Defective Product

Week Adjourned: 12.19.14 – Sony, Graco, Comcast

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class action lawsuits include Sony, Graco and Comcast.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

So who’s NOT talking about Sony’s decisions this week…chief among them, an alleged decision to risk a data breach rather than upgrade their software to prevent hacking. At least that’s what past and present Sony employees are alleging in their proposed data breach class action lawsuit filed this week—the first of 3 such lawsuits.

The complaint, filed against Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., claims the recent data breach which resulted in employee data theft, could have been prevented. Well, wouldn’t that have changed the course of history…

The data breach has resulted in a situation former employees claim is “better suited to a cinematic thriller than to real life.” Specifically, the class action lawsuit alleges Sony failed to take adequate precautions to prevent the massive data breach and protect the personal information of more than 15,000 employees, both past and present.

“Sony failed to secure its computer systems, servers and databases despite weaknesses it has known about for years” the complaint states. “Their most sensitive data, including over 47,000 Social Security numbers, employment files including salaries, medical information, and anything else that their employer Sony touched, has been leaked to the public, and may even be in the hands of criminals.” The lawsuit cites an email from Sony’s general counsel, among other internal documents obtained in the leak, that expresses concern that the company’s network security and email retention policies left it vulnerable to an attack, such as the one it has now suffered.

The lawsuit also claims that Sony had previously suffered cyberattacks, including a data breach in 2011 where hackers gained access to the company’s PlayStation Network and Qriocity systems, exposing up to 31 million user’s data. Remember those? They were consolidated and settled for $15 million in games, online currency and identity theft reimbursement. However, according to the current lawsuit, the security issues were not resolved. Way to go.

Here’s the stunner: according to the lawsuit, rather than remedying the ongoing security concerns fully, Sony executives “made a business decision to accept the risk of losses associated with being hacked” rather than pay for expensive system upgrades. “If only Sony had heeded its own advice in time,” the complaint says.

Initially, current Sony employees were offered identity theft monitoring, this was eventually extended to 12-month coverage by a third party to ex-employees. The lawsuit states the delay was unfair to ex-employees, some of whom, including the two class representatives, already purchased expensive identity theft monitoring packages.

According to the complaint, Sony’s ex-employees call the company’s deal inadequate, noting that the credit monitoring and insurance it provides cannot prevent identity fraud, only inform them when it happens. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that federal agencies have acknowledged that hackers sometimes hold stolen data for over 12 months and that identity fraud can continue to be a threat for many years.

Consequently, the Sony data breach class action lawsuit seeks more substantial protections, including credit card and banking monitoring services for five years, as well as identity theft insurance and credit restoration services, also for five years. The suit asks the court to force Sony to do more to address the potential identity fraud that may follow those affected by the breach indefinitely.

The proposed class includes current and former employees whose personal information was compromised in the leak, including two subclasses in Virginia and California.

The case is Corona et al v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., case number 2:14-cv-09600, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Is Graco’s Child Seat a Child Trap? A proposed defective products class action lawsuit pending against Graco Children’s Products Inc, over allegations that their children’s car-seats have defective belt buckles, got greenlit this week.

Filed in March 2013 by plaintiff Seth Long, the Graco class action alleges violations and claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

In February 2014, Graco issued a recall of 3.7 million forward-facing toddler seats due to alleged defects with the buckles, which could become so plugged up with food, juice, formula or vomit that they won’t open, according to Long’s complaint. According to court documents, the defective buckles may become stuck in the latched position, making it harder to pull a child out of the car. In July, Graco added a further 1.9 million car seats to the recall.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Agency published a series of reports on the defective car seats at the time of the February recall, and stated that it had been investigating the belt buckles since 2012. Among the problems the Agency encountered during testing were that the buckles would become impenetrable and parents would have to pick up the child and the seat, which together could weigh over 70 pounds, to lift it out of the car in the event of an emergency.

