Disney (Walt) Company / ABC | Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Disney (Walt) Company / ABC</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2025 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Climate Change </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>GHG Reduction and Targets </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>WHEREAS: </strong>Greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting warming are causing significant, deleterious consequences for the global economy. Prior studies estimate that unmitigated climate change will cut the world economy by $23 trillion by 2050; a recent study indicates that the long-term costs may be six times higher than previously estimated.[1],[2]   </p>
<p>These effects will have a significant impact on workers saving for retirement. Retirement plan beneficiaries have long investment horizons, and “[t]he longer term the investment horizon, the more likely it is that climate will not only be a material risk, but the most material risk.”[3] Climate portfolio risk to retirement plans will be difficult to mitigate. An International Finance Corporation report concludes that “the traditional way of managing risk through a shift in asset allocation into increased holdings of more conservative, lower risk, lower return, asset classes may do little to offset climate risks.”[4]</p>
<p>While our Company has taken actions to address its operational greenhouse gas emissions,[5] it has not acted to meaningfully address the emissions generated by its retirement plan investments. The plan’s most popular option by assets invested is the BlackRock LifePath series. The funds in this series account for 31% of plan assets. These funds invest heavily in high-carbon companies and companies contributing to deforestation.[6]</p>
<p>High-carbon and deforestation-risk retirement plan investments are especially perverse when viewed from the perspective of younger workers with longer term investment time horizons.[7]Such investments fuel the climate crisis and lock in future temperature increases, making worst case economic scenarios more likely. The retirement savings of younger workers will therefore suffer relatively higher impact from climate related declines in global GDP than older workers’ retirement savings. Many of the anticipated financial costs of climate change are likely already being experienced by Disney employees. A recent report found that 401(k) participants at 12 major companies could have earned an estimated $5.1 billion in additional returns had their plans not been invested in fossil fuels over the past ten years.[8]</p>
<p>The Company’s high carbon retirement plan may also contribute to difficulty in worker recruitment and retention, as polling indicates employee demand for responsible retirement options.[9] </p>
<p>Federal law requires that retirement plan fiduciaries act in beneficiaries’ best interests and ensure prudence of the plan’s investments. Recent regulatory amendments have confirmed that managing material climate risk is an appropriate consideration for retirement plan fiduciaries.[10] The Company can best ensure that it is meeting its obligations to employees, especially younger employees, by appropriately mitigating climate risk in its retirement plan investments.</p>
<p><strong>BE IT RESOLVED:  </strong>Shareholders request Disney publish a report disclosing if and how the Company is protecting retirement plan beneficiaries, especially those with a longer investment time horizon, from increased future portfolio risk created by present-day investments in high-carbon companies.</p>
<p><br> </p>
<p>[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-change-economy.html </p>
<p>[2] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/sep/economic-cost-climate-change-could-be-six-times-higher-previously-thought </p>
<p>[3] https://www.plansponsor.com/in-depth/climate-change-benchmarking-risk-retirement-plans/ </p>
<p>[4] https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/mercer-asset-allocation-report.pdf, p.2</p>
<p>[5] https://impact.disney.com/environmental-sustainability/environmental-goals/</p>
<p>[6] https://investyourvalues.org/retirement-plans/disney</p>
<p>[7] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-20/how-to-purge-fossil-fuel-investments-from-your-401-k-or-ira#xj4y7vzkg </p>
<p>[8] https://www.asyousow.org/reports/the-impact-of-energy-sector-investments-on-the-financial-value-of-tech-401ks</p>
<p>[9] https://www.benefitnews.com/news/employees-want-retirement-plans-to-include-esg-investing </p>
<p>[10] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/01/2022-25783/prudence-and-loyalty-in-selecting-plan-investments-and-exercising-shareholder-rights </p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Grant Bradski</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>As You Sow</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

Resolution Details

Company:

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Year:

2024

Issue Area:

Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

AI / Artificial Intelligence

Status:

On Proxy

Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that The Walt Disney Company (the “Company”) prepare and publicly disclose on the Company’s website a transparency report that explains the Company’s use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in its business operations and the Board’s role in overseeing AI usage, and sets forth any ethical guidelines that the company has adopted regarding its use of AI. This report shall be prepared at a reasonable cost and omit information that is proprietary, privileged, or violative of contractual obligations.

