Class Action - Part 29

Week Adjourned: 8.31.12 – Enfamil, Dollar Rent A Car, Citigroup

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 31, 2012. Top stories include an Enfamil lawsuit, Dollar Rent A Car Fraud Allegations and a Citigroup settlement.

Top Class Actions

Sounds too good to be true? You better believe it baby—and pardon the pun. This week, the makers of Enfamil infant formula got hit with a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations they falsely advertise that Enfamil and other formulas contain prebiotics that provide immunity-related health benefits for babies and young children.

The Enfamil class action lawsuit, Shenique Route v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company d/b/a Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-7350, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, claims that Mead Johnson & Co. mislabel the products and that they do not support a baby’s developing immune system as advertised.

The Enfamil lawsuit targets misleading statements made on the product labels for Enfamil Premium Newborn formula, Enfamil Premium Infant formula, Enfamil A.R. for Spit-Up Infant formula, and Enfagrow Premium Older Toddler Vanilla Milk Drink products. In particular, the lawsuit takes issue with the claims they contain “Natural Defense Dual Prebiotics” and that they “act like breast milk.”

Specifically, the class action lawsuit states: “Enfamil’s ‘Natural Defense Dual Prebiotics’ do not provide health benefits as represented and certainly are not ‘proven’ to do so. Moreover, there is not competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting the Misrepresentation, and any purported link between immune response and prebiotics in the Mislabeled Products is entirely speculative.”

The lawsuit claims, “experts agree that breast milk is immeasurably superior to baby formula in terms of infant nutrition and other health benefits. Therefore, it is misleading for Defendant to advertise the Mislabeled Products as similar to breast milk when formula cannot provide anywhere near the level of benefits provided by breast milk.”

The Enfamil class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all U.S. consumers who purchased the mislabeled Enfamil products listed above for personal or household use. It is seeking damages, restitution and more for several alleged violations, including violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express and implied warranties.

Being taken for a ride?…Dollar Rent A Car is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that the car rental company cheated customers out of millions of dollars by signing them up for insurance and other services they declined. Oh, the insurance—you know—that endless fine print that needs to be signed in less than 3 seconds—i.e. without reading.

The Dollar Rent A Car lawsuit, entitled Sandra McKinnon v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent a Car, et al., Case No. 12-cv-4457, claims: “Over the last four years Dollar has implemented a systematic program nationwide through which its employees and agents illegally dupe customers into signing up for collision damage waiver (‘CDW’), car insurance and other added services that consumers have specifically declined. This is not an isolated incident with one consumer, but rather a systematic pattern of conduct that has occurred at a number of Dollar locations located throughout the United States.”

“Dollar has received multiple complaints about these issues but incentivizes its employees to make such sales, even by illegal means. If employees fail to obtain an average 30 per day upsales of additional options for three months they may be terminated and not eligible for unemployment,” the lawsuit claims. “Employees are thus incentivized to take advantage of the customers’ irritation, long lines, and misleading or high pressure sales tactics, by just telling them to tap certain lines to decline coverage when it may have the opposite result, or simply forge their signature.”

The class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of Dollar customers who paid for CDW, insurance and other products from Dollar that they specifically declined or did not authorize during the past four years. It is seeking actual, compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages and an injunction barring Dollar from continuing this alleged scheme.

Top Settlements

And the subprime saga continues. This week Citigroup agreed to a securities class action settlement involving a $590 million payout to shareholders who alleged they had been misled about the bank’s exposure to subprime mortgage debt before the financial crisis.

Filed in November 2007, the lawsuit contends that Citigroup together with some of its former senior executives and directors failed to disclose the bank’s huge holdings in securities known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that were tied to mortgage securities until November 2007, when it took a multibillion-dollar write-down on the CDOs. Citigroup later wrote down the CDOs by tens of billions of dollars more.

According to the lawsuit, Citigroup had previously tried to hide the deteriorating value of its holdings through improper accounting practices. “Citigroup used inflated, unreliable and unsupportable marks to keep its CDO-related quasi-Ponzi scheme alive and to give the appearance of a healthy asset base,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs included pension funds in Colorado, Ohio and Illinois. The lawsuit was led by former employees and directors of Automated Trading Desk who received Citigroup shares when they sold the electronic trading firm to the bank in July 2007. The proposed settlement, which was given preliminary approval by Judge Sidney Stein of the U.S. District Court in New York, covers investors who bought Citi shares from Feb. 26, 2007, through April 18, 2008. Shares of Citigroup traded as high as $55 in the summer of 2007. By spring of 2008, its stock price had tumbled by half.

Ok—that’s it for this week—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.24.12 – Hotel Deals, Parkay, ACS

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 24, 2012. Top stories include online hotel reservations, Parkay margarine and ACS overtime.

Top Class Actions

And you thought you were getting a hotel deal? Consumers (that would be you and me) have filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against several online travel sites including Expedia, Inc, Travelocity, Booking.com, a subsidiary of Priceline.com, and the nation’s largest hotel operators including Hilton Hotel, Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, a subsidiary of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, and Marriott International, Inc, claiming the two groups conspired to use their market dominance to fix prices on hotel rooms across the country.