Well, that’s certainly no selling point. FYI, Graco appears to be no stranger to defective product lawsuits—they’ve also faced class actions over allegedly defective cribs, strollers and highchairs…

This particular case is Seth Long v. Graco Children’s Products Inc., case number 3:13-cv-01257, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Comcast to cough up $50M to end a decade-long consumer antitrust class-action lawsuit brought by consumers who allege the cable-TV service provider engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

This week, a federal judge in Philadelphia has approved a preliminary US$50 million settlement that entitles about 800,000 current and former Comcast cable-TV subscribers in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties and Philadelphia to US$15 in credits, or Comcast services valued at US$ 30-43.90, according to court documents.

FYI—those services include temporary internet upgrades, six free pay-per-view movies, or two free months of the Movie Channel. Comcast is required to notify its customers in monthly bills and to advertise the settlement in newspapers and magazines throughout the Philadelphia region. A Comcast spokesperson said that former Comcast cable-TV customers in the five counties could also participate in the settlement, if they were subscribed between 1 January 2003, and 31 December 2008. They will be eligible for US$ 15 in cash.

The suit, first filed in Philadelphia federal district court in December 2003, claimed that Comcast engaged in anti competitive behaviour by concentrating its cable systems in the broader Philadelphia area and making it difficult for RCN, a competitor, to expand telecommunications services here. Comcast could charge higher prices for its cable-TV service, the suit claimed.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. Have a good one!

Week Adjourned: 3.14.14 – McDonald’s, Geico, Suave Professionals

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including top stories from McDonald’s, Geico and Suave Professionals Hair Care.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Mickey D’s served up a supersized set of wage and hour class action lawsuits…Yup McDonald’s workers in California, Michigan and New York this week filed wage and hour class action lawsuits in federal and state courts claiming the fast food giant is systematically stealing employees’ wages by forcing them to work off the clock, shaving hours off their time cards, and not paying them overtime among other practices

In three California wage and hour suits, workers claim that McDonald’s and its franchise owners failed to pay them for all time worked, failed to pay proper overtime, altered pay records and deprived them of timely meal periods and rest breaks. A fourth case makes similar claims on behalf of a statewide class of workers in McDonald’s corporate-owned restaurants, who are adding their claims to a lawsuit for unpaid wages, penalties, and other relief that is already pending against McDonald’s in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In two Michigan lawsuits, filed against McDonald’s Corp., its U.S. subsidiary and two Detroit-area franchisees, workers assert McDonald’s regularly forces workers to show up for work at a scheduled time but then has them wait without pay until the store gets busy enough, and that it routinely violates minimum wage laws.

The lawsuits contend that, using McDonald’s franchisor standards and corporation-provided software, McDonald’s franchisees closely monitor the ratio of labor costs to revenues. When it exceeds a corporate-set target, managers tell workers arriving for their shifts to wait for up to an hour to clock in, and sometimes direct workers who have already clocked in for scheduled shifts to clock out for extended breaks until the target ratio is again achieved. Workers are not paid for these wait times, and McDonald’s Corporation knowingly tolerates this practice, in violation of federal labor law.

The lawsuits also allege that McDonald’s forces its low-paid workers to buy their own uniforms. Because McDonald’s restaurants pay at or near the minimum wage, this drives some workers’ real wages below the legal minimum, in violation of federal labor law.

The case filed in New York federal court seeks to redress McDonald’s blatant failure to compensate and reimburse workers at its New York stores for the time and cost of cleaning uniforms which McDonald’s requires them to wear and to keep clean.

The plaintiffs contend that McDonald’s failure to reimburse employees for uniform cleaning violates the New York state requirement to pay workers weekly for uniform maintenance and often also violates both federal and New York state state minimum wage laws.

FYI McDonald’s reportedly brought in nearly $5.6 billion in profits last year, so why the problem with paying its employees?

