Class Action Settlement

Week Adjourned: 6.21.13 – Intern Pay, McDonald’s, Flonase

The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 21, 2013. Top stories include intern pay, McDonald’s paying workers with plastic, and the much-awaited Flonase settlements.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Unpaid Interns Going for Big Payday… or at least their day in court. A former unpaid intern at Atlantic Records claims the record company required him to work full-time over eight months without pay, often 10 hours a day, according to a proposed employment class-action law suit filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Of note, the Atlantic Records class action is the first unpaid internship lawsuit to be filed against a music industry business, according to lawyers involved in lawsuit; the class action alleges that Atlantic Records and its parent, Warner Music Group Corp, violated New York State Labor law by requiring the intern, Justin Henry, of Brooklyn, to work full time without pay.

Henry was an intern in 2007 for Atlantic engaged in filing, faxing, answering phones and fetching lunch for paid employees, according to the suit. He alleges his internship existed solely for the benefit of Atlantic Records, and that he received no training or mentorship. Sadly, we’ve heard this before.

According to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, unpaid internships must exist for training purposes and employers may derive “no immediate advantage” from the work provided by interns.

So, Henry is seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages ($7.15 per hour) and overtime, as well as attorney’s fees.

Plastic Pay at McDonald’s? No stranger to employment lawsuits, McDonald’s is facing a potential employment class action, with a new twist. The lawsuit was filed by an employee in Pennsylvania who alleges she was issued with a fee-loaded Chase Bank Debit card, instead of a paycheck. Yes, really.

Natalie Gunshannon, a 27-year old single mother, worked at McDonalds in Luzerne County, PA, at an hourly rate of $7.44 from April 24 through May 15. When she received her first paycheck, it was not a check at all but rather a JP Morgan Chase debit card which would cost her $1.50 for ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry, 75 cents per online bill payment, and $15 for a lost or stolen card. Nice. I wonder who thought this one up.

When Gunshannon asked if she could be paid by check she was allegedly told that the debit card was the only option. Furthermore, her future earnings would be deposited into the debit card account and she could access her money from there. “McDonald’s does not provide a choice for hourly employees to receive their justly earned wages through a bank check, cash or direct deposit,” the lawsuit said. Pennsylvania law states that employees are entitled to have a choice to be paid by check or cash.

Go get’em!

Top Settlements

Flonase Settlements Approved. GSK will have to pony up $185 million in two recently approved settlements involving the marketing—or not—of Flonase nasal spray. They were facing two antitrust class actions both of which allege that GSK deliberately prevented generic versions of Flonase nasal spray from going to market.

The Flonase settlements total $185 million, with $150 million designated for reimbursement to people and entities in the US who purchased Flonase directly from GSK at any time from May 19, 2004 until March 6, 2006. For complete information on this settlement, and to download forms, visit flonasedirectsettlement.com The case is, In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-CV-3149, is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

A second class involving those who indirectly purchased Flonase and generic Flonase—will receive reimbursement from a $35 million settlement fund. These class members include anyone who purchased Flonase or generic Flonase for personal, family or household consumption in the United States and its territories from May 18, 2004 through March 31, 2009. Also included in the class is anyone who made co-payments or other partial out-of-pocket payments through their health plans. For complete information on this settlement visit flonasesettlement.com The case is In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 8-cv-3301 and Medical Mutual of Ohio v. GSK, Case No. 12-cv-4212 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Okee dokee—that’s it for this week. A safe and happy weekend to all. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 12.18.12 – Instagram, Toyota, BP Oil Spill

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 28, 2012. Top class action stories include Instagram, Toyota and BP Oil Spill.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Insta-cha-ching? You share your photos for free—and Instagram sells them for a profit? What? You have a problem with that? This week, Instagram got hit with a proposed unfair business practices class action lawsuit related to its recently updated terms of service. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed by California Instagram user Lucy Funes, alleges the company is in breach of contract: “[Instagram’s] unreasonable change of Terms accordingly violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in Instagram’s current Terms,” the Instagram class action lawsuit states.

Instagram, now owned by Facebook, announced updates to its privacy policy and terms of service the week before Christmas, and one provision stood out: The right apparently reserved by Instagram to sell users’ photos without notice or compensation. Very crafty. Why is it no surprise that Facebook is somehow involved in this?

