Settlement - Part 9

Week Adjourned: 1.21.12

A weekly wrap up of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending January 21, 2012

Top Class Actions

Holy HELOC Batman—It’s been certified! A class action lawsuit brought by a couple in Cupertino in 2009—and which has been through 4 attempts to get certified—finally got the nod from a federal court judge this past week. And this one could affect many people.

The back story—Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase (Chase has since acquired WaMu) allegedly reduced credit limits on Jeffrey and Jenifer Schulken’s home equity line of credit (HELOC) without valid reasons.

Specifically, the HELOC class action lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act violations and unfair competition among other claims. The Cupertino couple allege they were informed by Chase, by letter, that their home equity credit lines would be suspended because they did not have enough monthly income to satisfy their debts. The Schulken’s allege that the monthly income of $11,200 that Chase claimed the couple stated on their applications, was inaccurate, that they had never “provided such an inflated income figure to WaMu, and that if the Schulkens’ file indicated such an income, then WaMu had intentionally misrepresented their income.”

After four attempts by Chase to have the complaint dismissed, two classes have now been certified: the “inability to verify” class, and a subclass of borrowers whose credit lines were suspended because Chase could not verify their financial circumstances.

The plaintiffs’ class definition to include “only those members who signed contracts that (1) arise from heritage WaMu customers, and (2) state that the borrower must provide, upon the lender’s request, ‘a current financial statement, new credit application, or both.'”

Top Settlements

Couple of big pharma settlements announced this week…

At the top of the hit parade we have Johnson & Johnson (J&J). They have reportedly agreed to pay $158 million to settle a lawsuit in Texas that alleges the company defrauded the state by misleading doctors about its antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The deal will put an end to claims that J&J marketed Risperdal off label—for unapproved uses—and downplayed health risks associated with the drug. Texas had originally sought at least $579 million in damages. Well, shoot for the stars—isn’t that how the saying goes?

Bloomberg reported that the settlement follows some rather incriminating testimony given in court last week. Testimony that included an expert eye witness stating that J&J hid data showing Risperdal could cause weight gain that could lead to diabetes. According to Bloomberg “the witness also alleged that J&J had key study [ Study 113] results several years before it added warnings about weight gain to the drug’s label.”

Bloomberg notes in its report that J&J’s unpublished studies—ah—yes—more than one—were cited in a South Carolina case that brought a $327 million judgment against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. “It is apparent to this court that this information was not disclosed because if did not fit the marketing department’s vision for the promotion and marketing of this drug,” Judge Roger Couch wrote in a ruling (as quoted by Bloomberg). Amen to that.

And singing from a similar song sheet—we have Merck. It was announced this week that they have agreed to pay up to $37 million to settle a Canadian Vioxx class action lawsuit. Included in the settlement is $10 million for costs and fees. Plaintiffs’ lawyer said up to 2,000 Canadians may be eligible for compensation.

FYI—Vioxx (Rofecoxib) was on the market from 1999 to 2004, prescribed to patients as a pain-reliever for arthritis, osteoarthritis, menstrual pain, and other acute pain. Vioxx was recalled and pulled off the market when it was linked to deadly side effects heart attack, stroke, kidney damage, and arrythmia. This led to billions of dollars’ worth of litigation, including a $4.85 billion settlement that covers most of the U.S. plaintiffs.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.13.12

A wrap up of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending January 13, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Diagnosis: Discrimination? Following in the footsteps of the Novartis and Merck suits, one has to wonder if discrimination is standard practice in this industry…

A $100 million gender discrimination employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics Inc., and AmeriPath, Inc., (collectively known as “Quest”) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint details the systemic discriminatory treatment of female sales representatives company-wide by the self-proclaimed “world leader in diagnostic testing, information and services.”

Indiana resident Erin Beery and Florida resident Heather Traeger, both of them current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division, filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated sales reps employed from February 17, 2010 to the present. Beery is an Executive Territory Manager in Quest’s Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Indianapolis; Traeger is Senior Executive Territory Manager in the Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Bradenton.

