Category: Class Action

Week Adjourned: 6.8.12 – Catalina Restaurants, NobelTel, Hilton LAX

Weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending June 8, 2012; top stories include Catalina Restaurant Group, NobelTel, and Hilton LAX hotel

Top Lawsuits

Overtime Violations on the Menu at Catalina. First up this week, an overtime  class action lawsuit. This one filed against Catalina Restaurant Group Inc. and JoJo’s California Family Restaurants, Inc. (“Catalina”) for alleged wage and hour  violations.

Specifically? Violations of California labor laws in regards to overtime pay and requiring their employees to work off-the-clock without being paid for all their hours worked. McDermott, et al. vs. Catalina Restaurant Group Inc. and JoJo’s California Family Restaurants, Inc., was filed by attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, who are representing the plaintiffs.

According to the class action lawsuit, the restaurant “did not have in place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay Plaintiff and other California Class Members for the actual number of hours these employees worked each day, including overtime hours worked.” Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Catalina “consistently did not allocate enough labor hours such that there was not enough time for Plaintiff and California Class Members to complete their required duties.” As a result, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff and California Class Members were forced to clock out of Catalina’s timekeeping system, but were still required to perform additional work for Catalina for which they were not compensated for.

Furthermore, the complaint also alleges that the Plaintiff and California Class Members received non-discretionary quarterly bonuses from Catalina, but Catalina failed to include this extra bonus compensation in the regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating the correct overtime pay rates owed to these employees. The failure to include the bonus compensation in the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, according to the complaint, “has resulted in a systematic underpayment of overtime compensation” to the Plaintiff and members of the California Class.

The Complaint further claims that as a result of Catalina’s failure to record all hours worked by members of the California Class and Catalina’s failure to pay these employees the correct overtime rate, Catalina “failed to provide the Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class with complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, the correct number of all hours worked and the correct overtime rate for overtime hours worked.”

Founding partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal asserts, “when employers exclude non-discretionary bonuses from the regular rate of pay when calculating their employee’s overtime rate, they are violating the law.”

Top Settlements

Ignobel NobelTel? A settlement has been proposed in the of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit captioned Sabaj et al. v. NobelTel, LLC et al. (aka, NobelTel Prepaid Calling Card class action lawsuit)

It could affect you if you purchased prepaid calling cards that were sold, serviced or distributed in California by Nobel, Inc., Nobel, Ltd., NobelCom, LLC, and NobelTel, LLC (“Defendants”), or if you purchased any prepaid calling services sold online and submitted a California billing address through www.nobelcom.com and www.enjoyprepaid.com, between April 8, 2006 and May 24, 2012 (“Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards”). If you made such a purchase, you may be a member of the Settlement Class. (This is only a summary legal notice. A detailed notice is available at the websites and toll free number listed below.)

What Is The NobelTel Lawsuit About?

The consumer fraud lawsuit claims that the Defendants did not inform consumers sufficiently about the applicable rates and charges for their prepaid calling cards and services, failed to deliver minutes voice prompted by the cards, and violated California consumer protection laws. Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Am I Affected By The NobelTel Settlement?

You are a member of the Class if you purchased a prepaid calling card issued by Nobel, Inc., Nobel, Ltd., NobelCom, LLC, and NobelTel, LLC in California between April 8, 2006 and May 24, 2012. A list of eligible calling cards is available on the websites listed below.

You are also a member of the Class if you purchased any prepaid calling services sold online between April 8, 2006 and May 24, 2012 and you provided a California billing address through www.nobelcom.com and www.enjoyprepaid.com.

What Benefits Does The NobelTel Settlement Provide?

Defendants will provide 400,000 $5.00 calling card Settlement Personal Identification Numbers (“Settlement PINs”). These Settlement PINs can be used to make international and domestic calls, originating from California, to any place in the continental United States and to 879 foreign locations. A complete list of locations is available on the websites below. If you purchased Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards online, you may be entitled to receive one (1) Settlement PIN for up to the first $40 in Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards purchased, and an additional Settlement PIN for every $40 increment thereafter. If you purchased Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards in a physical store in California, you may be entitled to receive one (1) Settlement PIN for up to the first $20 in Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards purchased, and an additional Settlement PIN for every $20 increment thereafter, up to a maximum of six (6) Settlement PINs.

How Do I Make a Claim in the NobelTel Settlement?

If you purchased prepaid calling services sold online through www.nobelcom.com and www.enjoyprepaid.com, you will automatically receive the Settlement PIN(s) at the e-mail address you provided to Defendants without having to submit anything.

If you purchased a prepaid calling card in some other manner, you must submit a Refund Form to receive the Settlement PIN(s) by mail no later than November 20, 2012 to February 18, 2013.

What Are My Other Legal Rights?

Remain in the Settlement: You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and give up your right to sue Defendants. To receive the Settlement PIN(s) see the instructions above.

Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to sue Defendants, you must exclude yourself by August 13, 2012.

Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in the Settlement, you can object to it by August 13, 2012. You give up your right to sue and are bound by all Court orders even if your objection is rejected.

A hearing in the case, Sabaj et al. v. NobelTel, LLC et al. Case No. BC435467 will be held on September 13, 2012 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys’ fees and expenses up to $500,000.

Umm… the phone card that never runs out…

Hilton Settlement–No not with Paris, This one’s in LA…The Hilton Los Angeles Airport Hotel has agreed a $2.5 million settlement in the wage and hour  class action brought by 1,200 of its hotel workers. The Hilton lawsuit alleged that the hotel withheld wages, failed to pay overtime and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

Filed in 2008, the unpaid overtime class action covers all hourly workers who worked at the hotel from 2004 to 2011.

Other allegations included in the employment lawsuit were that the Hilton LAX did not pay its employees for time spent preparing for work and putting on and taking off work uniforms that were required to be left at the hotel. And, that plaintiffs were required to fill out time sheets saying they took breaks whether they truthfully did or not.

