Class Action Lawsuit

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok—That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

What Can I Get from the Paxil Settlement?

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

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

How Can I File a Paxil Settlement Claim?

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

How to Opt Out of or Object to the Paxil Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

Continuing with our theme of wage & hour lawsuits…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: 5.25.12 – Facebook IPO, AllianceOne Calls, Asbestos

Weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 25, 2012. This week’s highlights include Facebook IPO, AllianceOne Cell Phone Calls, and Asbestos Lawsuit Settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

With Friends Like These…So who hasn’t heard about the Facebook IPO lawsuit feeding frenzy set off this week by allegations that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media platform may not have as rosy a future as originally perceived?

In a nutshell, the allegations boil down to claims that Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the underwriters—Morgan Stanely—misled thousands of shareholders in the $16 billion IPO when they “selectively disclosed” information about an analyst’s downgraded revenue forecast only to “a handful of preferred customers.”

The securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Facebook, Inc, pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s May 18, 2012 initial public offering (the “IPO” or the “Offering”), against the Company and certain individual defendants and the lead underwriters of the IPO for violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The specific Facebook IPO lawsuit allegations are that on or about May 16, 2012 Facebook filed with the SEC a Registration Statement for the IPO. On May 18, 2012, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO became effective and 421 million shares of Facebook common stock were sold to the public at $38/share, thereby valuing the total size of the IPO at more than $16 billion.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Facebook was experiencing a severe reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of users of its Facebook app or website through mobile devices rather than a traditional PC such that the Company told the Underwriters to materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012.

And, defendants failed to disclose that during the roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO, certain of the Underwriter reduced their second quarter and full year 2012 performance estimates for Facebook, which revisions were material information which was not shared with all Facebook investors, but rather, selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or Prospectus.

As of May 22, Facebook common stock was trading at approximately $31/share, or $7/share below the price of the IPO. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered losses of more than $2.5 billion since the IPO.

This is going to be interesting…

Top Settlements

Hanging Up on AllianceOne. This is AllianceOne has agreed to a preliminary $9 million settlement this week, of a consumer fraud class action pending against the company. Preliminary court approval was recently given.

The AllianceOne lawsuit alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling cell phones using an automated dialer or with a pre-recorded voice message without the recipients’ prior express consent.

Under the terms of the settlement, AllianceOne denies any liability (of course…does anyone ever accept liability?).

Here’s the facts as you need to know them: the agreement is subject to final court approval. The recovery, less attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to Class Counsel, will be distributed to class members who received an autodialed call from the company or their affiliates and agents on a cell phone without their prior consent between February 8, 2004 and November 30, 2010, under procedures to be implemented by the court overseeing the settlement. After paying administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, a donation to a charitable organization, and awards to class members, the remaining amount in the settlement fund, if any, will be returned to AllianceOne.

For more information about the settlement, go to www.AllianceOneSettlement.com.

Asbestos Lawsuit Settlement. The family of the recently deceased Hannibal “Scottie” Saldibar will hopefully have some closure now, as they have just been awarded a $2.4 million settlement in an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit they brought.

Saldibar, a tile setter from New Haven, died after contracting the asbestos-related cancer. He was 84 when he died, and had worked as a tile setter for 30 years. He passed away in January 2010, just nine months after being diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma.

According to a report by the CT Post, it took a Superior Court jury only 3 hours of deliberation before finding the Tile Council of North America liable in Saldibar’s death, and awarding his family $1.6 million. An additional $800,000 was then awarded by the judge, in punitive damages. Tile Council of North America developed the asbestos-containing mortar used by tile setters for many years.

That’s a wrap folks—you at the bar—and have a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day weekend as we remember our Vets!

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…