As a result of rapid and large user backlash, the photo-sharing site denied that it had plans to sell user photos, referring to the upset as a misunderstanding. The new terms of service will go into effect January 16, 2013.

According to the Instagram lawsuit, “On behalf of a class of Instagram’s California customers, Plaintiff is acting to preserve valuable and important property, statutory, and legal rights, through injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief issued by this Court before such claims are forever barred by adoption of Instagram’s New Terms,” the filing said. “For this reason, even though the New Terms are not yet effective, this case is ‘ripe’ for adjudication.”

Top Settlements

Step On It Already! It’s about time—Toyota Motor Corp has agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement of a pending defective products class action lawsuit.

The Toyota class action lawsuit stemmed from complaints that a flaw in Toyota’s electronic throttle-control system, and not ill-fitting floor mats and sticky accelerator pedals, were to blame for unwanted acceleration of Toyota vehicles, which caused drivers to lose control and crash.

According to the terms of the settlement, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Toyota will pay $1.1 billion to install new safety equipment and reimburse as many as 16 million customers.

BP’s cost of doing business? A $7.8 billion settlement against BP PLC has been approved by a federal judge, resolving economic and medical claims brought by more than 100,000 businesses and individuals who suffered from the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April, 2010.

According to the terms of the settlement, approved by US District Judge Carl Barbier, there is no cap on the financial compensation—so the amount could be more or less than the estimated $7.8 billion, with the exception of $2.3 billion put aside to cover seafood-related claims by commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands.

The explosion of BP’s Macondo well that resulted in the worst oil spill in the history of the US, killed 11 rig workers and released over 200 million gallons of oil, closing much of the Gulf for months to commercial and recreational fishing and shrimping. While much litigation remains, this agreement provides for people and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and some coastal counties in eastern Texas and western Florida, and in adjacent Gulf waters and bays.

According to a report in the Kansas City Star Judge Barbier said the settlement averts worries that litigation could continue for 15 to 20 years, as it did after the Exxon Valdez and Amoco Cadiz oil spills, creating a secondary disaster for those affected. The Star also notes that no ruling has been made on a medical settlement for cleanup workers and others who say exposure to oil or dispersants made them sick.

Still unresolved are environmental damage claims brought by the federal government and Gulf Coast states against BP and its partners on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and claims against Switzerland-based rig owner Transocean Ltd., and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton.

A trial is scheduled for next year, to identify the causes of BP’s blowout and assign percentages of fault to the companies involved.

Judge Barbier wrote that lawyers’ fees will not be taken from the settlements: BP has agreed to pay them separately.

I’ll drink to that! And on that note—Happy New Year—here’s to a peaceful and prosperous 2013!

Week Adjourned: 11.16.12 – Time Warner, Iraq War Vets, Wal-Mart

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending November 16, 2012. Top class action news includes Time Warner, Iraq War Vets, and Wal-Mart workers comp.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

License to Steal? Depends how you define the term “Steal” – if Time Warner has its way, it will be defined as a “modem lease fee.” Not surprisingly, this seemingly minor addition to the monthly fees their customers already face is being challenged in not one but two consumer fraud class action lawsuits. The allegations involve said modem “lease” fees, and the way in which the company announced the new fees. As many as 15 million customers could be affected by the lawsuits.

In the Time Warner class action papers filed in New York and New Jersey courts, customers contend that the $3.95 fee is illegal because it’s not included in existing customer agreements, the company did not give mandatory 30-day notice and it notified customers with a “paltry postcard.”

Furthermore, while Time Warner told its customers that they could buy their own modems, it stipulated that customers could only use approved devices—all of which are the more expensive Motorola models.

“It’s just a scam to increase revenue,” said Steven Wittels, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs. The fee took effect October 15, and is projected to raise $40 million a month and more than $500 million a year in revenue for Time Warner, which is currently valued at around $19.7 billion. ChaChing!

Time Warner contends it was going to use the funds to improve its infrastructure and service. That’s a lot of infrastructure!

The suits were brought on behalf of Manhattan resident Kathleen McNally and Fort Lee resident Natalie Lenett as well as all customers in the 29 states where Time Warner operates.