The complaint details a wide range of discriminatory practices in the selection, promotion and advancement of sales reps at Quest Diagnostics and AmeriPath, including discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and caretaking responsibilities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

In addition, both of the named plaintiffs in the case have individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender hostility, the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation in the workplace affecting them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

According to Beery and Traeger, high ranking company officials within Quest’s predominately-male management team foster an environment detrimental to the success and advancement of female employees. They describe “old boys’ club” attitudes that pervade the enterprise, including forcing women to work under less favorable circumstances than their male counterparts and denying them the educational and job advancement opportunities afforded men in similar positions.

The complaint asserts that Quest’s policies do not provide sufficient oversight or safety measures to protect women from intentional and overt discrimination of even facially-neutral policies, so that female employees discriminated against have no recourse within the company. It cites an absence of internal incentives or disciplinary measures to ensure company executives and managers comply with company discrimination policies and equal employment laws.

The lawsuit also asserts that a significant number of the women who work for Quest have been and are affected by the same discriminatory employment policies, practices and procedures to which Beery and Traeger were subjected, justifying the certification of the class.

Scanning Scam? And now for our weekly consumer fraud lawsuit. This one was filed against Symantec Corp alleging the software manufacturer attempts to convince consumers to buy its products by providing misleading information about the functionality of their computers.

Filed by James Gross, of Washington state, the lawsuit claims that Symantec distributes trial versions of its products that scan a consumer’s system, then report that harmful errors, privacy risks and other problems exists on the PC, regardless of the actual operating status of the computer.

The lawsuit also claims that Symantec uses that scanning software to market Norton Utilities, PC Tools Registry Mechanic and PC Tools Performance Toolkit software. Norton Utilities and PC Tools are products that Symantec claims help improve the performance of personal computers and keep online activities private. The lawsuit claims that Norton Utilities and PC Tools are forms of “scareware,” a common type of malicious software that causes pop-up messages to appear on computers telling users that they are infected with a virus.

“The truth, however, is that the scareware does not actually perform any meaningful evaluation of the user’s computer system, or of the supposed ‘errors’ detected by the software,” the complaint claims. What scareware does do, in my experience, is suck up your time and send your stress levels through the roof—like you’ve got nothing better to do!

“The scareware does not, and cannot, actually perform the valuable tasks represented by Symantec through its websites, advertising, and in-software display screens.” No comment.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs state that the software is falsely informing the consumer that errors are high priority and in addition it is falsely informing the consumer that their overall system health and privacy health is low. Symantec makes Norton 360, Norton Internet Security and Norton AntiVirus software.

Top Settlement

Nationwide Insurance Settlement. Well, it’s a start. This week, a federal court preliminarily approved a settlement with Nationwide Insurance that resolves allegations brought in a federal class action lawsuit, that the insurer improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits to residents in Delaware. Nice.

What’s the beef? The lawsuit claims that Nationwide improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits for medical services after submitting medical bills to a computer-based bill review audit. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges reductions in payment for those services based upon a reasonableness or usual and customary charge bill review administered by Mitchell Medical. Among other things, the lawsuit challenges Nationwide’s right to conduct such bill review under the applicable policies, the disclosure that such bill review would be conducted, and the manner in which the bill review was conducted. Nationwide denies any wrongdoing, and contends that review of medical bill pricing protects against excessive charges and helps to preserve insurance benefits.

Here’s the skinny on qualifying: “You are a member of the “Settlement Class” and a “Settlement Class Member” covered by the settlement if you fall within the following class definition adopted by the Court:

All persons, and their medical providers or other assignees, who (a) submitted first-party medical expense claims to Nationwide pursuant to Nationwide’s Delaware automobile insurance policy No-Fault coverage; (b) had their claim submitted by Nationwide to computer pricing review during the period from September 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007; (c) received or were tendered payment but in an amount less than the submitted medical charges based upon the pricing review of the charges; and (d) received or were tendered an amount less than the stated policy limits.”

You can find out more about the Nationwide insurance settlement here.