The hotel price fixing class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of hotel room purchasers nationally, alleges that the online hotel retailers conspired with major hotel defendants to secretly create and enforce Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) agreements to thwart competition on hotel room prices, especially from price-cutting online retailers.

The complaint contends that the defendants’ unlawful conduct caused plaintiffs and other class members to overpay for their purchases of room reservations and seeks to represent all consumers who have purchased hotel rooms from the online retailer defendants.

According to the complaint, online travel sites account for as much as 50 percent of hotel bookings in the United States and traditionally operate under one of two models. Under the agency model, online retailers charge a service fee to a hotel operator on a transaction basis for booking customers, and that customer pays the hotel directly at a rate set by the hotel.

Under the merchant model, online retailers purchase rooms outright at a negotiated rate from the hotel, and then resell the rooms to consumers at a higher price, increasing or decreasing margins depending on competitive influences.

More recently, a new model has emerged that has cut into the traditional online retailers’ profits, the complaint contends, and has led to the creation of the RPM agreements. In this model, known as the Wholesale Model, third-party companies buy up unsold blocks of rooms at the last-minute and resell them to smaller price-cutting online retailers, eroding the profits of the traditional online retailers.

Knowing hotels cannot afford to lose access to online distribution networks, online retailers allegedly devised an illegal scheme, extracting agreements from the hotels that online retailers may not sell rooms below the RPM rates—even through the wholesale model—on penalty of termination and as a condition of doing business through the online retailers, the lawsuit contends.

The complaint states that the online retailer defendants often use terms like “best price guarantee” to create the impression of a competitive market, but in truth these are nothing more than a cover for the price-fixing conspiracy. The suit alleges that the defendants’ activities violate both the federal antitrust laws, as well as California’s Cartwright Act.

What’s the fat content in Parkay Spray Butter advertising? Higher than indicated, apparently…ConAgra Foods got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations they intentionally misrepresenting the contents of Parkay Spray butter substitute.

Nebraska resident Pamela Trewhitt filed the Parkay lawsuit claiming that ConAgra falsely marketed the butter substitute as “fat-free” and “calorie-free,” even though it contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per 8-oz bottle. The lawsuit also claims that the nutrition information on the label underestimates the amount of fat and calories in the products by using artificially small serving sizes of one to five sprays.

“Defendant knew or should have known that its product was mislabeled and engendered confusion among consumers,” the lawsuit states. It cites numerous Internet complaints about the spray by consumers who couldn’t figure out why they weren’t losing weight until they discovered that Parkay Spray was the culprit. “I was literally taking the top of the ‘fat and calorie free butter’ spray and pouring it on my carefully steamed veggies when I found out that a bottle of that stuff is 90 fat grams. I was going through two bottles a week, and working out and getting fat and unhealthy,” one plaintiff alleges.

The Parkay lawsuit accuses ConAgra Foods of violating the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, reaping ill-gotten profits, and fraud. Plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages as well as an injunction barring ConAgra from labeling Parkay Spray as fat-free and calorie-free.

Top Settlements

Now here’s a happy ending…Workers employed at an Oregon call center by Affiliated Computer Services Inc, have won a $4.5 million settlement in a wage and hour class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged the employees were not properly paid all minimum and overtime wages for all the hours they worked.

Filed in 2009, the lawsuit, entitled Bell, et al. v. Affiliated Computer Services, claims that ACS violated federal and state wage and overtime laws by failing to pay employees for all hours worked, all overtime hours and failing to timely pay final wages to employees at the end of employment.

Eligible class members of the ACS settlement include all employees of ACS who worked as a phone agent or representative in an Oregon call center for the “Retail, Travel, and Insurance,” “BPS,” or “Telecommunication and technology” business groups from April 2, 2005 through April 25, 2012.

The settlement has three classes, under which members may make a claim. They are:

Subclass A: Class Members who were employed by ACS in Oregon as of April 25, 2012 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $125, not to exceed 2,000 individuals.

Subclass B: Class Members who were employed by ACS in Oregon and whose employment ended at any time between November 6, 2006 and April 24, 2012 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $260, not to exceed 13,000 individuals.

Subclass C: Class Members who were employed by ACS and whose employment ended at any time between April 2, 2005 and November 5, 2006 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $50, not to exceed 5,000 individuals.

In order to receive a Settlement Award from the ACS settlement class members must submit a valid Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator postmarked or faxed on or before September 1, 2012. Claim Forms have been mailed to Class Members.

A Final Approval Hearing for the Affiliated Computer Services Class Action Lawsuit Settlement will be held October 22, 2012.

Ok—that’s it for this week—see you at the pool bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.17.12 – Jones Lang Lasalle, Doctor Discounts, Avaulta Mesh

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 17, 2012.

Top Class Actions

More unpaid overtime lawsuits this week – and top of the pile is a potential class action lawsuit filed against commercial real estate brokerage giant Jones Lang Lasalle.