Top Settlements

Iraq War Toxic Exposure Settlement. 12 soldiers who became ill after serving in the Iraq war have been awarded an $85 million settlement in their personal injury lawsuit against American military contractor Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR).

In their lawsuit, the first concerning soldiers’ exposure to a toxin at a water plant in southern Iraq, the servicemen allege that KBR was negligent. Specifically, they claim that as a result of exposure to sodium dichromate, they now suffer from respiratory diseases. Furthermore, they are deeply concerned that a carcinogen the toxin contains, hexavalent chromium, could cause cancer later in life.

Each of the dozen Army National Guardsman involved in the lawsuit was awarded $850,000 in non-economic damages and another $6.25 million in punitive damages for “reckless and outrageous indifference” to their health.

Another lawsuit from Oregon Guardsmen is on hold while until trial is completed. Additional, similar lawsuits are also pending in Texas involving soldiers from Texas, Indiana and West Virginia.

KBR was the engineering and construction arm of Halliburton during the Iraq war. Halliburton and KBR split in April 2007.

Wal-Mart Injured Workers Settlement. Wal-Mart’s back in our weekly wrap–can you guess what for? Yes—it’s employment related. Final approval of an $8 million settlement has been granted by a federal judge, ending a workers compensation class action lawsuit brought by injured Wal-Mart employees in Colorado against the retailer and its service providers. The workers compensation lawsuit was brought in March 2009. The plaintiffs alleged the retailer, Claims Management Inc (CMI) and Concentra Health Services hindered medical providers from making independent judgements on how to treat injured workers.

Under the terms of the Wal-Mart settlement, Wal-Mart Stores and its adjuster, CMI, must pay $4 million, while Concentra in Colorado, through its insurer, will pay another $4 million. Further, each injured Colorado Walmart worker who was treated at a Concentra facility will receive $520, while those treated at other facilities will receive $50.

The settlement also stipulates that Wal-Mart and CMI provide training to adjustors who will handle future worker compensations claims in the state. And, Concentra must also provide periodic training to its marketing and sales force regarding state laws that prohibit outside interference in how care is provided.

And on that note…I’ll see you at the bar–martinis are chilling! Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.26.12 – Avon, Nurses & Aides, LoJack, Morgan Keegan

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of October 26, 2012. Highlights include Avon’s Anew line, Maxim Healthcare worker unpaid overtime, LoJack wage and hour settlement and Morgan Keegan proposed securities fraud settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Company for Women? Not for this woman—and many others sure to be in her ‘class’. Avon Inc., the cosmetics company of door-to-door fame, is facing a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit over anti-aging claims of its Anew skin care line. The Avon Anew class action includes such would-be miracle creams as Anew Clinical Advanced Wrinkle Corrector, Anew Reversalist Night Renewal Cream, Anew Reversalist Renewal Serum and Anew Clinical Thermafirm Face Lifting Cream products.

And the woman who’s at the lead of all this? That would be Lorena Trujillo, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, who alleges Avon earned “handsome profits” by misleading consumers into believing Anew anti-aging products can boost collagen production, recreate fresh skin and fortify damaged tissue, offering “at-home answers” to “procedures found in a dermatologist’s office.” Tall order, for sure, but hey—who wouldn’t want to believe it?

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to Avon regarding these anti-aging products, indicating that they have been misrepresented to consumers. In the warning, the FDA demanded that Avon revise certain advertising claims about the products, including the suggestion that they can change the structure or function of the body (hello, collagen production?) which would classify them as drugs under FDA regulations and require FDA approval. Therefore, Avon’s Anew anti-aging products “are not generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and effective,” the FDA said.

The Avon Anew class action lawsuit seeks to represent all U.S. consumers who purchased Anew Clinical Advanced Wrinkle Corrector, Anew Reversalist Night Renewal Cream, Anew Reversalist Renewal Serum and Anew Clinical Thermafirm Face Lifting Cream products based on Avon’s allegedly misleading advertising claims about these products.

The Lawsuit is Lorena Trujillo v. Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 12-9084, California Central District Court. Trujillo is represented by the law firm Baron & Budd.

Unpaid Overtime in Overtime Already! An overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, by Jasmine Lawrence, who was employed as a Home Health Aide by the defendant until October 2012.