Supporting Station

The use of AI by large corporations raises significant social policy concerns. These concerns include potential discrimination or bias in employment decisions, mass layoffs due to job automation, facility closures, the misuse and disclosure of private data, and the creation of “deep fake” media content that may result disseminate false information. These concerns pose a risk to the public and the Company’s reputation and financial position.

Transparency regarding the Company’s use of AI, and any ethical guidelines governing that use, will strengthen the Company. Transparency would address the public’s growing concerns and distrust about the indiscriminate use of AI, strengthening the Company’s position and reputation as a responsible, trustworthy, and sustainable leader in its industry. With a transparency report, the Company could establish that it uses AI in a safe, responsible, and ethical manner that complements the work of its employees and values the public.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has developed ethical guidelines to help guide the design, use, and deployment of AI. These five principles for an AI Bill of Rights are 1) safe and effective systems, 2) algorithmic discrimination protections, 3) data privacy, 4) notice and explanation, and 5) human alternatives, consideration, and fallback. (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Making Automated Systems Work for the American People,” October 2022, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights).

If the Company does not already have ethical guidelines for the use of AI, the adoption of ethical guidelines for the use of AI may improve the Company’s performance by avoiding costly labor disruptions and lawsuits related to the improper use of AI. The entertainment industry writer and performer strikes, sparked in part by AI concerns, and lawsuits related to the use of copyrighted works by AI engines have been prominent new stories throughout 2023 and may prove costly for companies that make use of AI.

We believe that issuing an AI transparency report is particularly important for companies such as ours in the entertainment industry that create artistic works that are the basis for our shared culture. In our view, AI systems should not be trained on copyrighted works, or the voices, likenesses and performances of professional performers, without transparency, consent and compensation to creators and rights holders. AI should also not be used to create literary material, to replace or supplant the creative work of professional writers.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote FOR this proposal.

Resolution Details

Company:

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Year:

2024

Issue Area:

Lobbying & Political Contributions

Focus Area:

Political Contributions

Status:

Filed

Resolution Text

WHEREAS: Public data collected by OpenSecrets.org show that The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) and its employee PAC rank in the top 1% of political donors.[1]

As long term shareholders of Disney, we support transparency and accountability in corporate electoral spending. Informed disclosure is in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. As the Supreme Court recognized in its 2010 Citizens United decision, such transparency “permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way” and “enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Greater political spending transparency is associated with increased investment levels, both domestic and foreign, and decreased investment volatility.[2] Increased institutional investment, increased analyst following, and decreased analyst forecast error and forecast dispersion are all positively correlated with greater transparency.[3]

Disney publicly discloses a policy on corporate political spending and its direct contributions to candidates, parties, and committees. However, greater transparency is warranted because Disney does not disclose information regarding misalignment between its political spending and the company’s publicly stated values and vision as articulated in its CSR Report and related ESG disclosures. Investors are unable to determine if Disney is directing its political expenditures in a way that is consistent with company values and interests and mitigates reputation risk.

To minimize values misalignment and reputation and brand risk, Disney should establish clear policies and reporting on such misalignment.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board annually publish a report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruence of Disney’s political and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against Disney’s publicly stated company values and policies. The report should state whether Disney has made, or plans to make, changes in contributions or communications as a result of identified incongruencies.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Proponents recommend, at management discretion, that Disney include in its analysis metrics that illuminate the degree to which political contributions align with stated values and policy priorities year over year, and present such metrics in the aggregate. Proponents further recommend that the report also contain management’s analysis of risks to our company’s brand, reputation, or shareholder value of political spending, including expenditures for electioneering communications, that conflict with publicly stated company values. “Expenditures for electioneering communications” means spending, from the corporate treasury and from its PACs, during the year, directly or through third parties, in printed, internet, or broadcast communications, which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as being in support of or in opposition to a specific candidate.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/walt-disney-co/summary?id=d000000128

[2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.014

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929119918301135

Resolution Details

Company:

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Environment

Focus Area:

Chemicals/Toxins

Status:

Withdrawn for Agreement

Resolution Text

Resolved: Shareholders of The Walt Disney Company (“Disney” or the “Company”) request that the board of directors report to shareholders, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, on the outcomes of the Company’s chemical reduction efforts by publishing quantitative and qualitative data on progress to eliminate the use of chemicals of concern.