Well – someone had to pay for Paris’ exploits…

Ok – that’s a wrap. See you at the bar. Happy Friday Folks.

Week Adjourned: 6.1.12 – Chobani Yogurt, Exxon Mobil, BMW Privacy

The weekly wrap on the latest class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 1, 2012; this week’s highlights include Chobani Yogurt, Exxon Mobil and BMW.

Top Lawsuits

Food fraud de jour… We’re talking about Chobani Greek Yogurt to be specific. The “nothing but good” yogurt, if you recall. Chobani Inc is facing a class action lawsuit over alleged deceptive marketing claims (aka consumer fraud)  concerning the use of certain terms on its Greek yogurt products. Who would have thought? Yogurt “terminology”? The Chobani lawsuit claims the terms violate federal and state food labeling laws.

Yes indeed, folks, that old chestnut—again. I bet if all food ingredients were listed by their chemical names—in any or all products—the average consumer would likely need a chemistry degree to read food labeling … although you pretty much do now…

Ah yes. The facts: Filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of California by California consumer Katie Kane, the lawsuit alleges Chobani’s use of ‘evaporated cane juice’, ‘all natural ingredients’ and ‘only natural ingredients’ as terms used to describe its 18 flavors of Greek yogurt products. The lawsuit claims Chobani failed to disclose that ‘evaporated cane juice’ is commonly referred to as sugar or dried cane syrup.

Federal and California state food labeling laws forbid the use of ‘natural’ labeling if the product contains artificial ingredients, flavoring, coloring or chemical preservatives, the lawsuit claims. Kane also alleges that Chobani made false claims in violation of these laws to actively promote the “naturalness and health benefits of its products” and drive sales.

Ok—well if you want to go down that road—show me company that isn’t on the green/health bandwagon? Oh yes, Exxon Mobil. But that’ll be coming up in Top Settlements.

The Chobani lawsuit further states, “For example, the Nutrition Facts for Chobani’s Greek Yogurt, Pomegranate flavor, state that it has 19 grams of sugar, but the ingredient section fails to list ‘sugar’ and/or ‘dried cane syrup’ as an ingredient.”

“If a manufacturer is going to make a claim on a food label, the label must meet certain legal requirements that help consumers make informed choices and ensure that they are not misled. In promoting the naturalness and health benefits of its Misbranded Food Products, Defendant claims to understand the importance of communicating responsibly about its products,” the lawsuit states.

“Nevertheless, Defendant has made, and continues to make false and deceptive claims on its Misbranded Food Products in violation of federal and California laws that govern the types of representations that can be made on food labels.”

It’s off to court they go…

Top Settlements

Ten Years After…As I was saying about Exxon Mobil—here’s one for the little guy. Bit late, bit small, never should have happened in the first place, but hey—it’s a result—because the townspeople of Pascoag, RI stood up for themselves. A Providence Superior Court Judge has approved a $7 million settlement of an environmental class action lawsuit brought by the citizens of the Town of Pascoag, Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Water District against Exxon Mobil Corporation as a result of the contamination of their well water supply by MTBE in 2001. According to attorneys for the class, the Exxon Mobil settlement finally brings some satisfaction to the citizens of Pascoag after almost ten years of litigation against Exxon Mobil for the contamination of the Town of Pascoag’s water supply.

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that was mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1990, requiring that fuel oxygenates be added to gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide in the air, was first noticed in the Summer of 2001, when a strong disagreeable odor had been reported by various Public Utility District customers.

On August 30, 2001, a resident of Pascoag, Rhode Island requested that a sample of his tap water be tested, as it had a bad taste. MTBE concentrations, above allowable state limits, were detected. Thereafter, an investigation by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) revealed that gasoline containing MTBE had leaked from the Main Street Mobil Gasoline Service Station and contaminated the town’s well water. The DEM ordered that the Pascoag well pumping stations be shut down, and arrangements were made to pipe in well water from the neighboring Town of Harrisville.

In 2003 a lawsuit was filed against Exxon Mobil (yes—it’s really taken 9-10 years) alleging that the use of MTBE in gasoline was among other things, a defective product. The investigation revealed that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies knew MTBE posed a threat to drinking water years before the industry began blending the additive with gasoline.

According to a statement issued by attorneys for the town of Pascoag, “the Pascoag, Rhode Island case was the largest MTBE case in the history of the state.” Court documents showed that the oil companies knew about MTBE’s problems as early as the early 1980’s. The oil industry defended the use of MTBE, claiming that the federal government allowed MTBE to be used with knowledge of its characteristics.

MTBE readily dissolves in water and does not cling to soil near a spill site, as most chemicals do. It degrades slowly and travels quickly and travels far in water.” Other dangerous gasoline compounds, like benzene, are rarely found more than 300 feet from a spill site, while MTBE has been found, as in this case, thousands of feet away,” the plaintiffs attorney stated in the press release. Documents and statements from Exxon Mobil and other oil companies show they knew all this almost as soon as they began producing MTBE in the late 1990’s. When 20 percent of the tanks nationwide were known to leak, they put MTBE in tanks knowing it would make its way to ground water and drinking water supplies.

In this case, the utility and citizens that sued over MTBE were not seeking damages because customers got sick from drinking the additive. Such claims are nearly impossible to prove, said the attorney for the plaintiffs. Instead, the damages were to compensate the homeowners for their inconvenience and to the Pascoag Public Utility District to allow them to install new wells, plus pipe lines to bring the water to homes once served by private wells. This includes the cost of putting filters in, digging up dirty soil and installing systems to pump the MTBE out of the water.

Better in a Beamer? …maybe not… Here’s something we’re seeing a lot more of these days—privacy class actions. The offenders in this class action lawsuit are BMW and its telematics services provider, Agero Connected Services, Inc. (formerly known as ATX Group, Inc.) The lawsuit claims that BMW recorded BMW Assist calls without first disclosing that a call may be monitored or recorded. (Can you imagine listening to all those recordings? OMG.)