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

Week Adjourned: 1.6.12

A wrap of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending January 6, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Pay your staff overtime? Just do it! A former employee of the San Francisco NikeTown Store has filed a wages and overtime class action complaint against Nike alleging that the sporting goods manufacturer failed to compensate him for overtime, meals and rest breaks as well as any additional shifts he worked. The lawsuit has two (2) potential classes: “All employees of Defendants who worked as Sales Associates, or any other non-exempt job position, who were subject to Defendants’ policy of searching Defendants’ employees upon exiting one of Defendants’ store locations in California from December 28, 2007, to the date of filing this Complaint.” This group is hereinafter referred to as the “California Class.” This period of time is hereinafter referred to as the “California Class Period.”

And, “All employees of Defendants who worked as Sales Associates, or any other non-exempt job position, who were subject to Defendants’ policy of searching Defendants’ employees upon exiting one of Defendants’ store locations in the United States of America from December 28, 2008, to the date of filing this Complaint.” This group is hereinafter referred to as the “Nationwide Class.” This period of time is hereinafter referred to as the “Nationwide Class Period.”

The employment lawsuit was filed by Webster Proctor, on behalf of himself and behalf of others similarly situated. According to the complaint, Proctor was employed by Nike from approximately April 2010 until approximately May 2011. During that time he alleges in the lawsuit that he generally worked four (4) 8-hour shifts per week and was deprived of pay for all the hours he worked, meal and rest breaks, and proper overtime pay.

Specifically, the wages and hour class action lawsuit alleges: failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; failure to maintain employee time records; and unfair competition.

Top Settlements

Is it snake oil? An unfair business practices lawsuit against dietary supplement distributors Iovate Health Sciences Inc., and Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc., look certain to be settled as the companies have agreed to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties and costs. This is reportedly the second largest multidistrict attorney dietary supplement settlement of its kind in California.

The lawsuit was brought by the District Attorney’s Office in Santa Cruz, Napa, Alameda, Marin, Monterey,

Pages: 12

Week Adjourned: 12.30.11

A weekly wrap up of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 30, 2011.

Top Class Actions

Neiman-Marcus Class Action Filed Over $1.50. That’s one dollar fifty cents, folks. This is interesting–and I have to admit I’d never thought about ATM fees in department stores. But this woman has–Marilyn Frey, from Sherman, Texas. She has filed a consumer fraud class action against Neiman-Marcus claiming unfair business practices over its charging $1.50 ATM fees at ATM terminals in their stores, without posting the fees. Umm. Ok.

The lawsuit, brought individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, claims that Frey made a withdrawal at an ATM on October 11, 2011, which is operated by Neiman-Marcus in their store, and was charged a “terminal fee” of $1.50 in connection with the transaction. The lawsuit claims that the fee is in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires a notice posted on or at the ATM regarding the fee that would be charged for use. Well, this could certainly open up a can of worms…all this for $1.50.

Top Settlements

A couple of biggies this week…

AIG Low-balling Workers’ Comp Claims. First up—American International Group Inc (AIG)—they received final approval from a federal judge to pay $450 million as settlement of the AIG class-action lawsuit brought by a group of other insurers alleging underreporting of workers compensation premiums.

The settlement is supported by AIG and Ace Ina Holdings Inc., Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Firstcomp Insurance Co., Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Technology Insurance Co. and Travelers Indemnity Co. Liberty Mutual Group’s two subsidiaries, Ohio Casualty and Safeco, had opposed the settlement. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Liberty Mutual’s request to appeal the proposed $450 million settlement while the case is still ongoing. Liberty Mutual could still file an appeal down the road, and can still drop out of the settlement class to pursue a case against AIG on its own.

The lawsuit stems from allegations that AIG intentionally underestimated its workers’ comp premiums to avoid premium taxes and substantial residual market charges before 1996. In some states, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the residual market losses were greater than the residual market and voluntary market premium combined, so the more voluntary premium a company wrote, the more it had to pay out to cover its share of the residual market losses. That, allegedly, gave companies an incentive to under-report workers’ comp claims. Got it? Hey—fraud is fraud…

Look Sharp? Next up…A $538.6 million settlement has been agreed between Sharp Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) and five other makers of liquid crystal display panels which, if approved, would end claims that the companies fixed prices on the panels used in computers and televisions. The attorney generals of eight states, including California, Florida and New York are part of the settlement agreements with the manufacturers.

In a nutshell—the antitrust lawsuit alleged that the companies fixed prices of thin-film liquid crystal display panels, between 1999 and 2006, which effectively increased the prices for purchasers of devices such as televisions, notebook computers and monitors.