The unpaid overtime class action lawsuit was filed by maintenance worker and lead plaintiff Larry Jackson who alleges he was incorrectly classified as exempt from overtime. In January, Jones Lang Lasalle allegedly reclassified its maintenance workers from salary to hourly employees, according to a lawsuit. Jackson claims that as a result, the refuses to pay him overtime after 40 hours a week.

“Since plaintiff has been re-classified, there have been multiple instances where he has not been paid for all of his overtime hours,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff’s manager has either doctored his time card to show that plaintiff only worked 40 hours or outright refused to pay plaintiff for his overtime hours.”

Jackson seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He is represented by J. Derek Braziel with Lee Braziel in Dallas.

Top Settlements

It’s settled but not over… for Christine Scott, who was awarded $5.5 in settlement of her Avaulta lawsuit. Scott filed the lawsuit against C.R. Bard over a transvaginal mesh implantation.

Scott, just 53, claims the problems stem from the Bard Avaulta mesh implant she was provided with in 2008 to treat occasional urinary incontinence. The TVM lawsuit alleged Scott now suffers from chronic pain and can no longer enjoy intercourse with her husband as a result of a transvaginal mesh implant. The case is Scott v. Kannappan, S-1500-CV-266034-WDE, Superior Court for Kern County, California (Bakersfield).

Scott was given the Avaulta Plus Biosynthetic Support System, a product C.R. Bard no longer sells in the US. It remains available elsewhere in the world. Scott launched her Avaulta lawsuit in January 2009 upon learning the previous October that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued a warning to doctors pertaining to “rare” but “serious” complications originating with the mesh in some patients.

Scott testified that for five months she could only urinate with a catheter. It has also been discovered the mesh has eroded within her body, breaking apart and becoming intertwined with her organs and surrounding tissue. The mesh is causing ongoing internal lacerations, infection and abscesses.

The Bard mesh is also protruding through and into her vagina, making intercourse impossible. And because the mesh has become so intertwined with her vital pelvic organs and other tissue, it can never be safely removed.

The problems with Bard Avaulta have resulted in eight subsequent surgeries and nine additional procedures related to the internal damage wrought by the mesh product. The experience has also resulted in the need for ongoing psychiatric care. At trial, her psychologist testified the plaintiff would require ongoing therapy for the remainder of her life.

Doctor discount program? In what parallel universe does that happen? Certainly not ours, is the answer the courts handed down this week. Final approval of a consumer fraud class action settlement in Smith, et al v. Collinsworth, et al. has been obtained on behalf of approximately 48,000 consumers who were sold a limited benefit health insurance policy and a membership in a doctor discount program marketed as providing coverage that was as good or better than major medical, but who found out otherwise when they got sick and were saddled with large unpaid bills.

According to the Circuit Court of Saline County Arkansas, which approved the settlement, “the value of the settlement exceeds $40 million,” plus it “provides … injunctive relief designed to address the gravamen of the claims at issue in this Action.” The doctor discount program lawsuit has been in progress for seven years.

The lawsuit alleged that the health insurer and the doctor discount network, through their shared sales force, misrepresented the combination of a limited benefits health insurance policy and the doctor discount program as providing coverage that was equal to or better than major medical policies issued by companies such as Blue Cross Blue Shield. In fact the combination of products provided only a fraction of what would have been paid by major medical policy and left class members with crippling bills. The litigation class was certified in September 2009 by the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, and class certification was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2010 in United Am. Ins. v. Smith (see 2010 Ark. 468 (2010)).

Ok – that’s it for this week – see you at the pool bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.3.12 – Zynga, JPMorgan, Netflix

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 3, 2012. Top class action lawsuits include Zynga, JPMorgan and Netflix.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Ladies and Gentlemen…Check your Portfolios! A lot of securities litigation this week—and at the top of the list is the Zynga securities class action. Not familiar with Zynga? Well, either you’ve been under a rock or you simply haven’t gotten sucked up into their addiction-creating game: FarmVille. Ask your kids…

The Zynga class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 12-cv-124007) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Zynga, Inc. (“Zynga” or the “Company”) between February 28, 2012 and July 25, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and includes those investors who acquired Zynga stock pursuant to and/or traceable to Zynga’s secondary stock offering on April 3, 2012. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

According to the Complaint, Zynga completed a secondary stock offering on April 3, 2012 which enabled Zynga insiders to sell over 43 million shares of their Zynga stock at a price of $12.00 per share for proceeds of approximately $516 million. On July 25, 2012, Zynga announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2012, reporting substantially lower than expected earnings and lowering its 2012 guidance. Following this announcement, the Company’s common stock plummeted 40% in value down to $2.97 per share.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, against Zynga, certain of its officers and directors, and those who served as underwriters in connection with Zynga’s secondary stock offering. The Complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions, including a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with Zynga’s secondary offering, about Zynga’s business, operations, and growth prospects.