The skinny: The BMW Assist settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit, entitled Skuro v. BMW of North America, LLC, that alleges BMW and its telematics services provider, Agero Connected Services, Inc. (formerly known as ATX Group, Inc.) violated several consumer privacy laws by allegedly recording BMW Assist calls.

Class Members of the BMW Assist class action settlement include all individuals who connected to the BMW Assist program between October 13, 2009 and February 1, 2011 and the BMW vehicle owner was receiving benefits in the BMW Assist program with a California billing address. The settlement could affect anyone who connected to the BMW Assist program during the class period, including entitlement to benefits, including up to $50 cash.

BMW and ATX deny any wrongdoing, but have agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to avoid the expense of ongoing litigation.

Class Members of the BMW Assist class action lawsuit settlement can choose to receive one of the following two benefits:

1. Service Benefit. “Service Benefit” means either a 6-month upgrade to the BMW Assist “convenience plan” (for Class Members who currently have an active basic safety plan on their BMW vehicle), or a 6-month extension to the BMW Assist basic safety plan (for Class Members who currently have an active basic safety plan on their BMW vehicle, or Class Members who have no BMW Assist Service on their Class Vehicle). To receive the Service Benefit, Class Members must enter into a Subscription Agreement Addendum no later than July 10, 2012.

2. Non-Revisionary Fund. Class Members who decline or who do not have the option for the Service Benefit can file a claim for a cash payment from the Non-Revisionary Fund, which will be paid on a pro rata basis, up to $50, to Class Members who file a valid claim postmarked no later than July 10, 2012.

More information about the settlement, a Subscription Agreement Addendum and claims forms can be found at the Settlement Administrator’s website: www.BMWAssistSettlement.com.

See you at the bar—happy, happy…and don’t ask to see the ingredients in your Martini.

Week Adjourned: 5.18.12 – Tetley Tea, Skechers, Verizon

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 18, 2012. This week’s top stories: Tetley Tea, Skechers and Verizon.

Top Class Actions

Actually, this week it’s Top Consumer Fraud Class Actions—because false advertising class action lawsuits seem to be the theme right now…

What’s Brewing at Tetley Tea? Let’s take Tetley Tea as an example—as of this week, the Tetley Tea is facing a federal consumer fraud  class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an “excellent” or “natural” source of antioxidants.

The Tetley Tea lawsuit states, “Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters” to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever’s Lipton Tea.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers in California who purchased Tetley Tea’s Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and other bits and pieces, for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. That’s some laundry list.

Top Settlements

Couple of big preliminary settlements on—you guessed it—consumer fraud/false advertising class action lawsuits to tell you about this week…

Skechers Sketchy Health Claims. This one, all over the media, implies that Skechers may be guilty of sketchy health claims. At least the FTC thinks so. But not the shoe manufacturer, of course. Nevertheless, Skechers USA has agreed to pay $45M to resolve allegations brought by the US and state governments that it deceived customers about the health benefits of its Shape-ups athletic shoes.

The allegations center on claims that the shoe manufacturer’s athletic toning shoes help people lose weight and strengthen their buttocks and legs. Skechers aren’t the first athletic shoe maker to face penalties for their advertising claims—Reebok also got hit and settled for $25 million, but hey, according to news reports, these shoes are big business. Skechers reportedly made $1.4 billion in 2009.

According to a statement by the US Federal Trade Commission, Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, also made false claims in advertising for its Resistance Runner, Tone-ups and Toners shoes.

According to a report by Bloomberg, the ads for Skechers that were challenged by the FTC include one for Shape-ups that told consumers they could “get in shape without setting foot in a gym,” according to the statement. The FTC alleges the company made unsupported claims that the shoes would provide more weight loss and muscle toning than regular fitness shoes.

You may be a class member if you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes since August 1, 2008, with limited exclusions. The Court has not yet ruled on whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. The Court may not grant preliminary approval or may require certain changes to the proposed settlement.

If the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, you will have rights which you may wish to exercise, including rights to opt-out of the settlement or object.

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Skechers has agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008:

Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers

Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles

Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals

Skechers boots

Skechers clogs

Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole)

The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased from August 1, 2008, onwards, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members.

Possible reimbursements could be:

$40 – $80 for Shape-ups;

$27 – $50 for podded sole shoes;

$20 – $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and

$42 – $80 for Resistance Runners

To find out more about the Skechers settlement, whether or not you could qualify as a class member, and to download forms, visit http://www.skecherssettlement.com.

Verizon Calling —Verizon Land Lines that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Verizon. This time, it’s not health claims that are the issue—but third-party charges.

If you were billed for third-party charges on your Verizon landline telephone bill, you may be entitled to a payment from this class action settlement, if the settlement is approved.

The Settlement will provide for payments to all class members who properly submit Claim Forms by November 15, 2012. The payments will be either $40 in the case of approved Flat Payment Claims or the full amount (i.e., 100%) of unauthorized Third-Party Charges you paid in the case of approved Full Payment Claims. Some class members may have a claim for less than $40. Class counsel contends that some class members may have a claim for hundreds of dollars, or more.

You must submit a claim form in order to qualify for payment. This is the only way to get a payment. You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid. To file a claim, you must complete a Claim Form either online or download a Claim Form, print it out and mail it to the Settlement Administrator by November 15, 2012. You can find the claims forms by visiting www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.

The Court in charge of this case has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement but still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved.

OKee dokee. Enough business as usual—it’s the weekend! See you at the bar—where the health benefits are obvious and require no advertising…

Week Adjourned: 5.11.12 – Overtime Pay, Smoking Dishwasher, Ormat

A wrap up of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 11, 2012. Top stories include unpaid overtime, smoking dishwashers and Ormat green energy.