How is a consumer supposed to know this stuff? Oh right, we’re not. All things considered maybe the term “trust” should be stricken from terminology relating to the free market… just a thought…

Apparently, this settlement will see about $501 million made available for partial refunds to consumers and about $37 million made available for compensation to governments and other public entities for damages.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this year. Happy New Year and all that jazz. See you in 2012!

Week Adjourned: 12.23.11

A weekly wrap of the latest class action lawsuits and settlements, December 23, 2011

Top Class Actions

Another Corny Lawsuit? Ummm—you decide. A consumer fraud lawsuit was filed this week—testing the boundaries of food labeling vis-a-vis PepsiCo’s snacks business, Frito-Lay. The issue? Frito-lay is misleading consumers by making claims that its products, which contain genetically modified corn and vegetable oils, are all-natural, according to the lawsuit. (All natural corn=all natural chips? Really?)

Specifically, the lawsuit claims that by labeling some of its Tostitos and SunChips products as “made with all-natural ingredients” Frito-Lay is misleading consumers because genetically modified corn and vegetable oils are also present in the product. “The reasonable consumer assumes that seeds created by swapping genetic material across species to exhibit traits not naturally theirs are not ‘all natural’,” the claim states.

The claimant is pursuing the case on the basis of a violation of California and federal laws relating to unfair and fraudulent claims. I’m still struggling with the thought of any of this type of “food” being ok on any level—never mind whether or not it’s genetically modified. Bah humbug!

Top Settlements

Diamonds are Forever. So’s the De Beers Price Fixing Settlement now. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued an opinion today upholding the settlement in the antitrust class action litigation against the South African company De Beers, the world’s largest diamond supplier, for allegedly conspiring to monopolize the sale of rough diamonds.

The appellate court affirmed an order by U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey that approved a settlement under which De Beers agreed to pay $295 million to U.S. jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry beginning in 1994.

The settlement also prevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business practices and requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement. Ouch! That’s a wee bit more than a wrist slap —but hey—that tennis bracelet sure looks good…

Talk about Soaring Gas Prices… More price fixing—this time in the stock market (now there’s a surprise)—and this time the guilty party is Amaranth Advisors LLC. They got hit with a $77.1 million settlement in a securities lawsuit brought by traders who allege the hedge fund manipulated the natural gas market. Whoa Nelly!

According to Businessweek, Amaranth collapsed in 2006 after losing $6.6 billion on natural gas trades. In August 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced that Amaranth paid $7.5 million to settle market manipulation allegations however, in their lawsuit, the traders presented an expert who estimated damages at $3.5 billion.

Then, in April of this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a $30 million civil penalty against Brian Hunter, an Amaranth trader accused of manipulating the natural gas market in 2006.

FYI—the settlement isn’t final yet—a hearing on final approval of the class-action, or group, accord is reportedly scheduled for March 27 and, if approved, could pave the way for investor reimbursement.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. Merry Christmas—Happy Hanukkah—and Season’s Greetings—have a wonderful holiday everyone…

Week Adjourned: 12.17.11

A wrap of the top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 17, 2011.

Top Class Actions

What Happened to that ‘Good Will Toward Men’ Thing? ‘Tis the season–and this thing called good will towards men apparently hasn’t caught on yet–in some parts. Case-in-point–Capital One. They’re facing a class action over allegations that they illegally obtain background checks on folks applying for jobs with the company. What’s in your wallet indeed!

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Kevin Smith and seeks to represent a class of all Capital One employees and job applicants for the past three years.

Essentially, the lawsuit accuses Capital One of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“the Act”) Act in a two ways. First, the lawsuit alleges that Capital One’s authorization form is flawed. The law imposes strict formatting requirements on companies who do background checks. The lawsuit alleges that by burying its background check authorization in a job application, including extraneous information, Capital One violated the law. On this claim, Capital One may be liable to all employees and prospective employees who signed Capital One’s standard job application.

Second, the lawsuit also alleges that Capital One failed to provide copies of the reports when it used them to take adverse employment actions, such as refusing to hire an applicant, refusing to promote an employee or terminating an employee. This practice also violates the Act, which requires companies to provide employees with copies of their background checks.