Geico policy of bad faith? A Geico class action lawsuit, alleging bad faith insurance has been filed against the auto insurance giant in New York federal court. The lawsuit claims the insurer “deliberately and systematically” misrepresented information about the plaintiffs’ accident histories and risk tiers to stop them from going to competitors. Really?

The New York class action alleges Geico either assigned “at-fault” status to policyholders who bore no reasonability for the accidents or misclassified their risk tiers.

“As a result of Geico’s misclassification schemes, plaintiffs and the class have had difficulties purchasing insurance from other insurance companies, have been captive to Geico, and have paid inflated premiums,” the lawsuit states. Well, that’s the last time I believe a cute little gecko.

But let’s not stop there—a second bad faith class action was filed against a unit of Geico Corp, alleging the company has been arbitrarily denying personal injury protection claims for years. The Geico lawsuit claims the defendant uses software that reduces or eliminates claims payments without “reasonable basis or justification.”

Filed in Delaware Chancery Court, by plaintiff Yvonne Green, the complaint states that the only factors taken into consideration by the fully automated PIP claims-processing system Geico General Insurance Co, uses are the date of an accident and the date and geographic location of medical treatment.

“By employing these rules to deny benefits, Geico violates Delaware law and breaches its contractual and legal obligations,” the lawsuit states. “The only justification for Geico’s conduct is to contain Geico’s costs and to maximize Geico’s profits.”

The lawsuit, (Green v. Geico General Insurance Co., case number 9431), further claims Geico makes no effort to determine what a reasonable fee ought to be for a specific doctor providing a particular treatment but has a computer system that sets a “hidden cap” at the 80th percentile of what the insurer has been charged by other medical providers. Instead, price recommendations are generated by the software based on a provider’s location. However, it doesn’t consider other factors such as a doctor’s level of expertise, inflation, rent or cost of staff, the lawsuit states.

Green further alleges that claims for certain passive treatments that occur eight weeks after an accident are automatically denied without any review by an actual agent.

“Geico uses this rule even though it has information that treatment and healing times for injuries vary,” the lawsuit states. “Further, Geico enforces this rule without making any inquiry into facts or treatment.”

Green is basing her complaint on her 2011 car accident in which she sutained injuries. She alleges her PIP benefits were denied despite having submitted records detailing her injuries and that they were related to the crash, and that her treatment was reasonable.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a proposed class of plaintiffs who, three years prior to the filing and up to the date of final judgment, had claims on Delaware policies that were either reduced or denied under similar circumstances, according to the complaint.

Top Settlements

Get a little more than you bargained for with Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit? Like scalp injuries? If so, you may be interested to know that a settlement has been reached in the defective product personal injury class action lawsuit pending against Unilever United States, Inc. (“Unilever”) and two other companies (collectively, “Defendants”). The Suave lawsuit represents customers who purchased or used the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit (“Smoothing Kit”) in the United States before February 17, 2014. FYI—the kits must have been purchased for personal or household use.

The allegations are that Unilever misled consumers into purchasing and using the Smoothing Kit by making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of the Smoothing Kit, and by failing to disclose that the Smoothing Kit posed an unreasonable risk of hair and/or scalp injury when used by consumers in accordance with the product warnings and instructions, or when misused by consumers in ways that were foreseeable. All Defendants deny that they did anything wrong and deny that the Smoothing Kit posed an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers. Of course.

The settlement includes a one-time reimbursement of up to $10 and/or reimbursement for the costs of treating class members who suffered bodily injury to their hair or scalp, and who does not timely request exclusion.

For complete details on how to file a claim, visit: http://suave30daysmoothingkitlawsuit.com/info/claim.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 12.13.13 – Lumber Liquidators, Visiting Nurses, Wal-Mart

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Lumber Liquidators, Visiting Nurses and Wal-Mart gas can explosions.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Lumber Liquidators is in the woods over allegations it sold defective Chinese wood flooring that emits excessive levels of formaldehyde (raising memories of the Chinese Drywall debacle… )

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the lawsuit states, “Indeed, contrary to Lumber Liquidators’ repeated, detailed representations that its flooring complies with strict formaldehyde standards on its product labels, website, and elsewhere, the toxic formaldehyde emissions from the company’s Chinese flooring products are multiple times the maximum permissible limits set by those standards at the time of purchase.”