Top Class Actions

Holy Catfish Batman!—what’s that smoking thing in the kitchen? A defective dishwasher, perhaps? We’ll find out, as a defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against Whirlpool, the manufacturer of Kitchenaid, Sears Kenmore, Maytag and Whirlpool dishwashers, alleging that certain models of dishwashers have a design flaw that can cause the control circuit board to fail. Greg Adams, who filed the defective dishwasher lawsuit, alleges this happened to him.

Adams claims that on December 8, 2011, he started his dishwasher only to smell burning plastic and see smoke coming from his dishwasher, sometime shortly afterward. To stop the dishwasher, he tried to pull on the door handle, but said he burned his hand on the front panel, which had become extremely hot. In the end, Adams was forced to shut the power off, to prevent further catastrophe, and protect his family. (You know this puts a whole new spin on the benefits of take out.)

According to NBCnews.com, research suggests more than 600 people across the country have come forward on kitchenaid.com. Their products were manufactured by whirlpool, which produces Kitchenaid, Sears Kenmore, Maytag and Whirlpool dishwashers. So why no recall? Well, a recall is one of the things the lawsuit seeks to achieve. Why is this so hard?

Unpaid, unhappy and unafraid… drug sales reps from Medimmune Biologics filed an employment class action lawsuit this week, against the drug company alleging unpaid overtime wage and hour violations. Sound familiar? Novo Nordisk,  and Merck are also facing unpaid overtime suits by their sales reps. An industry-wide practice perhaps? Possibly. That is the $65 million question—and hinges on the definitions of ‘exempt’ and ‘non-exempt’.

According to the Medimmune wage and hour class action lawsuit, Medimmune Biologics violated California overtime laws by failing to pay drug sales representatives for overtime hours worked. Under California law, companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime compensation whenever the employees work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week.

The primary requirement to satisfy the outside salesperson exemption and thus not pay overtime under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act is that the sales representatives are actually making sales. In the Medimmune Biologics overtime class action lawsuit, the drug sales representatives allege that they were not actually involved in making sales but rather promoting prescription drugs to physicians, doctors and other specialists. At most, the physicians the sales representatives promote the drugs to can agree to prescribe the medicine to patients as needed, but cannot actually buy the prescription medicine from the sales representatives directly.

Notably, all the pharma sales rep unpaid overtime class action lawsuits allege that the pharmaceutical sales representatives should be paid overtime compensation for working more than eight hour days under the California Labor Code and/or forty hour weeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act based on the contention that the drug sales representatives do not qualify for the outside salesperson exemption because they are not actually making sales. Incidentally, sales reps who filed unpaid overtime class actions against Schering Plough won.

Top Settlements

Green Energy Co. about to Hand Over Some Green? We have a potential settlement in the Ormat Technologies securities class action this week.

So here’s the not-so-skinny skinny:

To anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired Ormat Technologies Inc securities between May 7 2008 and February 24, 2010, inclusive, who incurred damages (the “class”):

You are hereby notified that this Class Action is pending and that a Settlement of it for Three Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,100,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held on October 1, 2012, to determine: (i) whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (ii) whether Co-Lead Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and the reimbursement of expenses should be approved; (iii) whether the Court should grant Lead Plaintiffs reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly related to their representation of the Class; and (iv) whether the Court should approve the release of Released Claims against any and all Released Persons and dismiss the Litigation with prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than September 24, 2012. As more fully described in the Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement and requests for exclusions from the Class is September 10, 2012. Further information may be obtained by visiting gcginc.com/cases/ormat.

Got that?

Good. See you at the bar. And—Happy Mother’s Day!

 

Week Adjourned: 5.4.12 – iTunes, Asbestos, Yaz Birth Control

Top Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements for the week ending May 4, 2012. Top stories include iTunes Class Action, Asbestos Mesothelioma lawsuit settlement and Yaz settlements.

Top Class Actions

“Whataya Want from Me”—how about a refund! Is Apple taking a bite out of you? Robert Herskowitz thinks they might be. He filed a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Apple this week, alleging iTunes double bills for purchases from its e-Stores and refuses to issue refunds to customers who are affected. Nice.

In his iTunes lawsuit, Herskowitz claims he bought a single song from the iTunes store for $1.29, for which Apple charged him twice. According to the lawsuit, when he brought the error to Apple’s attention, he says, the company responded: “Your request for ‘Whataya Want from Me’ was carefully considered; however, according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple’s refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials.”

Herskowitz says the agreement governing use of Apples’ e-Stores “says no such thing.” He claims the policy has “resulted in substantial numbers of Apple customers throughout the country having been double billed by Apple.” Instead, the lawsuit claims that Apple’s refund policy, in the Terms and Conditions to which every customer must agree to make purchases on Apple’s e-stores, states that Apple does not provide refunds in the event of a price reduction or promotional offering. Accordingly, by its own terms, “Apple’s ‘no refund’ policy is limited to ‘the event of a price reduction or promotional offering.'”

The complaint adds: “Under the agreement, as with any consumer transaction, Apple may bill customers only once for each product or service that is purchased. With troubling regularity, however, Apple has ‘double billed’ customers for purchases made through the Apple Stores. In those cases, when a customer purchases a song, movie or book, Apple bills that customer twice for the same download. Apple, however, has effectuated a policy and practice of refusing to refund the extra charge to customers whom it has overbilled.” Therefore, the lawsuit alleges, Apple violates its own terms of agreement as well as California state and common laws.

Furthermore, Herskowitz claims that Apple follows the same illegal policy at its App store, iBookstore and he Mac App store. Herskowitz is seeking damages of more than $5 million for a national class.

Thank goodness for people who check their bills and read the fine print!