In the Maxim Healthcare class action lawsuit, Lawrence alleges that Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, violated, and continues to violate, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) because of its willful failure to compensate her and the class members at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Lawrence claims she regularly worked over 70 hours per week while employed by Maxim Healthcare and the majority of her time was spent performing general housekeeping duties as opposed to patient care.

Lawrence also alleges that she and the members of the putative class who are employed by the Defendant in Ohio are “employees” within the meaning of the OMFWSA.

Lawrence, the lead plaintiff in the employment class action, seeks to bring her claim for violation of the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a nation-wide collective action, and as a statewide class action based for violation of the OMFWSA.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc, is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. Lawrence and the class are represented by Ben Stewart of Stewart Law PLLC.

Top Settlements

Time to Pay Up–Finally. LoJack agreed a class action settlement agreement this week, ending, hopefully, two California wage-and-hour class action lawsuits. The LoJack settlement, which is subject to final approval, stipulates that LoJack will pay up to $8.1 million, including plaintiffs’ attorneys’ potential fees and costs, to resolve all remaining California state class action claims.

As previously disclosed, in the related California federal wage-and-hour case, the Company paid the class action plaintiffs $115,000 in 2011 to settle the federal claims. During 2011, the Company also recorded a $1.1 million accrual with respect to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee application in the federal case. In early August 2012, the federal court awarded plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs of $900,518 related to those claims. Although the Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the attorneys’ fee award in the federal case, the Company has agreed to waive that appeal as part of this settlement.

The LoJack settlement agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing, liability or violation of the law by the Company. In addition, the agreement bars the named plaintiffs in the California state class action from pursuing further claims against the Company.

The Company expects the Court to issue a decision shortly regarding preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Should the Court grant preliminary approval, California class members would be sent a notice of the settlement and given the opportunity to decide whether to participate. LoJack could pay less than $8.1 million in settlement of the state court case depending on the level of participation by class members in the settlement. Following the notice period, the parties may move for final approval of the settlement. LoJack anticipates that the Court would be in a position to rule on final approval of the proposed settlement by the first or second quarter of 2013. LoJack does not anticipate paying any portion of the settlement of the California state case until the Court has granted final approval.

And this Round’s on Them! Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. has agreed to pay $62 million as part of a preliminary settlement of a securities class action involving more than 10,000 nationwide clients. The Commercial Appeal has reported the terms of the settlement won’t force the investment firm to admit any wrongdoing resulting from the 2008 meltdown of its mutual funds. Of course. Accidents happen…we all know that.

The lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit is a Texas hedge fund which claimed a $2.1 million investment in Morgan Keegan’s closed-end mutual funds.

The Morgan Keegan settlement remains to be approved by a federal judge, and if approved, will leave one more class action outstanding against the investment firm, this one related to conventional mutual funds.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.19.12 – Healthcare Workers, Madden NFL, Chantix

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 19, 2012. This week’s top stories include Healthcare workers at Maxim Healthcare, Electronic Arts and NFL Madden games and the first Chantix settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Overworked and Underpaid on Overtime. An overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, by Jas

mine Lawrence, who was employed as a Home Health Aide by the defendant until October 2012.

In the unpaid overtime lawsuit, Lawrence alleges that Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, violated, and continues to violate, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) because of its willful failure to compensate her and the class members at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Lawrence claims she regularly worked over 70 hours per week while employed by Maxim Healthcare and the majority of her time was spent performing general housekeeping duties as opposed to patient care.

Lawrence also alleges that she and the members of the putative class who are employed by the Defendant in Ohio are “employees” within the meaning of the OMFWSA.

Lawrence, the lead plaintiff in the employment class action, seeks to bring her claim for violation of the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a nation-wide collective action, and as a statewide class action based for violation of the OMFWSA.

Top Settlements

And it’s a Touchdown! The Plaintiffs score a proposed $27 million settlement that’s been reached in a class action lawsuit pending against Electronic Arts. The Electronic Arts settlement, if approved, will apply to anyone who purchased a new copy of an EA Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video game between 2005 and 2012 and is an eligible class member.

The backstory—in case you missed it—The Electronic Arts video game antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2008 entitled Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., and alleged that EA violated antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits by holding exclusive license agreements with the NFL, NCAA and AFL to market branded football software. The lawsuit further alleged that the arrangement shut out competitors, enabling EA to charge 70 percent more for “Madden NFL.”