FYI—in 2011, formaldehyde was described as “known to be a human carcinogen,” by the US National Toxicology Program: a carcinogen is a substance or agent suspected to cause cancer. Terrific.

The plaintiffs in the Lumber Liquidators class action lawsuit, Donnie Williamson, Melissa Stini and Jennifer Hogencamp, further claim that the floor is illegally sourced through China from other countries, including Russia, threatening “critical habitat and endangered species.”

“Plaintiffs would have paid significantly less, if they purchased Chinese flooring at all, had they known that the products were sourced from endangered habitats and contained elevated levels of the toxin formaldehyde,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs contend their flooring purchases—all of which were installed in their homes—are now “markedly less valuable.”

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for installation and removal costs, remediation costs, restocking fees, loss of use and diminished value, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest “at the highest rates allowed by law” on the damages awarded.

Another Case of Overworked and Underpaid? You know, the week just wouldn’t be complete without an unpaid wages and overtime class action. This week, it’s Nurses at Baystate Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) and Hospice who filed a class action lawsuit against Baystate Health. The Nurses are seeking to recover unpaid overtime and wages that have allegedly been withheld illegally by the employer—for several years.

The VNA nurses are routinely required to make preparations before their first home care visits for the day and subsequently to complete lengthy documentation of their visits, but are frequently not paid for that work which can sometimes take several hours per day. Computerized documentation has become more lengthy and cumbersome in recent years, but no accommodation has been made to allow nurses time to complete the required documentation during the normal course of the workday. As a result nurses have been forced to work many hours of unpaid time each week.

Baystate has been locked in a two-year dispute with its nurses at Baystate Franklin Medical Center regarding its demand to limit those nurses the right to overtime pay, while at the same time the organization has been failing to pay its BVNA&H nurses for their hours of work. Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baystate Health. While allegedly withholding wages illegally from the nurses, Baystate Health is one of the most profitable health care conglomerates in the state, and its. CEO, Mark Tolosky, is one of the highest paid hospital CEOs in New England with a salary and benefits package of nearly $2 million annually.

Top Settlements

Wal-Mart Settles Exploding Gas Cans. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer (and among the most frequently sued), will pay $25 million as a settlement contribution to resolve a raft of personal injury lawsuits filed by people who were injured or had someone they knew killed by exploding portable plastic gas cans, NBC News reports. Wal-Mart is the largest US retailed of plastic gas cans, and sold tens of millions of Blitz gas cans, which, the lawsuits allege, had a safety defect. Blitz, the manufacturer of the gas cans, is in bankruptcy, largely due to the litigation and settlements.

During the past decade more than 80 lawsuits have been filed by people who allege the exploding gas cans caused them burn injuries. Defendants include some retailers as well as the manufacturer. Wal-Mart told NBC News it’s been named as a defendant in 24 of the lawsuits.

In those lawsuits, Blitz and Wal-Mart are accused of knowingly selling a defective product that could explode and produce catastrophic and sometimes fatal injuries. The lawsuits further claim the defendant (Blitz) refused to add a safety device, known as a flame arrester, to make the cans safer.

Parties to the Wal-Mart gas can lawsuits, including Blitz USA’s estate, debtors, participating insurers and Walmart, have agreed to contribute $161 million to settle with many of the plaintiffs, while denying liability. Wal-Mart’s settlement contribution amounts to just over 15 percent of the proposed $161 million fund that would settle dozens of lawsuits. A hearing on the proposed settlement is set for early next year NBC News reports.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 12.2.13 – Electrolux, Kenmore, Frigidaire, ING, FedEx

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions include Electrolux washers, ING Annuities, FedEx overcharges.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Were you out Shopping for Appliances on Black Friday? If so, a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home Products Inc, over allegations the company marketed and sold defective washing machines.

