plaintiffs. Co-counsel in state case brought under the Lampert-Keene Act.
In Zyprexa Litigation, MDL 1596, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The firm represented over 300 clients who allegedly developed diabetes after ingesting Zyprexa. Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet was appointed a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee and continues to assist in completing the MDL.
In Baycol Litigation, MDL 1431, United States District Court, Minnesota. William M. Audet serves as Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee relating to the defective drug Baycol.
In re Metabolife Litigation, JCCP 4360 (San Diego County, California). William M. Audet served as a member of the California State Steering Committee in personal injury cases arising out of injuries suffered due to Metabolife products.
In re Vioxx Litigation, New Jersey State Court and California State Court. The firm filed in excess of 100 cases against Defendants Merck & Company arising out of injuries associated with the defective drug Vioxx. The firm’s cases were scheduled for trial. The cases have been settled for an amount in excess of $4 billion.
In re Bextra Litigation, MDL No. 1699, United States District Court, Northern District of California. Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet serves as a Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee. The firm represented in excess of 100 injured clients.
In re Intergel Litigation, Florida State Court. The firm filed dozen of cases on behalf of women injured using a Johnson & Johnson product called Intergel. The firm has recovered millions of dollars for their clients in confidential settlements with the company.
In re Defective Ancure Products Liability Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California and Santa Clara County Superior Court. The firm represents dozens of individuals who were implanted with a defective device.
Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), et al., v. Philip Morris, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. C 99‑02621 MHP. The firm represented Native American Tribes challenging the $200 billion plus state tobacco agreement on the grounds that it violated their civil rights. The case was argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Fen-Phen Product Liability Litigation, MDL 1203, California State Court. The firm filed a medical monitoring and punitive damage claim on behalf of California residents.
In re Baxter Heparin Litigation, Wisconsin and Illinois State Courts (consolidated with MDL 1953). The firm represents a number of injured victims and their families arising out of contaminated heparin blood transfusion products imported from other countries. The firm has filed cases in Illinois and Wisconsin State Court. Audet & Partners, LLP partner/founder William M. Audet serves as court appointed liaison counsel in the Wisconsin cases. The firm continues to evaluate and file cases for seriously injured clients.
In re Pfizer Chantix Litigation, MDL No. 2092. Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet serves as a Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee. The firm represents dozens of families who were not properly and fully warned about the safety issues associated with use of Chantix. The firm has filed, with co-counsel, cases in state and federal court and continues to meet with potential clients who have claims against the defendants for failure to warn.
In re Glaxo Avandia Litigation. The firm represents dozens of families whose loved ones suffered heart attacks and other injuries relating to use of Avandia. The firm was one of the first plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to uncover the case and file cases against the manufacturer of Avandia. The firm continues to meet with potential clients about their claims. William Audet heads up the firm team in reviewing potential cases and assisting in the prosecution of cases against the defendants.
PG&E “San Bruno Fire” Cases. JCCP No. 4648, (San Mateo County, California) Audet & Partners filed the first class action case seeking damages arising from the San Bruno/ PG&E explosion.
In re Tainted Similac Baby Formula (Kury v. Abbott Laboratories, United States District Court, New Jersey) The firm filed a number of class action cases against Abbott and also represents a number of individuals with personal injury claims arising from tainted baby formula.
In re Raptiva Litigation (Hedrick v. Genentech, California State Court (Alameda County) Case No. RG 09-446158) The firm represents dozens of individuals who have alleged been injured after using Genentech’s now-recalled psoriasis medication.
DaVinci Robotic Surgery The firm has been retained to assist dozens of clients with potential injuries arising out of alleged defects associated with DaVinci robotic surgery. The firm has filed complaints and continues to meet with potential claimants to seek judicial recourse for the various injuries associated with the surgery.
GranuFlo The firm has been retained to assist dozens of clients with potential injuries arising out of inappropriate prescription of the now-recalled Fresenius Medical Care North America Naturalyte Liquid Acid Concentrate and Naturalyte GranuFlo (powder) Acid Concentrate. The firm has filed complaints and continues to meet with potential claimants to seek judicial recourse for the various injuries associated with the drug.
Transvaginal Mesh (TVM) The firm represents hundreds of individuals who have been injured as a result of implantation of “mesh” products. The firm is pursuing claims against AMS, Bard and other manufacturers and are is directly involved in the prosecution of the cases in state and federal courts, including the MDL.
Apple iPhone 4 Cases JCCP 4639 (Santa Clara County, California) William M. Audet was appointed Liaison Counsel in a case involving claims that the “iPhone 4” is allegedly defective.
iTunes Litigation(Johnson v. Apple, Inc. California State Court; Santa Clara County Case No. 1-09-CV-146501) The firm served as lead class counsel in a nationwide class action against Apple, Inc. for allegedly overcharging consumers who purchased “99¢” iTunes gift cards.
AAA Battery Overcharge(Davis-Miller v. Automobile Club of Southern California; California State Court, Los Angeles County Case No. BC 398608) The firm filed a class action on behalf of consumers who purchased automobile batteries allegedly sold to replace batteries that did not require replacement.