Top Settlements

More from the Inflated Credit Card Rates Story (the one that never ends…) This week JPMorgan Chase & Co. reached a $100 million settlement of a credit card rate class action lawsuit in which JPMorgan was accused of improperly increasing its credit card minimum payments as a means to generate higher fees. (Could you recite these charges by heart… ya think?)

Filed in 2009, the Chase credit card lawsuit ( re: Chase Bank USA NA “Check Loan” Contract Litigation, Case No. 9-md-2032, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) alleged the bank decided in late 2008 and 2009 to boost minimum monthly payments for thousands of cardholders from 2 percent to 5 percent of account balances. Cardholders alleged that JPMorgan induced them to transfer credit card balances from other lenders to Chase card accounts, where the bank promised to consolidate their debt into loans with “fixed” interest rates until the balance were paid off.

However, the lawsuit claims JPMorgan increased minimum payments to force credit card holders to either accept higher rates in order to keep the lower payment, to make more late payments and trigger more fees or a 29.99% penalty interest rate, or to close underperforming accounts. This manipulation resulted in millions of dollars in additional fee income from thousands of new cardholders.

According to court documents, lawyers for the cardholders claim that the $100 million class action settlement is 45% of the $220 million in up-front transaction fees that their clients paid for the promotional loans. They called the class action lawsuit settlement an “excellent result” for cardholders, who would recover “a substantial portion of the transaction fees they paid.” The Chase credit card class action lawsuit settlement awaits final court approval.

Netflix Privacy Fix. Netflix made headlines this week due to a proposed settlement in a privacy class action lawsuit that claims the movie rental company unlawfully kept and disclosed customer information, including records on the movies and TV shows its customers viewed. Netflix denies that it has done anything wrong. Of course.

Here are the straight goods: Any current or former Netflix subscriber as of July 5, 2012 and lives in the U.S. or its territories is included in the Settlement.

The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Netflix has agreed to change its data retention practices so that it separates (known as “decoupling”) Entertainment Content Viewing History (that is, movies and TV shows that someone watched) from identification information for those subscribers who have not been a Netflix for at least 365 days, with some exceptions.

In addition, Netflix will pay $9 million into a Settlement Fund, from which it will make donations to Court-approved not-for-profit organizations, institutions, or programs that educate users, regulators, and enterprises regarding issues relating to protection of privacy, identity, and personal information through user control, pay notice and settlement administration expenses, attorneys’ fees of up to $2.25 million plus up to $25,000 in expenses, and a total incentive award of $30,000 to the Named Plaintiffs (a total of six individuals).

Proposals from potential donation recipients will be sought, and, after consideration, recommendations will be made to the Court. A list of the proposed donation recipients will be posted on the website. Class Members who do nothing will remain in the Settlement and their rights will be affected. If they do not want to be included, they must exclude themselves by November 14, 2012. If they exclude themselves they keep the right to sue Netflix about the claims in this lawsuit.

Class Members who remain in the Settlement can object to it by November 14, 2012.

The Court will hold a hearing on December 5, 2012 to consider any objections, whether to approve the Settlement, award attorneys’ fees, and incentive award. Any Class Member can appear at the hearing, but they don’t have to. They can hire an attorney at their own expense to appear or speak for them at the hearing.

Ok folks –it’s time for poolside libations! See you—well, you know where.

Week Adjourned: 7.27.12 – Nurse Overtime Pay, Car Rentals, Wildfire Damage

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of July 27, 2012.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Healthcare workers file overtime pay class action. Top of the list this week—one of the regulars—overtime, wage and hour violations—yes that old chestnut—again. This one’s a nationwide employment class action lawsuit filed against one the nation’s largest home health care service providers. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the lawsuit asserts that Amedisys, Inc. (“Amedisys”) violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The class action lawsuit, entitled Cook, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., asserts that Amedisys, which has more than 16,000 employees, treats visiting nurses and other home health care providers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and refuses to pay these employees for all hours worked or time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 per week. Amedisys pays nurses and other health care providers on a “per visit” basis for some work, with visit rates set based on estimated average visit durations, an hourly rate for other work, and fails to pay anything at all for other hours worked. Plaintiffs allege this compensation scheme does not meet the requirements of state or federal wage and hour law.

The national lawsuit, if certified, would allow all current and former Amedisys registered nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech language pathologists who have not been paid for all hours worked to be eligible to participate in this legal action.

Top Settlements

Did you rent a car from a major car rental agency with a pick-up at a California airport? If so—head’s-up—you may be entitled to part of this settlement: A settlement has been reached in an antitrust class action lawsuit filed against nine major rental car companies over allegations they improperly charged certain fees to consumers who picked up their rental cars at a California airport in 2007.

The lawsuit, entitled Shames v. The Hertz Corporation, alleges the Defendants violated antitrust and other laws by raising rental car prices at California airports by conspiring with each other to pass on the Airport Concession Fee (ACF) and Tourism Commission Assessment (TCA) to customers for rentals at certain California airport locations.