Filed by plaintiffs Gloria Waters and William Hall, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the lawsuit claims that Electrolux sold front-loading washing machines that are prone to accumulate mold.

The Electrolux lawsuit alleges the manufacturer sold the defective washing machines under brand names including Frigidaire and Kenmore, and that Electrolux knowingly concealed the fact that the washing machines were prone to accumulate mold and mildew which can permeate throughout the consumer’s home and ruin clothes.

The plaintiffs are accusing Electrolux of breaching implied warranties by selling products they allegedly knew were defective, and are seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.

Thinking of Annuities InvestING? If you’re a senior or know a senior—you may be interested to learn that an annuities class action lawsuit has been filed against ING. Filed by Ernest Abbit of California, the lawsuit alleges the financial services firm indexed financial instruments that failed to meet the advertised goals and that company officials failed to properly advise seniors of the risks associated with investing in the annuities.

According to the ING lawsuit, the stated goal of ING indexed annuities, is to provide seniors in various age groups with “protection of principal”, which means reducing the risks of investment while using various investments products aimed at “fueling the value of our annuity” “to build up your retirement savings.” Abbit claims ING failed to back up their claims. Sound familiar?

Abbit alleges in the class action, that he, and others similarly situated, have lost as much as 20 percent of their savings, “on the first day” of investment, due to the lack of information regarding what the product provided. His returns are allegedly a fraction of those an investor would have received by investing in the S&P 500 as a whole, the index his annuity was allegedly designed to mirror. Umm.

Specifically, the lawsuit, The ING Annuity Class Action Lawsuit, entitled Ernest O. Abbit, et al. v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-2310, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, claims that ING’s the financial instruments are “wolves-in-sheep’s clothing” and that their statements are “opaque.” The lawsuit claims that not only did the instruments fail to return as advertised, but that those investments contained “embedded derivatives” similar to those that led to the financial collapse in 2008. ING indexed annuities were structured, the lawsuit claims, so that the company would benefit from any derivatives income while at the same time putting it senior investors at risk for losses.

According to the class action, in 2005 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the financial services industry’s self-governing body operating as a private monitor, warned that the products Abbit and others were invested in were accompanied by sales material that “do not fully describe the features and risks of the products.” insurance companies allegedly changing their annuity obligations or not being able to meet those obligations are Aviva, Transamerica, The Principal Financial Group, MetLife, Prudential, Guggenheim and Genworth. Variable annuity holders who purchased their annuities in the past three years from those companies may be eligible to file a claim against those companies.

Top Settlements

FedEx to deliver $21.5 million in cash and billing practice changes, ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought against it by business and government agencies.

Granted final approval this week, the FedEx settlement ends the lawsuit brought in 2011 by two law firms, which alleged the world’s largest cargo delivery company overcharged by as much as $3 per package for tens of thousands of packages. Ouch! That could add up.

The plaintiffs, made up of government and business customers, claimed FedEx charged residential rates to destinations including the US Citizenship and Immigration Office in Chicago, a Bank of America Corp. facility in Tampa, Florida, and the Safariland Group body armor company in Jacksonville, Florida.

FedEx has denied the allegations but has agreed to settle. No news there.

The settlement was preliminarily settled in July. FYI—the class period is from August 28, 2008, to July 13, 2011, and involves FedEx customers who used the carrier’s services and didn’t get a full refund for claimed overcharges on residential deliveries.

The case is Manjunath A. Gokare PC v. Federal Express Corp., 11-cv-02131, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Shopping till you’re Dropping!