Top Settlements

“Highly Reprehensible” indeed. And it’s about time somebody came out and said it. This week, a California Appeals Court judge ruled that a $4.5 million punitive damages award in an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit will be allowed to stand—that it is not excessive, and that the conduct of ArvinMeritor, the defendant in the asbestos lawsuit, and successor of brake shoe manufacturer Rockwell, was “highly reprehensible.”

“By the 1960s, ArvinMeritor knew that workers exposed to asbestos dust were at risk of developing asbestos-related diseases,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, in 1973 and again in 1975, it wrote letters to (Pneumo Abex) and other manufacturers complaining about the presence of asbestos dust in the brake linings it was receiving from them. Nonetheless, ArvinMeritor did not place any warnings on its products until the early 1980s, and continued to market asbestos-containing brakes until its inventory of them was exhausted sometime in the early 1990s.”

The justice noted that ArvinMeritor did not include a specific reference to cancer on its products until 1987. Gordon Bankhead, who filed the ArvinMeritor asbestos lawsuit, had worked at automotive maintenance facilities from 1965-1999. He died of mesothelioma in 2009.

A jury found ArvinMeritor 15 percent at fault for Bankhead’s death and suffering, putting it on the hook for $375,000 of a $2.5 million noneconomic damages award. The company was joint and severally liable for all of the $1.47 million in compensatory damages. A separate trial resulted in the $4.5 million punitive damages award.

Bayer AG, the manufacturer of Yaz/Yasmin birth control pills, has announced that it has settled 651 US Yasmin blood clot lawsuits for a total, so far, of $142 million. This makes the average settlement about $218,000 a case.

The lawsuits allege that Yasmin/Yas oral contraceptives cause blood clots in the women taking the pills, and in some cases they have proved fatal. The lawsuits also allege that the blood clots can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

According to Bloomberg News, on April 10, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Bayer and other makers of birth control pills to strengthen blood-clot warnings on their products. Consequently, oral contraceptives that contain a synthetic hormone called drospirenone will have warnings on the labels stating that research shows there may be triple the risk for clots with pills such as Yasmin/Yaz. These warnings are also based on an FDA examination of data on more than 835,000 women who took oral contraceptives containing drospirenone, including Yasmin/Yaz.

And on that note—it’s time to adjourn. Happy Friday everyone…

Week Adjourned: 4.27.12 – Bumble Bee Tuna, Vita Coco, Citizens Bank

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending April 27, 2012. Top stories on Bumble Bee Tuna, Vita Coco and Citizens Bank.

Top Class Actions

Bumble Bee Got Stung This Week—with a consumer fraud class action. Yes, it’s true, I’m afraid. The worker bee of tinned seafood (I have never understood what a bumble bee is doing on a tin of tuna) is facing allegations that it repeatedly violated California and federal laws that require companies to use truthful, accurate information on their packaged food labels. (Shame, shame.)

At specific issue in the Bumble Bee lawsuit are the health claims made by Bumble Bee Foods pertaining to its tinned seafood products.

The alleged violations include failing to disclose that Omega-3 has no established Daily Value under FDA regulations, and a failure to properly disclose the high levels of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol in Bumble Bee food products on the packaging and labeling.

The Bumble Bee class action lawsuit states “To appeal to consumer preferences, Bumble Bee has repeatedly made unlawful nutrient claims on products containing disqualifying levels of fat, sodium and cholesterol. These nutrient content claims were unlawful because they failed to include disclosure statements required by law that are designed to inform consumers of the inherently unhealthy nature of those products. ”

The lawsuit states, by way of example, “Tuna Salad Original with Crackers Kit” has 18g of fat per labeled serving, but does not bear a statement that fat exceeding the specified level is present.

The Bumble Bee Foods lawsuit is a nationwide class seeking to represent consumers who purchased Bumble Bee products labeled “Rich in Natural Omega-3” or “Excellent Source Omega-3” within the last 4 years. The California-based law firm of Pratt & Associates is representing the plaintiffs in this class action.

Top Settlements

Something a Little Loco ‘Bout Vita Coco…While we’re on the subject of consumer fraud—a preliminary settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit against All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco. You must remember this—(a kiss is just a—no—wrong song sheet)—it’s the miracle vitamin water. After all, it does everything including taking the garbage out.

If you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and the present you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Vita Coco agreed to set aside $1 million (the “Cash Settlement Fund”), which will provide for payments to Settlement Class Members who timely file claims of up to a maximum of $25.00 with Proof of Purchase (as defined in the Stipulation) and $6.00 without Proof of Purchase. Vita Coco has agreed to provide $1 million current retail value in product vouchers, which can be redeemed by Settlement Class Members who timely file claims in lieu of cash up to a maximum of $36.00 with Proof of Purchase or $8.00 without Proof of Purchase.

There are other conditions the company has agreed to as part of the Vita Coco settlement, which you can find here along with your options as a class member- e.g., do you want to remain in the settlement class, or would you like to be excluded…where do you obtain forms, those kinds of things.

This settlement is only preliminary. The Court will hold a hearing on August 22, 2012 to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement and whether to grant Class Counsel’s (as defined in the Stipulation) request for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards for class representatives.

Good Citizens They Weren’t but…It’s Payback Time! Citizens Bank has agreed to pay $137.5 million (Cha Ching!) to settle a class action lawsuit which accused the bank of manipulating its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues for the bank.

The lawsuit is part of multidistrict litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 09-cv-02036, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami. Citizens Bank is part of Citizens Financial Group which, through RBS Citizens, N.A. and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, operates more than 1,500 retail banking branches throughout the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic and the Mid-West.

The Citizens Bank lawsuit claims that the bank employed software programs designed to extract the greatest possible number of overdraft fees from its customers. According to the lawsuit, Citizens Bank re-sequenced its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount, rather than in the actual order in which the transactions were initiated by the customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, this internal bookkeeping practice resulted in Citizens’ customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if their debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were authorized by the bank.

I wonder if that settlement amount includes interest?