Bottom line for the car rental settlement —if you rented a vehicle directly from corporate-owned locations of Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Fox Rent a Car, Hertz, National or Thrifty for pick up at a California airport location from January 1, 2007 through November 14, 2007, and were charged and paid an ACF and/or TCA as a separate line item on their invoice, you may be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement.

If you are entitled to benefits under this settlement, you can elect to receive one of the options below based on the total number of days you rented one or more vehicles:

$2 for each day the vehicles were rented ($5 minimum payment); or

If the vehicles were rented for less than 8 days, one voucher good for free time and mileage for one rental day; or

If the vehicles were rented for 8 or more days, either two vouchers good for free time and mileage for one rental day; or one voucher good for free time and mileage for two rental days.

To download forms or find more information on the settlement visit acftcasettlement.com .

Negligence with staggering consequences. And now they’re going to pay for it. A $122.5 million settlement has been reached in an environmental lawsuit brought against Sierra Pacific Industries by the United States Department of Justice. The lawsuit was filed over a 2007 wildfire that was among the most devastating in California history, according to the Department of Justice.

The fire, known as the Moonlight Fire, effectively destroyed 65,000 acres, 46,000 acres of which were national forests. Further, the fire killed more than 15 million trees on public land, some of which were more than 400 years old. It also destroyed thousands of acres inhabited by sensitive species including the California spotted owl, the Sacramento Bee reports. “The Moonlight Fire was a devastating blow to National Forest land here in California,” U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Benjamin B. Wagner said in a statement. “What was lost was priceless and will not return for over a century.”

The fire was caused by Sierra Pacific employees and a contractor who struck a rock with a bulldozer, according to government prosecutors. This sent sparks into the dry ground on a day the National Weather Service had issued a red flag warning, indicating a high fire danger. The smoldering fire went unnoticed because the employees skipped a company-required fire patrol, prosecutors said.

“Instead, the designated fire watch left the work area and drove 30 minutes away to get a soda. When he returned over an hour later, there was a 100-foot wall of smoke billowing from the work area,” the Department of Justice said in a statement. Yes – sadly – that is what happened. Incredible.

The Moonlight Fire settlement is the largest ever received by the United States for damages caused by a wildfire. It includes a $55 million cash payment and 22,500 acres of land in California owned by Sierra Pacific. The U.S. Forest Service will choose the land, which prosecutors said is expected to bridge gaps between existing national forests and will support critical watersheds and sensitive species habitats.

Ok—That’s a wrap. Happy Friday! See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.20.12 – Yoplait Greek, MC/Visa, Goldman Sachs

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending July 20, 2012; top stories this week include Yoplait Greek yogurt, Mastercard, Visa, and Goldman Sachs.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

How Greek is your Yogurt? In fact, is your yogurt even yogurt? If you’ve been buying Yoplait Greek yogurt from General Mills, there’s a consumer fraud class action lawsuit that alleges the giant food processor has been misrepresenting the product as being Greek and yogurt.

“Yoplait Greek does not comply with the standard of identity of yogurt,” the lawsuit states. “Indeed, Yoplait Greek contains Milk Protein Concentrate (“MPC”) which is not among the permissible ingredients of yogurt, non-fat yogurt, and low-fat yogurt (collectively “yogurt”) as set forth under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

The Yoplait Greek yogurt class action lawsuit also states “The use of MPC is financially advantageous to defendants.” It allows General Mills to manufacture more product at lower cost, and that’s why they use it in the production of the yogurt.”

If this leaves you stuck for breakfast options—may I recommend last night’s leftovers…

Top Settlements

Card Sharks Caught. This is one for all you conspiracy theorists out there—it’s pay day! A preliminary $7.2 billion settlement has been agreed by credit card giants MasterCard Inc, and Visa Inc, making it the largest antitrust settlement in US history.

The MasterCard Visa settlement, if approved, would resolve lawsuits brought as far back as 2005 by retailers who allege the credit card companies fixed debit and credit card swipe fees. Swipe fees are a small percentage of the purchase price and are taken by the credit card companies on every transaction made using their cards.

According to the terms of the settlement, filed in federal court in New York, Visa will pay $4.03 billion and MasterCard will pay $2.02 billion to a class of merchants, including small businesses and stores.

Additionally, both Visa and MasterCard will also agree to cut swipe fees by 10 basis points (0.1 percent) for eight months, which amounts to an additional $1.2 billion in relief for merchants.

The settlement also allows merchants and stores to impose a “checkout fee” to pass onto consumers, which is limited by a cap. It’s your lucky day!

Also included in the proposed settlement are credit card issuers such as JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, and Bank of America. Time to switch to the dark side…

Sachs Sacked. Remember 2008—(how could you forget, right?) The collapse of the financial world as we knew it—and the institutions such as Goldman Sachs who were in part responsible? Well, in 2009 The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi filed a securities class action against the financial institution, alleging New Century Financial Corp, which originated a Goldman Sachs $698 million mortgage-backed securities offering, failed to adhere to its underwriting standards and overstated the value of the collateral backing the loans.