The lawsuit is potentially valuable to class members. Employees and prospective employees may be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each violation. “Based on our understanding of Capital One’s practices, everyone who has applied or worked for Capital One in the past three years should be eligible to receive statutory damages if our lawsuit succeeds,” attorneys for the plaintiff(s) state.

Next up–Apple. All I have to say about this is Really? Here’s the skinny…

Cheap to the (Apple) Core? The uber cool icon of new technologies for the 21st century has been hit with an employment class action lawsuit. The suit alleges that Apple devised an illegal scheme of classifying at-home call center employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying Apple’s share of payroll taxes and other business related expenses through the use of a Yellow Dog Contract.

According to the lawsuit, Apple “hires workers to answer calls from its customers in regard to billing questions and technical support” but has devised an unlawful scheme of classifying the employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying for regular and overtime hours worked as well as the “the cost of the employer’s share of tax payments to the federal and state governments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for workers’ compensation insurance.” The complaint specifically alleges that in order to avoid the payment of these costs as required by law, the at home call center employees “are required by APPLE to each form a separate Virtual Services Corporation to act as a shell corporation as part of the scheme to insulate APPLE from APPLE’s liability for APPLE’s Business Related Expenses.” The class action lawsuit against Apple refers to these agreements between Apple and the employees as “Yellow Dog Contracts” that violate not only employment laws, but also fundamental public policy.

Top Settlements

A Fee-for-All at Walmart? Walmart has agreed to a $13.5 settlement of a securities class action this week. The lawsuit was brought by employee Jeremy Braden, and others, who alleged that the retail giant, together with Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit, passed along “unreasonably high fees and expenses” to its 2 million workers who had 401(k) plans. As with many 401(k) plans, Walmart’s contained a mixture of mutual funds representing investments in the bond and stock markets. The costs of managing those funds were passed along to employees.

According to a report in the AARP Bulletin the Walmart “settlement is a legal landmark because Walmart provides one of the largest 401(k) plans in the world and is the nation’s largest private employer, with more than $400 billion in annual sales.”

The timing is interesting in that the US Department of Labor is currently refining regulations around “fiduciary duty” and fee disclosure in 401(k) plans. And, the government is pressing for full disclosure of all fees paid to middlemen such as savings plan managers and wants stricter legal guidelines on how to provide the most prudent offerings at the lowest possible cost.

“I believe my account has experienced a loss in value, due to the reduced return on my investment in those plan investment options caused by the unreasonably high fees and expenses in those funds,” Braden stated in the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, Braden will collect $20,000. “Other employees covered by the class action suit will not receive payouts, but will benefit in the form of up to $9 million in reduced fees going forward. Lawyers for the plaintiffs will collect as much as $4 million,” AARP Bulletin reported.

Ok–That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 12.2.11

A wrap-up of the latest class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 2, 2011

Top Class Actions

Are your text messages being traced–by your own hand, so to speak? Ten years ago this would have been the stuff of a James Bond film. Today, sadly, it seems to be business as usual–or more accurately—if you can get away with it…

A group of consumers filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit this week, alleging that smartphone manufacturers HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd use software developed by Carrier IQ, Inc. (“CIQ”) that illegally intercepts incoming text messages and captures users’ key strokes—including those used to compose email and text messages or to dial numbers—without consumers’ knowledge or permission. The lawsuit asks the court to award damages under the Federal Wiretap Act, and prevent companies from including similar software in future smartphones.

The back story—in mid-November, software developer Trevor Eckhart published a video blog illustrating the operation of the CIQ software recording keystrokes, including information sent to secure websites using HTTPS security protocols used in e-commerce and other security-sensitive sites.

After Eckhart published his discovery and documents he found on CIQ’s website, CIQ accused him of copyright violations and threatened legal actions unless he capitulated to the company’s demands. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public-interest digital rights watchdog stepped in to defend Eckhart and CIQ later apologized to Eckhart and rescinded its demands.

According to CIQ, its software is embedded on smartphones to allow the company to collect data for the benefit of cellular carriers and device manufacturers, which is important to improving customer experience, such as logging information related to dropped calls. CIQ says its program does not log keystrokes or intercept messages and it does not store or resell the information.