Week Adjourned: 11.8.13 – Wacoal iPant, Lennox A/C, J&J Risperdal

The week’s top class action lawsuits! This week, highlights include Lennox air conditioners, Wacoal and Maidenform shapewear, and a blockbuster settlement for big-pharma drug Risperdal.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Fat-Busting Shapewear…Busted? All I can say is DAMN! A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Wacoal America Inc. and Maidenform Brands, Inc. over allegedly deceptive marketing claims the Defendants made regarding the purported slimming benefits of the Novarel Slim Fabric used in “Novarel Slim iPant” and “Flexees” brand shapewear. Hope on a hanger it’s allegedly not! Damn, damn, damn!

The Novarel and Flexees class action lawsuit, which was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 5, 2013, seeks class action status for all persons who paid, in whole or in part, for shapewear constructed with Novarel Slim fabric and manufactured, marketed or sold by Wacoal or Maidenform for personal, family or household uses. (Case No. 2:13-cv-06122).

According to the class action lawsuit, the Defendants claim that Novarel Slim Fabric, manufactured by Nurel SA, contains ingredients that can be absorbed by the body and permanently change the wearer’s skin tone and body shape. These ingredients include embedded microcapsules containing caffeine to promote fat destruction, vitamin E to prevent the effects of aging, ceramides to restore and maintain the skin’s smoothness, and retinol and aloe vera to moisturize and increase the firmness of the skin. Specifically, Wacoal American and Maidenform promise that use of Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees products will result in fat destruction and reduce the appearance of cellulite (see video below…). According to the complaint, the companies charge up to 50 percent more for shapewear products that contain the Noveral fabric compared to the cost of comparable shapewear that does not purport to contain these ingredients.

The Novarel and Flexees class action lawsuit alleges that the claims used by Wacoal and Maidenform to market Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees shapewear are deceptive and misleading. Among other things, Plaintiffs point to research from the Mayo Clinic, which found that cellulite cannot be “cured” with topical applications.

Bottom line—(pardon the pun)—I still have to diet… Damn!!

The lawsuit claims violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranties and unjust enrichment. It seeks, among other things, restitution for the amount of money Class Members spent to purchase Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees garments.

What’s in your Air Conditioner? If it’s a Lennox Air Conditioning unit—you may not be surprised to learn there’s something defective in it. The company is facing a defective products class action lawsuit alleging its air conditioning units are susceptible to formicary corrosion as a result of the deficient materials used in the manufacture of its coils. The Lennox air conditioner lawsuit further alleges that Lennox has not informed its customers of the defect, even when it is called to replace failed coils in existing units. This conduct, the lawsuit claims, means that customers are unable to make informed decisions regarding the purchase of a Lennox Air Conditioner.

Formicary corrosion—in case you were wondering—is a particularly insidious defect in an evaporator coil because the resultant leakage is difficult to detect, and usually results in consumers being forced to repeatedly refill their air conditioners with Freon, often at significant cost, which only works to mask the defect for a period of time, until the leak is detected and the coil needs to be replaced.

Lennox Coils are allegedly defective because they are manufactured with materials that, within the industry, are well known to be prone to formicary corrosion, which makes the Lennox Coils unreasonably susceptible to premature rupture and refrigerant leaks under normal use and conditions.

The federal class action, filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomas, of Illinois, is brought on behalf of the following nationwide consumer classes (the “Classes”):

All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and who paid to replace a Lennox AC evaporator coil. The lawsuit also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all members of the Classes who reside in Illinois.

Top Settlements

It’s a Blockbuster Drug! (of sorts…) Fitting though, considering the players. Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion in a Qui Tam (whistleblower) investigation. The settlement will resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. Got all that?

Officially—the Risperdal settlement whose “…global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.” (source: US Dept of Justice).

The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.

Here’s the skinny from the DOJ:

J&J Subsidiary Janssen Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Antipsychotic Drug.

In a criminal information filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the government charged that, from March 3, 2002, through December 31, 2003, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, introduced the antipsychotic drug Risperdal into interstate commerce for an unapproved use, rendering the product misbranded. For most of this time period, Risperdal was approved only to treat schizophrenia. The information alleges that Janssen’s sales representatives promoted Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion.