And on that note—happy weekend. Where’s the gin got to…

Week Adjourned: 4.20.12 – Purina Dog Treats, FEMA Trailers, Allstate Insurance

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending April 20, 2012. Top stories include Purina dog treats, Allstate Insurance and Hurricane Katrina FEMA trailers.

And this week—it’s business behaving badly…

Top Class Actions

If you have a dog, read this… A $5 million defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestlé Purina Petcare Co, alleging the company’s Waggin’ Train Yam Good chicken-wrapped treats causes kidney failure in dogs.

The Waggin’ Train Yam Good dog treats lawsuit, filed by Dennis Adkins from Illinois, claims his 9-year-old Pomeranian dog became sick and died from kidney failure three days after eating Waggin’ Train Yam Good chicken-wrapped treats. Adkins said he didn’t give his dog more than the recommended one treat per day, and his other dog did not eat the treats and didn’t get sick. Walmart, where the dog treats were sold, is also a defendant in the lawsuit.

As reported by Reuters Legal, in 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a cautionary warning to consumers about a potential link between dog illnesses and chicken jerky-based products imported from China. None of the products were recalled, and no specific brands were mentioned in the FDA warning. Unbelievable? No, sadly not.

Top Settlements

The fallout from Hurricane Katrina just goes on and on…this week, a $14 million settlement was reached in the defective products Hurricane Katrina FEMA trailer class action brought by victims of Hurricane Katrina against 21 companies who manufactured those infamous FEMA trailers.

The companies manufactured government-issued trailers for storm victims after Hurricane Katrina, and the FEMA trailer lawsuit claims that those trailers contained hazardous materials. As a consequence, the occupants were exposed to toxic fumes.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs told media on Tuesday that the trailer manufacturers or their insurers will pay a total of $14.8 million to resolve the claims without any admission of wrongdoing. The proposed settlement could benefit tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who lived in the travel trailers, which were provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the Associated Press reports.

Early Bird Renewals Catch Bad Faith Insurance Settlement at Allstate. A proposed settlement has been reached this week in a bad faith insurance class action that accuses Allstate of deceptive business practices.

What did they do, you ask? Well allegedly, Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (collectively “Allstate”) sent their motor vehicle insureds deceptive motor vehicle insurance renewal bills in order to induce Allstate’s insureds to pay their renewal premium in full a month before the were premiums were actually due.

If you are affected by this potential settlement, you can find out more here. If you have received a Notice, Allstate’s records indicate you are a member of the class.

The Court has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement, and has ordered that a Notice be sent to all Settlement Class Members. Under the terms of the settlement a sum of $2,727,555 would be provided to pay for claims to those class memers who submit valid claims. The payment amount will consist of 30 days of interest at an annual rate of 7 percent simple interest on the payments of the stated “pay in full” amounts that you made on or before the “due date” indicated on the bill.

The judge presiding over this case has deemed that everyone who fits this description is a class member: all Allstate California motor vehicle insureds who from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2005 received Allstate motor vehicle insurance renewal bills indicating a “due date” for payment approximately one month before the date the policy was to renew, and who paid the stated “pay in full” amount on or before the “due date” on the bill.

And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. I hear the ice-cubes calling my name…

Week Adjourned: 4.13.12 (Muscle Milk, Risperdal, GameStop)

A weekly wrap up of the top class action lawsuits and class action settlements for the week of April 13, 2012; top stories this week: Muscle Milk, Risperdal and GameStop

Top Class Actions

This Week’s Mantra—Cav-e-at Emp-tor…Cav-e-at Emp-tor! Throw that right in there with ‘om shanti shanti shanti om’ at your next yoga class and see what happens…

This week, a consumer fraud class action against Cytosport got greenlit by a judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Bottom line, the company is accused of engaging in false advertising  of its popular Muscle Milk line of products. (I’d be wary of a product with that name. What does it mean?)

According to the Muscle Milk class action lawsuit, to increase sales figures, Cytosport intentionally misrepresents the purported health benefits of Muscle Milk, and actively draws consumer attention away from the significant amount of saturated fats in the products.

The lawsuit alleges that Cytosport profits significantly from its deceptive marketing of Muscle Milk (well, why else would they do it?) because the company’s depiction of the products as “healthy” plays into consumers’ increasing interest in health-conscious foods.

In its decision, the Court explained that a “reasonable consumer would be likely to believe that the drink contains unsaturated, not saturated fats. The drink container also states that it is a ‘nutritional shake.’ This representation … contributes to a sufficient claim of deceptive product labeling … the injury to the consumer class as a whole could be substantial, even if the injury to individual consumers is minimal. No benefit is served by false and misleading advertising.” Well, that’s not entirely true —the company has benefited, allegedly.

Hey, maybe Lay’s Potato Chips and Muscle Milk can team up for some co-op ads, eh? Mmmaybe not.

Top Settlements

Costliest Ad Campaign Ever? This settlement is one for the books, if it goes through. According to media reports out this week, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) may have to stump up a cool $1.25 billion in penance for deceptive marketing of its atypical antipsychotic Risperdal, in Arkansas. The Risperdal settlement, ordered by a judge in Arkansas, is one of the larger J&J may have to pay for deceptive marketing of the drug. But it’s worth noting that J$J will likely appeal.

According to a report by Bloomberg, it took jurors in state court in Little Rock, not more than three hours to deliver their verdict: J&J and its Janssen unit were guilty of taking part in “false or deceptive acts.”

These “acts” date back to 2003, when the company allegedly sent what’s known as “Dear Doctor” letter to no less than 6,000 doctors in the state, allegedly claiming Risperdal is safer than competing drugs used in the state. ”

FYI—Risperdal carries a warning stating that older adults with dementia who take antipsychotic medications may have an increased risk of death, stroke or mini-stroke during treatment.