Google Adwords Litigation (CLRB Hanson Industries , LLC, et al v. Google, Inc., Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 105CV046409). Serving as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel, the firm represents advertisers on Google’s web pages who claim to have been overcharged for advertising through a complicated monthly charge program.
Smith v. Hewlett‑Packard, Santa Clara County Superior Court, CV 776794. The firm serves as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel. Contrary to HP’s representations, the recorders could only consistently and reliably record less user data than the industry standard. When attempting to record more, error messages appeared, previously recorded data was lost and the CD became useless.
In Re Whirlpool Litigation, class action litigated in nine states including California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Tennessee. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane served as Court appointed co-lead counsel in a multi-state class action involving claims of breach of warranty and product defect against both Whirlpool Corporation and Sears & Roebuck, Inc.
Palm Treo Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane served as class counsel in a nationwide class action involving claims of product defect against Palm, Inc.
Roberts v. Bausch & Lomb, United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama,No. CV-94-C-1144-W. William M. Audet, the firm’s principal partner, served on the Plaintiffs’ Committee in this nationwide consumer class action. A settlement against Bausch & Lomb was approved by the court on August 1, 1996. Under the settlement, Bausch & Lomb agreed to $68 million in cash and products to 1.5 million buyers of the Company’s disposable contact lenses.
Hilla v. TCI Cablevision, Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. CV-769105. The firm represented California residents involving illegal overcharges by the cable company for late fees.
Plotkin v. General Electric, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Action No. C-92-4447. The firm filed a class action against General Electric for defrauding the American public in the sale of Energy Choice Light Bulbs, which were claimed to be energy efficient, required less electricity and would preserve the environment. General Electric subsequently settled this national class action.
Afanador v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV-767677. Attorneys from Audet & Partners, LLP, along with other Plaintiffs’ counsel, successfully represent consumers in claims against H&R Block arising out of its Rapid Refund program.
Sears Automotive Center Consumer Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-92-2227. The firm filed a class action on behalf of consumers defrauded by Sears’ Auto Centers. The case was successfully concluded in August 1992. William M. Audet was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.
Chamberlain v. Flashcom, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 00 CC 04212. In this class action, William M. Audet, along with other counsel, successfully secured a remedy against Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business conduct.
Providian Credit Card Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, JCCP No. 4085. The Providian Defendants purported to facilitate the issuance of credit cards to people with damaged credit histories. The case settled for in excess of $10 million. William M. Audet served as Class Counsel.
In re Kia Litigation, Orange County Superior Court. William M. Audet served as class counsel in a number of jurisdictions in a case involving claims by Kia regarding its automotive products. The case was settled with a significant monetary and non-monetary recovery for the class.
In re Unum Provident Litigation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, MDL No. 1552. Audet & Partners, LLP firm partnersWilliam M. Audet and Michael McShane serve asCourt-appointed Lead Counsel in a pending class action on behalf of Plaintiffs alleging the wrongful denial of benefits under long-term disability policies.
In re Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana., MDL Nos. 1371, 1382, 1390, 1391, and 1395. William M. Audet served on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. The class cases involve claims that insurance companies overcharge African-Americans for life and health insurance.
In re Life of Georgia Insurance Litigation, Thirteenth Judicial District, Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee. Reached nationwide class settlement in 2002 on behalf of class of insureds discriminated against in the issuance of life insurance. William M. Audet served as Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel.
Thorn v. Jefferson Pilot Insurance Co., United States District Court, South Carolina. Nationwide class on behalf of purchasers of life insurance. Michael McShane of the firm represents the proposed Plaintiffs class alleging racial discrimination in the issuance of life insurance policies.
In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456. Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet and Michael McShane of the firm serve as Court appointed members of the Executive Committee representing Plaintiffs in a nationwide class action allegedly the manipulation of pricing for prescription drugs.
In re Tenet Healthcare Litigation, Los Angeles County, Superior Court, California. Numerous actions coordinated in 2002 by the Judicial Council. Partners William M. Audet and Michael McShane served among three Court appointed Lead Counsel on behalf of nationwide class of individuals who were allegedly overcharged directly, or through their health insurance for medical services, products and medication.
Lawson, et al., v. Liberty Life, Birmingham, Alabama, No. 96-1119. William M. Audet of the firm, along with four other Plaintiffs’ Counsel, represents a proposed class of life insurance policyholders of Liberty Life Corporation who were subjected to unlawful life insurance policy “churning” by Liberty Life.
In re PRK/Lasik, Laser Surgery Overcharges Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV772894. Audet & Partners LLP attorneys served as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel in a nationwide class action case alleging antitrust violations again Visx, Inc. and Summit, Inc.
Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 1200 (and related cases). Mr. Audet of the firm serves as one of five Court-appointed Discovery Committee members and as Plaintiffs’ Counsel in a national class action antitrust case pending against the manufacturers of flat glass.
Toys “R” Us Antitrust Litigation, United States District, Northern District of California, No. C-97-3931-TEM. The firm filed a national class action antitrust complaint on behalf of toy consumers.