The lawsuit alleges that, in reality, the program does record keystrokes and the content of messages, and could transmit the information to third parties, possibly including information sent to secure websites using HTTPS security protocols used in e-commerce and other security-sensitive sites such as banking.

The complaint was filed on behalf of four smartphone users and names smartphone manufacturers HTC and Samsung as defendants along with CIQ. The lawsuit could be amended to include other smartphone manufacturers that embed the CIQ software on their devices.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses the companies of violating the Federal Wiretap Act and California’s Unfair Business Practice Act. The Federal Wiretap Act prohibits the unauthorized interception or illegal use of electronic communications.

Very creepy.

Top Settlements

Could this be a Christmas Bonus? Borders Group Inc has agreed to settle an employment class action lawsuit brought by 198 former employees over Borders’ alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification (WARN) Act.

Borders, unfortunately, is in the last stages of liquidation, but has agreed to pay $240,000 as settlement to the former employees who claim they were laid off without sufficient notice, violating federal regulations. After legal fees are deducted, reports indicate that each plaintiff could receive $797. The lawsuit was filed by former employees of Borders’ Ann Arbor headquarters, led by an employee named Jared Pinsker. According to the settlement filing, the parties agreed to settle their dispute to avoid a protracted and costly legal battle.

Borders, which finished closing its stores and liquidating its inventory in September, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February. The company converted its case into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy liquidation in July. A U.S. bankruptcy judge in Manhattan must approve the settlement. Fingers crossed on this one.

Citigroup Settlement Update. Here’s an update on a proposed settlement we wrote about in late October, involving Citigroup and allegations of investor fraud. Judge Jed Rakoff, of the infamous New York Southern District, has rejected a proposed $285M settlement offered by Citigroup to end an civil complaint brought by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) over allegations that they defrauded investors through highly risky mortgage-backed investments. The specific transaction referred by the SEC involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments. (Anyone seen “Margin Call”?)

According to a report by Forbes, “Rakoff is a critic of the custom that allows firms to use their pocketbook to settle charges rather than admitting guilt, and said there is a public interest in finding out the truth.” Consequently, Rakoff has scheduled a trial, for July 16, 2012. However, the SEC and Citi could bring a settlement to the table prior to that, again pending judge’s approval, which, if approved would keep the case out of court. Me thinks an example may be made here.

Ok–That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 11.26.11

A wrap up of the week’s leading class action lawsuits and settlements – November 26, 2011

Top Class Actions

Do you know who’s got your personal information? An unfair business practices class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District Court of Florida against Best Buy Corporation for violating the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act or “DPPA”, a federal statute that protects the privacy of personal information assembled by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs).

The lawsuit alleges Best Buy has established a business practice of taking, storing, using and/or sharing customers’ personal or highly restricted personal information, without consent, when customers make a normal return of Best Buy merchandise. Their receipt indicates that Best Buy “tracks exchanges and returns … and some of the information from your ID may be stored in a secure, encrypted database of customer activity that Best Buy and its affiliates use to track exchanges and returns.”

The DPPA specifically prohibits Best Buy’s conduct and was instituted to protect consumers from abuses such as identify theft and stalking, which often result when information is unsecured and improperly stored. The class action alleges that Best Buy’s retention of data accessed on a driver’s license is not “use in the normal course of business” as described by the DPPA.

Top Settlements

What’s that old adage—if it sounds too good to be true… Power Balance LLC, the company that made Power Balance bracelets, has reportedly settled a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week for $57.4 million and filed for federal bankruptcy protection. The details and amount of the Power Balance settlement remain to be confirmed, although it’s all over the Internet.

The company was sued over allegations of misleading advertising, advertising that allegedly claimed the hologram-embedded rubber bracelets enabled the wearers to “achieve their best,” a statement that begs the question—best what? Best outlandish claim? Possibly. Although the company claims there’s science to back up the statement. I have one word—and it’s “placebo.”