The state of Arkansas is seeking more than $1.25 billion in penalties over the Risperdal marketing campaign, and a judge will decide later whether to fine J&J,” Bloomberg reports.

This is the third case in which states allege J&J hid the risks associated with Risperdal—and tricked Medicaid regulators into paying more than they should have for the medicine. And it is the third case in which a jury has found against the drug-maker. Juries in Louisiana and South Carolina have also found that J&J’s marketing of Risperdal violated consumer-protection laws. (Bloomberg)

GameStop GamePlaying Over. And one more time for good measure—yet another consumer fraud class action, this one a settlement against retailer GameStop, who stands accused of “deceptive and misleading practices” with its used game sales and paid downloadable content.

Filed two years ago, by James Collins of California, the GameStop lawsuit claims GameStop sells used copies of games that require users to purchase downloadable content for features, even though the packaging for those games advertise that content as free.

According to the lawsuit, several games include one-time-use codes for consumers to download free content, but they require users to purchase that same content if the code has been redeemed, as is the case for many used copies of games. “As a result of GameStop’s deceptive and misleading practices, consumers who purchase used games from GameStop unknowingly find that they must pay an additional fee to access the full game they thought they purchased,” the lawsuit states.

According to the terms of the settlement, for the next two years GameStop must post online warnings and in-store signs (in California, where the lawsuit was filed) next to used games to remind consumers that certain downloadable content may require an additional purchase.

Consumers in California who have purchased a qualifying used game and are enrolled in GameStop’s PowerUp Rewards Program may be able to recover the $15 they might have paid for downloadable content. Also, they could be eligible to receive a $10 check and a $5 coupon. Non-PowerUp Rewards members can receive a $5 check and a $10 coupon. FYI—this settlement only applies to California customers.

And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. I hear the ice-cubes calling my name…om caveat emptor caveat emptor om…

Week Adjourned: 4.6.12 – Lay’s Potato Chips, Groupon, Medtronic

Weekly wrap-up of top class action lawsuits and class action settlements, for the week ending April 6, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Potato Chips are Healthy! Seriously–it’s time for the shovel on this one folks. A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed against PepsiCo and its subsidiary Frito-Lay this week, claims they mislead customers by “misbranding” their potato chips as healthy because they contain “0 grams of Trans Fat.” Call me old-fashioned, but I think that’s a bit of leap. Like—what exactly happened in the potato-chip-making process that suddenly makes the king of junk food healthy?

Not much, it seems. The Frito-Lay lawsuit contends the advertising does not point out that every 50 chips contains more than 13g of fat. Well, hello!

Specifically, the class action lawsuit accuses Frito-Lay of violating federal and California laws that require companies to provide truthful, accurate information on the labels of packaged foods.

“As consumer preferences have begun to favor healthier options, Defendants have chosen to implement a health and wellness strategy to reposition their products as a healthy option,” the Frito-Lay fraud class action lawsuit states. “Defendants recognize that health claims drive food sales and actively promote the purported health benefits of their Misbranded Food Products, notwithstanding the fact that such promotion violates California and federal law.”

Among the deceptive health claims included in the Lay’s potato chips advertising are that the chips are “prepared with healthier oils,” that Frito-Lay’s snack chips “contain 0 grams of Trans Fat, are low in saturated fat and cholesterol-free,” and that the chips contain “good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals.”

Ok. Nothing short of an Easter miracle is going to make potato chips healthy. Come on.

The consumer fraud class action also notes that Frito-Lay tells consumers that “Snacking is an important part of a healthy diet” and that “Snacks may benefit special populations including people with diabetes, children and adolescents, older adults, and pregnant women.” At a loss for words at this point.

According to the lawsuit, “If a manufacturer is going to make a claim on a food label, the label must meet certain legal requirements that help consumers make informed choices and ensure that they are not misled.” However, PepsiCo and Frito-Lay “have made, and continue to make, false and deceptive claims” in violation of state and federal law. Furthermore, lawyers for the plaintiffs contend, “Misbranded food is worthless as a matter of law, and purchasers of misbranded food are entitled to a refund of their purchase price.”

The Frito-Lay consumer fraud class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California consumers who, have purchased Frito-Lay potato chips labeled “0 grams Trans Fat” but which contained more than 13 grams of fat per 50 grams and purchased those chips within the past four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution or disgorgement, as well as a cease and desist order banning the companies from selling their allegedly misbranded food products. (Just in case the collective consumer wisdom accumulated over the past 50 years fails to kick in?)

Raw Deal of the Day? Somewhere in Groupon’s tagline, the word beleaguered should appear. To say this company is beset with lawsuits would be an understatement. This week, it’s a securities class action alleging it released “materially false and misleading statements” regarding its financial results. The Groupon lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of shareholders who acquired Groupon shares between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012.

The lawsuit also claims Groupon’s revenue and growth were overstated, and the company “was not nearly resistant to competition as suggested by defendants.”

The fellow who filed the suit, Fan Zhang, claims that Groupon “failed to disclose negative trends” that would have affected its IPO pricing of 35 million shares of common stock at $20 per share.

Short version—Fan Zhang reportedly bought 3,000 shares of Groupon at an estimated $61,800 in February, then sold those shares in March at a $9,000 loss. Ouch! The lawsuit goes on to state “Groupon’s internal controls were so poor and inadequate that Groupon’s reported results were not reliable.”

The defendants include Groupon Chief Executive Andrew Mason and several banks that helped take the company public, including the lead IPO underwriters Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Um. None of those banks are strangers to lawsuits. Oh well, if you’re heading into a lawsuit like this, best to have some experienced people with you…

Top Settlements

And While we’re on the Subject of Groupon… they agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action this week to the tune of $85.million. The Groupon lawsuit, filed by disgruntled customers, (who else?) alleges that the expiration dates on Groupon coupons are illegal.