The fund claimed Goldman Sachs didn’t conduct proper due diligence when it bought the loans in 2005. If I’m not mistaken, that was the crux of the entire meltdown—lack of due diligence—on everyone’s part.

This week, a preliminary Goldman Sachs securities class action settlement was announced.

The lawyer representing the retirement fund told U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in a letter made public that both sides had accepted a settlement proposed by a mediator. Details of the agreement weren’t disclosed, according to a report by Bloomberg Businessweek.

The case is Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 09-cv-01110, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Ok—That’s a wrap. Happy Friday! See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.13.12 – Hyundai Elantra, Wells Fargo, ABM Security

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending July 13, 2012. Top class actions include Hyundai Elantra, Wells Fargo and ABM Security Services.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

More mileage out of its customers than its cars? Maybe. At least the folks who filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Hyundi Motor America think so.

The Hyundai Elantra class action lawsuit alleges that Hyundai deceived customers regarding gas mileage claims for the Elantra. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges that Hyundi’s ad for the Elantra was misleading because it included the phrase “The 40 mile per gallon Elantra.” The class action lawsuits, filed by Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, also claims Hyundai attempted to manipulate customers who are concerned about escalating gas prices and fuel economy.

The lawsuit further alleges that while the Elantra may average 40 mpg during ideal highway driving conditions, it does not achieve that same figure under most other driving scenarios.

Hyundai’s advertisements for the 2011 and 2012 Elantra models caused tens of thousands of California drivers to purchase the vehicle under false pretenses, the plaintiffs allege.

The lawsuit seeks to stop Hyundai from illegally using gas mileage numbers in its advertising of the Elantra without government-mandated disclosures and asks for damages on behalf of California residents who purchased or leased 2011 and 2012 Elantras.

Top Settlements

Wells Fargo hits the bottom of the well… A $175 million settlement has been agreed by Wells Fargo in a discrimination action brought against the nation’s largest residential home mortgage originator by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ alleged Wells Fargo manipulated African-American and Hispanic borrowers into taking on more costly subprime loans or charging them higher fees than those issued to comparable white borrowers. More than 30,000 minority borrowers were affected between 2004 and 2009, the Justice Department said. Unbelievable!

“If you were African-American or Latino, you were more likely to be placed in a subprime loan or pay more for your mortgage loan, even though you were qualified and deserved better treatment,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said in a statement.

“This is a case about real people—African-American and Latino—who suffered real harm as a result of Wells Fargo’s discriminatory lending practices.”

As an example, in 2007 a typical African-American wholesale borrower in Chicago seeking a $300,000 loan from Wells Fargo paid nearly $3,000 more in fees than a similarly qualified white applicant, the Justice Department said.

Wells Fargo has denied the government’s allegations, saying it agreed to settle the case “solely for the purpose of avoiding contested litigation.”

If the settlement receives final court approval, as part of the agreement, Wells Fargo will pay $125 million in compensation to victims of discrimination, and $50 million in down-payment assistance to borrowers in affected communities, CNN Money reports.

Cha-Ching! An $89.7 million settlement has been awarded by a California state judge to 15,000 former and present security guards of ABM Security Services Inc, who filed an unpaid wages class action lawsuit concerning rest breaks.

The ABM Security Services class action lawsuit, entitled Jennifer Augustus vs. American Commercial Social Security Services et al, was filed in July 2005. It alleged the guards were given “on-duty” breaks during which they were required to keep their cellphones or pagers on.

In his ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John S. Wiley said the company “balks at the notion that the employer must relieve workers of all duties for the rest break to be legally valid,” said in his ruling. “Put simply, if you are on call, you are not on break. That has been the law for many years.” Way to go!

Ok—That’s a wrap. Time for ‘tinis…see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.29.12 – Jergens, PNC Bank, Asbestos Mesothelioma

The weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 29, 2012.

Top Lawsuits

Were you a soft touch for Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer? Kao USA, the makers of the moisturizer that does everything except take the garbage out, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that perhaps it was overstating the benefits of the product. Now, there’s a surprise.

The federal lawsuit alleges “Kao makes erroneous claims in the packaging, labeling, marketing, advertising and promotion for the Product, such as falsely asserting that it is ‘clinically proven to reduce the appearance of cellulite,’ that it will tighten a user’s skin, and produce improved resiliency, elasticity, and firmness.” The Jergens class action lawsuit also states that these claims are “erroneous, false and misleading to a reasonable consumer.”

“Kao’s Product sales were based upon this false promise and misleading advertisements targeting vulnerable consumers which cause, and continues to cause, consumers to pay a price premium for the Product,” the lawsuit claims. “Plaintiff and other purchasers of the Product have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of Kao’s false misrepresentations. Plaintiff purchased the Product because of the claims made by Defendant, and would not have purchased the product if she had known that this advertising was false.”

The lead Plaintiff claims she relied on the misleading statements on the product’s bottle in her decision to purchase the $6 product. She is seeking damages and equitable relief for a proposed Class of all California residents who purchased Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer for personal use. Sign me up!