About time: Merck Vioxx settlement. There’s not much that’s funny about this. Merck, Sharp & Dohme has agreed to pay $950 million to resolve criminal charges and civil claims related to its promotion and marketing of the painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib), the Justice Department announced. The FDA approved Vioxx for three indications in May 1999, but did not approve its use against rheumatoid arthritis until April 2002. In the interim, for nearly three years, Merck promoted Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis, conduct for which it was admonished in an FDA warning letter issued in September 2001.

Merck is also entering into a civil settlement agreement under which it will pay $628,364,000 to resolve additional allegations regarding off-label marketing of Vioxx and false statements about the drug’s cardiovascular safety. Of the total civil settlement, $426,389,000 will be recovered by the United States, and the remaining share of $201,975,000 will be distributed to the participating Medicaid states. The settlement and plea conclude a long-running investigation of Merck’s promotion of Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the marketplace in September 2004.

The parallel civil settlement covers a broader range of allegedly illegal conduct by Merck. The settlement resolves allegations that Merck representatives made inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading statements about Vioxx’s cardiovascular safety in order to increase sales of the drug, resulting in payments by the federal government. It also resolves allegations that Merck made false statements to state Medicaid agencies about the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx, and that those agencies relied on Merck’s false claims in making payment decisions about the drug. Finally, like the criminal plea, the civil settlement also recovers damages for allegedly false claims caused by Merck’s unlawful promotion of Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis.

Ok—That’s the week that was. Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Week Adjourned: 11.19.11

Weekly wrap up of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending November 19, 2011

Top Class Actions

Under-performing, under investigation and in trouble–that could be the new tag line for Olympus, who got served with a securities lawsuit this week. And, to make matters worse for the Japanese manufacturer of imaging equipment–they are now under investigation by the SEC and FBI. Nice. That ought to keep them up at night…

The securities class action lawsuit was filed against Olympus Corporation (“Olympus”), on behalf of purchasers of Olympus American Depository Receipts (pinksheets: OCPNY, OCPNF) between November 7, 2006 and November 7, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

According to the lawsuit, Olympus falsely represented its finances for over five years and hid large losses by characterizing them in its financials as “fees” paid to investment advisers for work on corporate acquisitions.

Olympus’ false statements and material omissions, according to the lawsuit, artificially inflated its stock price and investors suffered heavy losses after Olympus disclosed the truth about its financial statements on November 7, 2011. Investors’ American Depository Receipts dropped dramatically from $13.72 on November 7, 2011, the last day of the Class Period, to $9.05 on November 8, 2011, or 34%. Olympus’ top executives resigned in what has become a financial scandal in Japan.

Recently, on its webpage, Olympus admitted discovering that it had been wrongfully “engaging in activities such as deferring the posting of losses on investment securities.” Olympus offered its “deepest apologies” to shareholders for the “inconvenience” caused by the fall of its share price. Uh–I don’t think an apology is going to cut it in this instance…

Top Settlements

Wal-Mart Netflix Antitrust Lawsuit News…A potential settlement agreement looks possible in an antitrust class action lawsuit brought by current and former Netflix customers against Wal-Mart and Netflix. Emails were recently sent out announcing that Wal-Mart wants to settle. Netflix has decided to continue its fight. Really?

The potential settlement would see Wal-Mart pay $27.25 million in cash and gift cards. The Wal-Mart settlement class includes anyone in the U.S. or Puerto Rico who paid a Netflix subscription fee for DVD rentals from May 19, 2005, through September 2, 2011. More details on the lawsuit are available at OnlineDVDclass.com.

FYI–in case the details of the Wal-Mart – Netflix lawsuit don’t immediately come flooding back to mind…(because it was filed in 2009 maybe) the allegations are basically: “This antitrust class action arises out of a conspiracy among defendants Netflix, Wal-Mart stores, and Walmart.com to divide the markets for the sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States in order to avoid competition, monopolize, and illegally restrain trade in at least the online DVD rental market.”

Oracle Overtime Lawsuit Preliminary Settlement…Ah–this old chestnut, again. A California unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought against Oracle reached preliminary settlement through a court in California last week, to the tune of $35 million.

The plaintiff class includes some 1,725 Oracle employees who alleged that they were not paid overtime and meal allowances. The suit was filed by quality software assurance engineers, customer support engineers and project managers who worked for Oracle and Peoplesoft in Redwood City and Pleasanton from 2003 to 2006.