The proposed settlement applies to anyone who purchased Groupon vouchers before December 1, 2011. Under the terms of the settlement, the class members can either redeem the coupons beyond their expiration date or, if they are unable to do so, obtain a refund from the $8.5 million fund. Residents in some states can seek refunds only for vouchers sold after Aug. 22, 2010.

And, for the next three years, also as part of the settlement, Groupon has agreed not to sell more than 10 percent of its daily deals with an expiration date of less than 30 days after their issue date.

According to Bloomberg.com, the settlement pertains to no less than 17 lawsuits filed against the daily deals dealer, which were subsequently consolidated. The plaintiffs claimed Groupon and various retailers violate federal and state consumer protection laws with improper expiration dates and other provisions for the vouchers, such as the requirement that they be used in a single transaction.

“Groupon effectively creates a sense of urgency among consumers to quickly purchase ‘groupon’ gift certificates by offering ‘daily deals’ for a short amount of time,” according to the first lawsuit which was filed in 2011. “Consumers therefore feel pressured and are rushed into buying the gift certificates and unwittingly become subject to the onerous sales conditions.”

New Meaning to Graft? And then there’s Medtronic. What can we say about these guys—that’s good? Not much really. Although this news is good—for investors. The medical equipment company has agreed to pony up $85 million to settle investors’ claims regarding stock fraud.

The securities class action lawsuit claims that the investors were misled by company leaders on the off-label uses of the company’s highly controversial Medtronic Infuse bone graft. This product is troubling from a number of angles.

The Medtronic stock fraud settlement still awaits final documentation and court approval.

The lawsuit, filed in 2008 by the Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association, claims that Medtronic’s officers and directors misled investors through a nearly decade-long campaign to illegally promote Infuse for uses not approved by the Food & Drug Administration.

Sales and future growth of the graft were “driven by misconduct that invited, and ultimately brought about, the scrutiny of federal regulators and an abrupt decline in sales,” according to a case brief by attorneys for the investors. As a result, revenues declined, so did the value of shares, which fell to $31.60 from $57.86.

And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. Happy Good Friday everyone.

Wait—is that a bunny on my lawn?

Week Adjourned: 3.30.12 (Barefoot Running, LG Electronics, Deutsche Bank)

The weekly wrap-up of class action lawsuits and class action settlements for the week ending March 30, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Barefoot running benefits nothing more than barefaced lies? Well, it remains to be seen, but certainly there’s doubt over its merits—though no doubts re: its ugliness—and allegations of injury resulting from the barefoot running shoe. (Is it really a shoe?)  A consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed this week against Vibram USA Inc and Vibram FiveFingers LLC, alleging the company used deceptive statements about the health benefits of barefoot running.

Filed on behalf of Florida resident Valerie Bezdek, the Barefoot Running Shoes lawsuit alleges that 1) health benefits claims Vibram FiveFingers has used to promote the shoes are deceptive; 2) that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot; 3) that there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers claims.

“Given that Defendant’s advertising and marketing equates barefoot running with running in FiveFingers, Defendant’s uniform deceptive statements about barefoot running are also deceptive statements about Five Fingers,” the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit also states that sales of the Vibram FiveFingers shoes have grown an average of 300 percent a year for the last five years and approached $70 million in 2011. That’s certainly not chump change. 

LG TV lifespans less than expected. You know, you could make the argument that defective products help the market economy—something breaks—you go buy a new one—right? Well, not according to some disgruntled LG consumers. They filed a federal class action lawsuit against LG Electronics USA, alleging that the electronics manufacturer’s plasma and LCD Television sets are defective, impacting the lifespan of the televisions. And they are not prepared to go out and buy new sets. Can you blame them?

The LG Electronics class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone else who purchased certain defective LG televisions in the state of Nevada. Class televisions include but are not limited to models 32LC2D, 37LC2D, 42LC2D, 42PC3D, 42PC3DV, 47LC7DF and 50PC3D.

The lawsuit alleges that the televisions are defective in that they contain internal components called printed wiring boards (also known as printed circuit boards) that prematurely fail during normal operation of the televisions (the “defect”). The defect, which was present upon delivery and which manifests itself over time, ultimately results in the failure of the televisions themselves well before the end of their expected useful life, and rendering the televisions unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. I’m guessing that’s watching TV… 

Top Settlements

Danke schön, Deutsche Bank (not). It’s the financial mess that never ends—though you have to admit, it’s given the document shredding industry cause for a few high-five’s… A preliminary settlement was announced this week in the lawsuit pending against Deutsche Bank—with the German financial house agreeing to pony up a paltry $32.5 million to settle claims that it lied about the quality of home loans underlying the securities it sold. (Well Hel-lo. And where in the settlements line-up is this one?) 

The investors that sued include the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds. They have filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Deutsche Bank settlement in federal court in Central Islip, New York.

“The proposed settlement will provide a substantial monetary benefit to the settlement class,” court papers state.

According to the lawsuit, and as reported by Bloomberg.com, in 2006, the plaintiffs bought from Deutsche Bank so-called pass-through certificates that gave them the right to the payments on the underlying home loans. The offering documents contained misstatements about loan underwriting standards, property appraisals, loan-to-value ratios and credit ratings on the certificates, according to the complaint. At the same time Deutsche Bank was selling the securities, it was profiting from credit-default swaps by wagering that loans like those underlying the certificates would decline in value, the investors claim.

The lawsuit also states “More than 49 percent of the loans underlying one certificate series were delinquent or foreclosed on,” the investors said. The tranche the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds, the lead plaintiff, bought “has already realized cumulative principal losses.”

The investors also claim that had a sale been done in 2008 when the lawsuit was filed, they would have netted between 70 and 80 cents on the dollar. “The certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid,” the lawsuit states. So I guess $32.5 million doesn’t look so bad now.

OK–That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone–Mickey Mouse says it’s Martini Time! (and may one of us hit #MegaMillions!)