Supporting Statement: Shareholders leave the specific disclosures to management’s discretion, but recommended considerations include:

Evaluation of vendor compliance with the Company’s chemical policies;
Measure of chemical footprint in private label and third-party products;
Set reduction goals, and track and disclose progress against a baseline; and
Disclosure of a Restricted Substances List.

Whereas: Chemicals have been important drivers of economic growth, but the cost of poor management and the long-term impacts of chemicals of concern can raise significant concerns for investors.

The costs associated with environmental chemical exposures worldwide likely exceeds 10 percent of global GDP or $11 trillion.[1] Childhood cancer is up 43% from 1975-2018, and exposure to toxic chemicals is linked in part to this rise.[2] Emerging issues, like the ubiquitous use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals” is creating financial harm for investors. Stockholders of PFAS producers lost $82 billion in value between January 2018 and September 2020, and the long-term costs to producers and throughout the value chain are still mostly unknown.[3] In response, regulations are on the rise. For example, 289 policies in 38 states setting new restrictions on the use of toxic chemicals in products.[4]

Disney states that its approach to chemicals management meets or exceeds existing regulation. It takes into “consideration how chemicals are used in Disney-branded products, current and reliable scientific information about chemicals, and the availability of safe and feasible alternatives” yet the company does not set goals or disclose progress against its strategy.[5]

Further, recent ingredient testing reports of Disney products are troubling. Concerning levels of PVC, phthalates, flame retardants and lead were reportedly detected in several Disney branded products raising potential harm to its reputation.[6]

Peers, in contrast, are disclosing active strategies which can improve product safety and reduce liability.

Hasbro, Dollar Tree, Target, and Walmart, participate in the annual Chemical Footprint Project Survey – a tool which benchmarks corporate reduction of the use of chemicals of high concern.[7] Walmart eliminated 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals as part of its chemical footprint reduction program.[8]
Hasbro has a publicly available restricted substance list and requires vendors and suppliers to provide bills of substances and toxicological assessments for materials in their products.[9]

Given the apparent impact of toxic chemicals on the economy, human health, and the environment, proponents believe Disney has a clear responsibility to investors and other stakeholders to measure and reduce its chemical footprint.

[1] https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12940-017-0340-3?site=ehjournal.biomedcentral.com

[2] https://publichealthwatch.org/2021/12/03/cancer-cases-in-kids-are-rising-some-experts-blame-toxic-chemicals/

[3] V. Zainzinger, “What difference does green investing make?”; Chemical &Engineering News, November 16, 2020

[4] https://www.saferstates.org/

[5] https://impact.disney.com/app/uploads/2022/01/Mangement-of-Chemicals-in-Consumer-Products.pdf

[6] https://comingcleaninc.org/assets/media/images/Reports/Five%20Below%202022%20Report.pdf

[7] https://www.chemicalfootprint.org/assets/downloads/ChemicalFootprintProject-2020-Report.pdf

[8] https://corporate.walmart.com/esgreport/esg-issues/safer-healthier-food-other-products

[9] https://static-asset-delivery.hasbroapps.com/d0050675881be23c4a8b966b079b45629d56fe52/40cad7b726077a1a83dda30cea0801be.pdf

Resolution Details

Company:

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Inclusiveness

Focus Area:

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

Status:

Withdrawn for Agreement

Resolution Text

Resolved: Shareholders request that The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) report to shareholders on the effectiveness of the Company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The report should be done at reasonable expense, exclude proprietary information, and provide transparency on outcomes using quantitative metrics for hiring, retention, and promotion of employees, including data by gender, race, and ethnicity.

Supporting Statement: Quantitative data is sought so that investors can assess, understand, and compare the effectiveness of companies’ diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Whereas: Disney relies heavily on its diverse staff, with 46% of its U.S. employees self-identifying as people of color and 50% of employees worldwide self-identifying as women.[1] However, Disney provides limited data that on the effectiveness of its diversity and inclusion programs.