Top Settlements

Cha-Ching…the penny drops on PNC Bank. They agreed this week to pay $90 million in the settlement of a class action lawsuit accusing the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fees revenues. No comment.

The PNC Bank lawsuit, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The lawsuit claims that PNC Bank’s internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, PNC Bank’s practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

PNC Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citizens Bank and TD Bank have been announced in recent months.

Asbestos Settlement. On a bittersweet note, Bobbie Izell, who worked in construction in the 1960s and 1970s, and his wife have been awarded $48 million by a California court in settlement of their asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit.

The lawsuit named Union Carbide and a number of other defendants including Riverside Cement and California Portland Cement Company as defendants.

Izell developed mesothelioma during his 30 year career as a cement contractor in the construction industry. He built thousands of homes, commercial buildings, and churches, many of which contained asbestos. Izell also bought and renovated properties and many of the products he used for the renovation contained asbestos. Consequently, between 1947 and 1980, Izell suffered consistent exposure to the carcinogen.

The asbestos lawsuit was filed by Izell and his wife shortly after Izell was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma. According to media reports, during the trial Union Carbide argued that Calidria, which is the type of asbestos they manufactured, does or did not cause cancer. However, evidence was produced in the form of corporate memos which revealed that Union Carbide staff and physicians were aware the material was making works ill, but this information was not made public.

Ok—That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.22.12 – Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

A weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 22, 2012. This week’s top stories include Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Barefoot Blues? Adidas is facing a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit. Filed this week, the lawsuit alleges that Adidas adiPure training shoes, which capitalize on the “barefoot running” fitness craze, are falsely marketed.

Filed by plaintiff Joseph Rocco, from New York, the adiPure class action lawsuit claims Rocco bought a $90 pair of adiPure shoes that did not deliver the increased training efficiency and decreased risk of injury promised in advertisements.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, the shoes actually increase the risk for bruising and foot damage, due to their decreased padding and other structural differences from more traditional running shoes, the lawsuit states. Rocco said he and other customers were never warned about the potential hazards and that, as a result, he suffered compound fractures after training in the shoes. Yikes!

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of everyone who purchased adiPure shoes since they were launched in August 2011. Rocco is seeking a refund for the shoes, as well as statutory damages.

Password Compromised? LinkedIn Corp is facing an internet privacy class action lawsuit resulting from a recent hacking that compromised some 6.5 million registered users’ passwords, which reportedly is less than 5 percent of LinkedIn’s user base.

The LinkedIn lawsuit was filed by Katie Szpyrka, who has been a registered account holder with LinkedIn since 2010, and who paid $26.95 per month to upgrade to a “premium” LinkedIn account.

The lawsuit claims LinkedIn “failed to properly safeguard its users’ digitally stored personally identifiable information including email addresses, passwords, and login credentials.” The lawsuit also states, “Through its Privacy Policy, LinkedIn promises its users that ‘all information that [they] provide [to LinkedIn] will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology. In direct contradiction to this promise, LinkedIn failed to comply with basic industry standards by maintaining millions of users’ PII in its servers’ databases in a weak encryption format, and without implementing other crucial security measures.” This, the suit alleges, is in violation of the company’s user agreement and privacy policy.

Top Settlements

Paxil False Advertising Settlement. Were you adversely affected by Paxil? A preliminary settlement has been reached in a Paxil class action lawsuit, and if approved, will provide money to California residents who were 18 years old or older and who paid for any portion of the price of the prescription antidepressant while living in California from January 14, 1999 through January 1, 2003, and who qualify under the settlement (these people are called “Class Members”).

If you’re included, you may ask for a payment, or you can exclude yourself from, or object to, the settlement. The Superior Court for the State of California will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement so that payments can be issued.

The lawsuit claims that GlaxoSmithKline falsely advertised and promoted Paxil as being non-habit forming or non-addictive and that GlaxoSmithKline’s advertisements and promotional materials failed to disclose the risk of symptoms from stopping or discontinuing Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline denies each of these allegations.

What Can I Get from the Paxil Settlement?

The Paxil settlement provides monetary compensation as follows: a full refund of the actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses of claimants who purchased Paxil during the Class Period and who have valid documentary Proof of Purchase, provided that the total amount of payments to claimants with documented Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $8,500,000.00.

For claimants without Proof of Purchase, GlaxoSmithKline shall pay actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses up to $80.00 per claimant, provided that the total amount paid to claimants without Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $500,000.00. GlaxoSmithKline will also: (1) make a charitable contribution of $1,000,000.00 to be shared equally by four California mental health charities; (2) agree to certain limits on any future advertising for Paxil; and (3) include certain information about Paxil on its corporate website.

How Can I File a Paxil Settlement Claim?

You must complete the Claim Form, which you can obtain at CApaxilclassaction.com, and mail it no later than October 10, 2012 to the address on the form. Whether you receive a payment and the amount you get depends on whether you have a valid claim, how much Paxil you paid for, whether or not you have valid Proof of Purchase, and how many valid claims are filed.