Los Angeles Milk Antitrust Litigation, Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, No. BC 070661. William M. Audet and other members of the firm, along with other Plaintiffs’ Counsel, represents consumers in claims arising out of claims of antitrust violations against Los Angeles supermarkets due to alleged price fixing of milk.
California Indirect Purchaser Auction House Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, No. 310313. In this case against Christie’s, Sotheby’s and others, Defendants are charged with conspiring to fix commissions for the sale at auction of art and other items in California.
Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 2969. The firm members worked on a case for independent pharmacies pursuing claims against major drug manufacturers for violation of California’s price fixing statutes.
In re Vitamin Antitrust Litigation, California, North Carolina, Tennessee and Maine. William M. Audet serves as lead counsel in three states and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in one state (California) in class claims involving alleged price fixing by the manufacturers of vitamin products.
In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1311. William M. Audet serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of price fixing in the Methionine industry.
In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 1310. The firm serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of antitrust violations in the Bromine industry.
In re Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation, C.D. Cal., C 99‑11475 RJK. Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of carbon fibers were sued by makers of airplanes, spacecraft parts, industrial and sporting equipment for conspiring to maintain an artificially inflated price for their product. The firm members served as one of Plaintiffs’ counsel.
In re: Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, S.D.Fla. MDL 1317. In this lawsuit Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to create a monopoly and fix prices of this widely used prescription drug as well as preventing the sale of any generic bioequivalent to Hytrin. The firm members served as one of Plaintiffs’ counsel.
In re Dram Antitrust, MDL 1486, Northern District of California. William M. Audet of the firm serves as class counsel in a class action case to recover money for class members due to antitrust activity in the DRAM industry.
In re Copper Tubings Litigation, United States District Court, District of Tennessee. William M. Audet of the firm was appointed as Co-lead Class Counsel in a case involving an alleged worldwide conspiracy to overcharge customers in the copper tubing industry.
In re CNET Derivative Litigation, William M. Audet and Michael McShane of the firm filed a case against the corporate Defendants for insider trading and backdating of options. The case was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, California.
Adaptec Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV 772590. The firm serves as Liaison Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of Adaptec, Inc.
In re Genesis Securities Litigation, Northern District Court of California. William M. Audet serves as class counsel on a case filed against Genesis. After the case was dismissed by the District Court, the firm filed an appeal and ultimately settled the case for $1.5 million.
Informix Derivative Securities Litigation, San Mateo Superior Court, California, Case No. 402254. The firm served as one of the Plaintiffs’ Derivative Counsel in a shareholder lawsuit alleging derivative claims on behalf of Informix.
Solv-Ex Securities Litigation, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, New Mexico, No. CV-96-09869. The firm serves as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in a suit alleging securities fraud against Solv-Ex Corporation and other insider defendants.
Imp, Inc., Securities Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV762109. The firm represents shareholders of Imp, Inc. in an action against certain insiders of Imp, Inc., for alleged insider trading of the Company’s stock.
CBT Group Derivative Litigation, San Mateo County Superior Court, California, No. 406767. The Firm’s founder, William M. Audet served as one of two plaintiffs’ counsel representing shareholders of CBT Group, PLC, in a derivative action against officers and directors of the Company.
Oakley Technology Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV75829. Firm members served as one of three Co-lead Counsel in a derivative securities case brought on behalf of shareholders of Oakley Technology, Inc., brought against certain Officers and Directors of the Company.
Horizon Securities Litigation, United States District Court for New Mexico, No. 96-0442 BB/LCS. William M. Audet of the firm serves as one of the Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in a securities case filed against New Mexico-based Horizon Corporation for alleged violation of federal securities laws.
Bay Networks Securities Litigation (Garnier v. Bay Networks, CV764357; Greeneway v. Bay Networks, CV765564), Santa Clara County Superior Court, California. Attorneys from Audet & Partners, LLP served as one of four plaintiffs’ counsel representing shareholders of Bay Networks for alleged securities violations.
Unison Healthcare Corporation Litigation, United States District Court of Arizona, Case No. Civ. 97-0583-PHX. The firm members served as one of the Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel representing investors in Unison Healthcare.
S3 Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV770254. The firm members served as one of the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of S-3, Inc.
In re Networks Associates Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Consolidated Case No. CV‑781854. In this case, shareholders sued officers and directors of this leading manufacturer of anti‑virus and protocol analyzer software who sold over 800,000 shares of their personal stock for more than $33 million by misleading the public regarding its value. William M. Audet of the firm served as Liaison Counsel.
In re Oak Technology Derivative Action, Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. CV758629. Shareholders sued directors and officers to recover more than $100 million Defendants made by artificially inflating the company’s stock, representing that exceptional demand for the company’s products existed. In fact, the company’s shipments of CD-ROM controllers far exceeded what the market could absorb. Three related derivative cases were filed and subsequently consolidated. William M. Audet of the firm serves as Lead Counsel in this lawsuit.
In re Sybase Derivative Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. C‑98‑0252‑CAL. Attorneys from Audet & Partners, LLP served as Plaintiffs’ Counsel in this stockholder’s derivative action brought on behalf of Sybase against certain of the Company’s present and former officers and/or directors for insider trading.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.