Numerous studies have pointed to the benefits of a diverse workforce. Their findings include:

Companies with the strongest executive ethnic diversity were 33 percent more likely to have financial returns above their industry medians than those in the bottom quartile for executive ethnic diversity. [2]
Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 21 percent more likely to outperform on profitability and 27 percent more likely to have superior value creation.[3]
The 20 most diverse companies had an average annual five-year stock return that was 5.8 percentage points higher than the 20 least-diverse companies.[4]

Companies should look to hire the best talent. However, Black and Latino applicants face hiring challenges. Results of a meta-analysis of 24 field experiments found that, with identical resumes, white applicants received an average of 36 percent more callbacks than Black applicants and 24 percent more callbacks than Latino applicants.”[5]

Promotion rates show how well diverse talent is nurtured at a company. Unfortunately, women and employees of color experience “a broken rung” in their careers; for every 100 men who are promoted, only 86 women are. Women of color are particularly impacted, comprising 17 percent of the entry-level workforce and only four percent of executives.[6]

Retention rates show whether employees choose to remain at a company. Morgan Stanley has found that employee retention above industry average can indicate a competitive advantage and higher levels of future profitability.[7] Companies with high employee satisfaction have also been linked to annualized outperformance of over two percent.[8]

Between September 2020 and September 2022, the release of hiring rate data by gender, race, and ethnicity by S&P 100 companies increased by 307 percent, retention rate data releases increased by 279 percent, and promotion rate data releases increased by 292 percent.[9] Companies that release, or have committed to release, inclusion data include Comcast, Hasbro, McDonald’s, Netflix, and Nike. We encourage Disney to join these leading companies and release recruitment, retention, and promotion data broken down by race and gender.

[1] https://impact.disney.com/diversity-inclusion/

[2]McKinsey & Company, “Delivering through Diversity”, January 2018 (https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity)

[3]Ibid

[4] Holger, Dieter, “The business case for more diversity” Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2019 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-business-case-for-more-diversity-11572091200)

[5] https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years

[6] https://wiw-report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2021.pdf

[7]https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/articles/article_culturequantframework_us.pdf

[8] https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1tx0zzdhhnf5x/Want-to-Pick-the-Best-Stocks-Pick-the-Happiest-Companies?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Essential%20II%20100721&utm_content=The%20Essential%20II%20100721%20CID_eb103a9e15359075f72a85f7ff534c79&utm_source=CampaignMonitorEmail&utm_term=Want%20to%20Pick%20the%20Best%20Stocks%20Pick%20the%20Happiest%20Companies

[9] Whistle Stop Capital research based on https://www.asyousow.org/our-work/social-justice/workplace-equity

Resolution Details

Company:

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Lobbying & Political Contributions

Focus Area:

Political Contributions

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

36.33%

Resolution Text

WHEREAS: The political expenditures of The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) appear to be misaligned with the company’s publicly stated values and vision across important issue areas.

Disney has stated, “We embrace a world of belonging through our continuing efforts to promote Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in our workforce and beyond. We believe that greater representation and diversity of thought and experience make us a stronger, more capable, and creative company.”

Disney has been a vocal supporter of the LGBTQ community. Yet in 2020-2022, Disney donated approximately $200,000 to supporters of the Florida law dubbed “Don’t Say Gay,” which critics say will chill any K-12 classroom acknowledgement or discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity. These contributions, and Disney’s failure to speak out against the bill prior to its passage, provoked widespread media coverage, public anger, an employee petition and walkout.
Disney sponsors numerous efforts to promote women’s advancement inside the company, yet in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, Disney and its employee PAC have made political donations totaling at least $1.6 million to politicians and political organizations working to weaken women’s access to reproductive health care in the U.S. In Florida between 2017 and March 2022, 86% of Disney’s political contributions went to anti-choice politicians prior to the passage of a 10-week abortion ban.
CEO Bob Chapek has stated that “it is critical that we stand together, speak out and do everything in our power to ensure that acts of racism and violence are never tolerated.” Yet Disney has supported state legislators in Florida and Georgia who have been the lead sponsors of bills that would disproportionately disenfranchise Black and brown citizens.
Disney is working toward a science-based climate emissions reduction goal, yet has donated to a state attorney general suing to keep the federal government from creating a metric necessary to estimate the total cost of greenhouse gases, who is also tied to a group that made robocalls urging thousands to “stop the steal” in advance of the Capitol insurrection.