And the skinny on the proposed deal: Class Members of the EA football game class action settlement include all U.S. consumers who bought a new copy of an Electronic Arts’ Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video game for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube, PC, or Wii, with a release date of January 1, 2005 to June 21, 2012.

If approved by the court at the February 7, 2013 Final Fairness Hearing, Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid claim forms will receive the following CASH benefits:

If you are an eligible Settlement Class Member, your share of the net proceeds of the Settlement will be based upon the number of video game titles you purchased new, as well as the number of Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims.

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox, PlayStation 2, PC, or GameCube platforms (“Sixth Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $6.79 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($54.32).

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or Wii platforms (“Seventh Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $1.95 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($15.60).

The only way to receive cash benefits from the EA antitrust settlement is to submit a Claim Form either online at EASportsLitigation.com or postmarked no later than March 5, 2013.

Let’s hope this settlement levels the playing field…

Here’s a Bittersweet Ending… A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against Pfizer and its anti-smoking drug Chantix. The Pfizer Chantix settlement, the details of which remain confidential, was reached just prior to the case going to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by the widow of Mark Alan Whitely, from Minnesota, who allegedly killed himself in November 2007 as a result of taking the controversial drug. The lawsuit alleged that Pfizer failed to sufficiently warn that Chantix could increase the risk of suicide.

FYI—in July 2009, the FDA announced an update to Chantix (known generically as varenicline) warnings, alerting patients to the risk of serious mental health events linked to use of the smoking cessation drug. Pfizer, maker of Chantix, was required to put a Boxed Warning on the Chantix label, highlighting the risk of depressed mood, hostility and suicidal thoughts when using the medication. When the FDA made its announcement in 2009, it had received 98 crude reports of completed suicide associated with Chantix (a crude report means the FDA had not examined each report in depth to ensure there were no duplicates). It had a further 188 crude reports of suicide attempts.

The Whitely lawsuit is reportedly the first of some 2,500 Chantix cases that have been combined in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Alabama for pretrial evidence-gathering and the first trials.

The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence). The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence).

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.5.12 – Suave Haircare, Discover Card, Bank of America

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 5, 2012. Top stories include Suave haircare, Discover credit card and Bank of America.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Will Sauve/Unilever Smooth their Way out of This? Unilever, the parent company of Suave, got hit with a defective product class action lawsuit this week over allegations its now defunct Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit actually ruins your hair. I guess you can’t smooth what you don’t have!

The Suave class action lawsuit was filed by 14 women who all allege they suffered permanent hair damage as a result of using the product. Tonja Millet, one of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, claims the product melted her hair, made it sticky and impossible to comb. Now, that doesn’t really jive with the product advertising, which one Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit commercial reportedly claimed “…transforms frizzy, unmanageable hair into hair that’s sleeker and easier to style.”

After using the product, Millet said it kinked her hair instead of straightening it. When she called the product’s consumer hotline to complain, she was told that she had likely used the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit incorrectly. (Ummm. Should it be on the market in that case?) When she went to her salon a few days later, Millet’s stylist told her that her hair had been chemically melted. As a result, Millet had 10 inches cut off her hair. Talk about a “bad hair day.”

Unilever pulled the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit from stores after receiving a greater than expected number of complaints. (What was the expected number?) The kit has since been discontinued. But apparently the story ain’t over.

Top Settlements

Were you “Discovered?” Did you buy into what you thought were free credit card services promoted by Discover Bank between December 1, 2007 and August 31, 2011? If so, you may be interested to learn that the bank has agreed to pay $200 million to settle consumer fraud allegations brought by federal investigators concerning credit card add-ons that consumers were led to believe were free.

After a one year investigation into the telemarketing and sales tactics used by Discover agents, federal investigators found that consumers were misled credit (otherwise known as consumer fraud) into paying for credit card services including credit score tracking, payment protection, identity theft protection and wallet protection.

The $200 million Discover credit card settlement is in addition to a class action lawsuit settlement of $10.5 million agreed last year by Discover, and a $2 million settlement agreed this year with the Minnesota Attorney General, both of which alleged deceptive marketing practices.