How to Opt Out of or Object to the Paxil Settlement

If you don’t want a payment from the Paxil settlement, or if you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by October 10, 2012, or you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue, GlaxoSmithKline about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may choose to object to it, if you do so by October 10, 2012. You may both object and still participate in the settlement and receive money. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, called Grair, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Case No. BC 288536, to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing the Class for fees and expenses. You may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, but you don’t have to.

For more information, go to A detailed notice is available at CApaxilclassaction.com or write to the Paxil Settlement Administratorc/o GCG, P.O. Box 9839Dublin, OH 43017-5739.

Ok –That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.15.12 – Gamestop, Novartis, Krossland Calling Cards

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 15, 2012. Top stories include Gamestop, Novartis Pharma Sales Reps and Krossland Calling Cards.

It’s been a week for wage and hour lawsuits and settlements…

Top Lawsuits

Paycheck Games? Gamestop got hit with a wage and hour class action lawsuit this week, alleging the company committed several California Labor Code violations including systematically neglecting to pay their employees for all hours worked. Really?

In the Gamestop wage and hour class action, employees alleged in their lawsuit that they were required to clock out of Gamestop’s timekeeping system and continue working off the clock to fulfill their daily tasks. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Gamestop “consistently does not allocate enough labor hours such that there is not enough time for the employees to complete their required duties within the allocated labor hours.” As a result, the Complaint claims that these employees were systematically denied compensation for the actual number of hours worked. Sound familiar?

Wait—there’s more. The lawsuit also asserts that the Gamestop employees were regularly denied meal and rest breaks, and there was no policy in place to compensate employees for missed meal or rest breaks. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that, “Plaintiff and California Class Members are required by [Gamestop] to work alone, or with an employee that cannot be left alone in [a Gamestop] store, for the first five (5) hours of their scheduled shift.”

The case, filed June 5, is pending in San Diego, CA, in case you know anyone…

Top Settlements

Continuing with our theme of wage & hour lawsuits…

Pharma Sales Reps Get Their Due. This time a settlement—a final approval, in fact,—of a $99 million settlement in the nationwide wage and hour class action brought by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. sales representatives. http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/16682/99-million-settlement-approved-in-novartis-sales.html

On May 31, Judge Paul A. Crotty of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement following a fairness hearing held the same day. This follows the preliminary approval of the settlement granted by Crotty in January. The settlements are the result of two lawsuits filed in 2006 citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California and New York laws (30 HRR 91, 1/30/12).

The final order and judgment allocated $70,758,500 to settlement awards for class members; $27,608,000 to attorneys’ fees; $400,000 to reimbursement of litigation fees; and $233,500 to class representatives and others involved in the case.

The $233,500 included compensatory damages and service awards ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 for each of five named plaintiffs.

And now for something completely different—how about a little consumer fraud? (Served with a healthy portion of “Oh no you don’t”.)

Kross To Bear? Krossland Communications—Krossland calling cards?? Ringing any bells? Well, a settlement has been reached. Here’s the summary notice, “issued in accordance with the Court order dated May 21, 2012 preliminarily approving the settlement of a consumer fraud class action entitled Carol Galvan, et al. v. Krossland Communications, Inc., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:08-CV-00999-JVS (ANx).”

Lolis Tackwood represents a class of pre-paid calling card customers who purchased certain calling cards distributed by Krossland between August 26, 2004 and May 21, 2012, other than for purposes of re-sale, and other than calling cards distributed by Locus, AT&T, T-Mobile, Boost, Total Call and IDT. A list of those cards affected by this settlement can be reviewed by accessing http://www.KrosslandSettlement.com .

If consumers who purchased these calling cards submit a Claim Form, they can receive a Refund PIN that can be used to make telephone calls to any location in North, Central or South America, at the rate of 20 cents/minute to any telephone number within the United States and any landline telephone number in North, Central or South America, and 50 cents/minute to any cellular telephone number outside the United States in those locations.

There is a total cap of $250,000 on the dollar amount of Refund PINs, less certain fees and costs. Individual claims are capped at $16.00 in Refund PINs, rounded up to the nearest 50 cent increment, based on 30% of the face value of consumers’ eligible Krossland Calling Card purchases during the Class Period, subject to possible proration as described in the full class settlement notice. The Refund PIN may be used within 1 year of activation, and a deadline for using this PIN shall be provided with the PIN. Settlement Class members can submit a Proof of Claim Form online at http://www.KrosslandSettlement.com or by requesting a Proof of Claim Form from the Settlement Administrator and submitting it to the address below.

To be excluded from this settlement, or to object to the settlement, Settlement Class Members must follow the instructions in the Notice described below. The deadline to opt out of the settlement is August 6, 2012. The deadline to submit any objection is July 27, 2012.

This is only a summary of the settlement. For additional information regarding this settlement, the full Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Notice”) is available at http://www.KrosslandSettlement.com.”

Ok—Happy Friday Folks. See you at the bar! Oh yes!