To minimize political spending that misaligns with its organizational values and creates reputation and brand risk, Disney should establish clear policies and reporting on such misalignment.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that Disney annually analyze and report, at reasonable expense, the congruence of its political and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against its publicly stated company values and policies, listing and explaining instances of incongruent expenditures, and stating whether the identified incongruencies have or will lead to a change in future expenditures or contributions.

Supporting Statement: Proponents recommend, at management discretion, that the report also contain an analysis of risks to our company’s brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with publicly stated company values. “Expenditures for electioneering communications” means spending, from the corporate treasury and from its PACs, during the year, directly or through third parties, in printed, internet, or broadcast communications, which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as being in support of or in opposition to a specific candidate.

Resolution Details

Company:

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Lobbying & Political Contributions

Focus Area:

Lobbying

Status:

Withdrawn for Agreement

Resolution Text

Whereas, we believe in full disclosure of Disney’s lobbying activities and expenditures to assess whether Disney’s lobbying is consistent with Disney’s expressed goals and shareholder interests.

Resolved, shareholders of Disney request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:

Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications.
Payments by Disney used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient.
Description of management’s decision-making process and the Board’s oversight for making payments described above.

For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation or regulation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation or regulation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation or regulation. “Indirect lobbying” is lobbying engaged in by a trade association or other organization of which Disney is a member.

Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels.

The report shall be presented to the Governance and Nominating Committee and posted on Disney’s website.

Supporting Statement

Disney spent $46.4 million from 2010 – 2021 on federal lobbying. This does not include state lobbying, where Disney also lobbies but disclosure is uneven or absent. For example, Disney spent $4.45 million on lobbying in California from 2010 – 2021, and Disney’s lobbying in Florida has been described as “the 800-pound mouse.”[1] And Disney also lobbies abroad, spending between €800,000 – 899,999 on lobbying in Europe for 2021.

Companies can give unlimited amounts to third party groups that spend millions on lobbying and undisclosed grassroots activity, and these groups may be spending “at least double what’s publicly reported.”[2] In fact, our company entirely fails to disclose payments to 501(c)4s, also known as social welfare groups. Notably they are major contributors to a group called SOAR which is now the subject of an FBI criminal complaint[3]. Additionally, Disney has drawn negative attention for avoiding federal income taxes,[4] but 501(c)4s like the RATE Coalition, of which they are members, are lobbying against raising corporate taxes to fund health care, education and safety net programs.[5]

Disney’s disclosure is also incomplete for trade associations, failing to disclose a top limit for its payments. Shareholders cannot tell the magnitude of Disney’s payments over $500,000 to groups like the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA). If Disney’s 2020 NCTA payments were comparable to Comcast, which does disclose, its total payments would have exceeded $25 million.

We are concerned that Disney’s lack of disclosure presents reputational risk when its lobbying contradicts company public positions. This has been seen with climate change as well as voter restrictions[6]. Shareholders need transparency across all Disney’s political spending in order to truly understand what risks we face.

[1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/what-works-orlando-disney-politics-119167.

[2] https://theintercept.com/2019/08/06/business-group-spending-on-lobbying-in-washington-is-at-least-double-whats-publicly-reported/.

[3] https://voiceofoc.org/2022/05/how-did-disneylands-main-political-spending-vehicle-land-in-the-middle-of-an-fbi-complaint/

[4] https://prospect.org/economy/corporate-tax-dodging-wont-go-away-until-we-fix-our-tax-code/.

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/08/31/business-lobbying-democrats-reconciliation/

[6] https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/554430-watchdog-group-launches-campaign-to-pressure/?rl=1

Protect Future Retirement Plan Beneficiaries From Portfolio Climate Risk

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Lead Filer

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Lead Filer

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Lead Filer

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Lead Filer

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Lead Filer

Co-filer

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Lead Filer

Co-filer