According to California County law, staff working more than eight hours a day or 40 hours in a week are eligible for time-and-a-half. However, Oracle incorrectly classified the three groups of workers as administrative roles, making them exempt from the payments.

Oracle did not change its overtime policy for customer support engineers and project managers until 2007, though quality assurance engineers still do not qualify for overtime and the settlement for them extends to November 2010. A final hearing is set for March and will allow any workers to raise objections or go after individual claims against the software giant.

Ok–That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar. Bottoms Up!

Week Adjourned: 11.11.11

The weekly wrap up of Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements for the week ending November 11, 2011.

Top Class Actions

We’re Mad about Madoff! Still. Again. No kidding. Only this time someone’s naming a bank. Two former Bernard L. Madoff investors have filed a proposed consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co, claiming the banking giant was complicit in aiding Madoff in orchestrating the Ponzi scheme that robbed investors of more than $65 billion.

The lawsuit comes after a similar suit filed by the trustee appointed to represent Madoff’s victims was dismissed. The court ruled that the case filed by Irving Picard lacked standing, holding those claims belonged exclusively by the victims of Madoff’s fraud.

Among the allegations leveled in the lawsuit, investors charge that JP Morgan operated as Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC’s (BLMIS) primary banker for more than 20 years, and were faced with many indications that the fund was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

The lawsuit details that since 1986, all the money BLMIS collected from unwitting investors passed through JP Morgan in an account known as the 703 Account, where BLMIS co-mingled funds from investors.

The lawsuit contends that JP Morgan should have known that BLMIS’s activities were grossly inconsistent with those of an investment firm through a number of signs of impropriety.

JP Morgan, for example, was required to review a filing submitted by BLMIS to the SEC known as the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Reports or FOCUS. That report, the lawsuit states, contained glaring irregularities that JP Morgan should have reported to the SEC, including factual omissions and errors, such as failing to report any commission revenue.

Beginning in 2006 JP Morgan sold structured investment products related to BLMIS feeder funds to its clients, profiting on those transactions as well. In the course of structuring those products, JP Morgan performed due-diligence on BLMIS and became suspicious that the BLMIS was a fraud but did not report its findings, the lawsuit alleges, but did redeem $145 million from BLMIS and $276 million from BLMIS feeder funds in 2008.

The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Stephen and Leyla Hill, investors who incurred losses in BLMIS. It claims JP Morgan had knowing participation in a breach of trust, aided and abetted fraud, aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted conversion and received unjust enrichment. The suit seeks damages for the plaintiffs.

Top Settlements

Big Banks paying Big Bucks: But are the bucks big enough? A $410 million settlement was approved this week—you may have seen it splashed all over the news—by a federal judge in Miami, ending an overdraft fees class action lawsuit against Bank of America (BoFA) that claimed the bank charged excessive overdraft fees.

Only thing is there are reportedly more than 13 million current and former customers who will be affected by the decision, customers who used debit cards over the past 10 years. Some reports suggest that most of the plaintiffs will likely only receive a fraction of the overdraft fees they paid. Ummm.

The lawsuit alleged that BoFA processed its debit card and check payments in such a way as to incur more customer overdrafts and consequently more fees. BoFA insists that its system was proper, despite the settlement. The settlement includes an estimated $123 million in legal fees for plaintiff’s lawyers…

Another bittersweet asbestos settlement this week. The widow of a man who died from peritoneal mesothelioma cancer has been awarded a settlement—a “substantial” sum—amount not publicly disclosed as compensation for loss of her husband, to put it bluntly. The settlement, negotiated on behalf of Mrs. Veraldo, was obtained midway through trial.

Mrs. Veraldo sued as executrix of the estate of her late husband, Randy Veraldo. He was 52 when he died in 2009, seven months after being diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma cancer, court records show.

Mr. Veraldo was a parts handler at a Teterboro, N.J., warehouse from 1978-85. The job required him to unpack clutch plates delivered on a near-daily basis from various suppliers. The clutch plates were said to contain asbestos, a mineral once widely used in the U.S. as a cheap insulating material until it was found to cause mesothelioma cancer.

Ok—That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar. And on this Veterans Day, a toast to all veterans, living and gone, the world over.