Eligibility for refund would include customers who were charged for one or more of these products between December 1, 2007 and August 31, 2011, and based on the products they purchased and how long they held them. Customers will reportedly be notified directly by Discover Bank.

Additionally, all consumers will receive at least 90 days’ worth of fees paid, minus any refunds they have already received. As many as two million customers will receive full refunds of all of the fees they paid.

In addition to the $200 million refund to consumers, Discover will pay a $14 million civil penalty.

To find out more about the settlement, visit the Discover Card Product Settlement at consumerfinance.gov/pressreleases/discover-consent-order/

Boffo BoFA Settlement. And the big story this week—Bank of America Corp (BoFA) has reached a preliminary settlement in a securities class action lawsuit, which will see BoFA shelling out $2.43 billion to end claims it was not forthcoming with financial information about Merrill Lynch & Co to the banks shareholders, prior to BoFA buying the securities house. (Just what does compel banks to tell the truth—or does that responsibility fall solely to the people who bring lawsuits against them? I digress.)

The BoFA settlement backstory, short version: BoFA agreed to buy Merrill Lynch in 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, however it tried to scrap the deal just weeks after signing but was unsuccessful. Merrill Lynch generated more than US$15 billion of losses and its executives agreed to award employees up to US$5.8 billion of bonuses, according to a report by Reuters.

In December 2008, BoFA’s shareholders approved the Merrill Lynch deal, but once the merger was complete, there was a dramatic drop in BoFA share value, and investors subsequently sued, alleging Merrill’s losses and bonuses should have been disclosed before the vote.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 9.14.12 – Chipotle Receipts, Family Dollar, Katrina Victims

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of September 14, 2012.

Top Lawsuits

Rounding Error? Here’s a new twist on an old theme—can you guess? (yup—consumer fraud). But then necessity is the mother of invention—as they say. A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit was just filed against the restaurant chain Chipotle, alleging their recently introduced practice of rounding up and down on total amounts on customer receipts not only nickel and dimes customers, but also violates various contract, unfair competition and state consumer protection laws.

Apparently the powers-that-be decided that rounding out the totals on customer receipts would alleviate the need for counting out pennies and small change, thereby reducing line-ups. Now that’s creative! I wonder if that would work with the IRS?

The Chipotle receipt rounding lawsuit is filed on behalf of anyone in California who purchased a gargantuan burrito or other item from any of the chain’s state locations between August 30, 2008 and the present.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop Chipotle from engaging in its allegedly “deceptive practices” and requests that damages to be paid to all affected class members.

Top Settlements

Family Dollar to Pay its Family of Employees—unpaid overtime, that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in the unpaid overtime class action pending against the retailer Family Dollar. The lawsuit is brought by over 1,700 New York store managers who allege they are owed overtime wages.

I find it amazing that nearly every week we report on at least one unpaid overtime class action lawsuit—either in this blog or on our site and our Facebook page. Just so we’re crystal clear on what unpaid overtime is—legally—if you work more than 40 hours per week, you are entitled to overtime pay. Overtime laws contained in the United States Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provide minimum wage, overtime, and child labor standards. Overtime rules ensure that employees who are denied overtime pay can file an overtime lawsuit.

The Family Dollar settlement has yet to be finalized and approved in court, but the existing agreement involves the discount retailer making a maximum payment it of $14 million. Get this—Family Dollar has over 7,400 stores throughout the U.S.

Here’s one a long time in coming. This week, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp agreed to pay $61 million to settle long-running insurance lawsuits stemming from insurance claims made after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

For all of us whose short-term memories have gone south—way south—Katrina hit New Orleans and surrounding areas on August 29, 2005. As for Rita? She struck in September 2005, and caused $12 billion in damage on the US Gulf Coast.

The settlement will include caps of $4,500 per claim, $150,000 for court costs and $750,000 for administrative expenses.

This settlement follows a $104 million judgment paid by Citizens and will benefit over 18,500 policyholders who sued over slow adjustment claims stemming from hurricane damage. This settlement is meant to cover plaintiffs who weren’t initially covered in July’s settlement.

According to the Associated Press, Citizens CEO Richard Robertson said one lawsuit involves 7,800 claimants and up to 12,000 in the other.

That’s it for this week—See you at the bar, perhaps?

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this week—it’s business behaving badly…

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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