The information alleges that the company created written sales aids for use by Janssen’s ElderCare sales force that emphasized symptoms and minimized any mention of the FDA-approved use, treatment of schizophrenia. The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion and intended use by basing sales representatives’ bonuses on total sales of Risperdal in their sales areas, not just sales for FDA-approved uses.

In a plea agreement resolving these charges, Janssen admitted that it promoted Risperdal to health care providers for treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behavioral disturbances exhibited by elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Janssen will pay a total of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $334 million and forfeiture of $66 million. Janssen’s guilty plea will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.

So, enquiring minds want to know how many people were prescribed this drug when they didn’t actually need it…

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. In advance of Monday—Here’s to our Veterans – THANK YOU. And have a good weekend!

Week Adjourned: 8.30.13 – Estee Lauder, HP, NFL

Top class action lawsuits for the week; top stories include Estee Lauder false advertising, HP defective products, and the NFL concussion settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Legal Wrinkle for Estee Lauder? Estee Lauder has come under fire this week, for claiming it’s Advanced Night Repair skin care products can make you look younger… Bottom line, Donna Tomasino of New York has filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the cosmetics company, alleging Lauder practices misleading advertising regarding its Advanced Night Repair skin care products suggesting that the products promote DNA repair and other anti-aging effects.

The Estee Lauder class action, entitled Donna Tomasino v. The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04692, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claims that Tomasino purchased Estee Lauder’s Advanced Night Repair Synchronized Recovery Complex and Advanced Night Repair Eye Synchronized Complex because of claims made by the company’s advertisements. However, Tomasino claims, there is no product testing to back up the alleged anti-aging claims.

“The clinical studies and other data that Estee Lauder represents as supportive of the claimed efficacy results are nothing more than a continuation of defendants’ misleading practices—each of the studies is designed to be used in the marketing materials to support the claimed efficacy and defendants know that consumers will not see the results these studies purportedly represent,” the lawsuit states.

Tomasino also alleges Estee Lauder created the claims in its advertising campaign for the Advanced Night Repair products even though the company knows the advertising claims are false. And, because EL is allegedly motivated by profit, it deliberately misleads its customers into believing that the products have anti-aging effects so that they will spend a higher price for the Advanced Night Repair line of products.

“In sum, Estee Lauder dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of product results based on purported scientific discoveries that it knows it cannot deliver. Estee Lauder does so with one goal in mind, reaping enormous profits at the expense of consumers,” the Estee Lauder skin cream class action lawsuit states.

If your wrinkles haven’t disappeared with the use of these products, you may be interested in signing up.

HP Communication Breakdown? Also in consumer fraud spotlight this week—Hewlett Packard. Apparently their wireless printers are not good at communicating with computers. Filed in California federal court by plaintiff Vincent Ferranti, the HP defective products lawsuit, entitled Vincent Ferranti v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 5:13-cv-03847, alleges that Ferranti purchased two HP wireless printers, both of which were found to contain faulty receivers, which negatively affected the printers in that they were unable to maintain consistent connections with the computers.

Ferranti further alleges users of HP wireless printers are forced to plug the printer into a computer in order to print something. “The HP printers’ wireless connectivity intermittently stops working for no reason,” the class action lawsuit states.

The HP printer lawsuit names HP’s Officejet Pro 8500 and 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers as defective, and states that HP either knew or should have been aware of the connectivity issue on or before April 2009. Ferranti further alleges HP “actively concealed” the defect from consumers and continues to sell these printers without warning consumers “that the printer’s wireless function was defective and would fail with normal use.”

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of thousands of consumers who purchased or leased the HP Officejet Pro 8500 or 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers.

Top Settlements

Heads up NFL! (pardon the pun). A landmark settlement has been reached between 4,500 former football players, their families and the National Football League (NFL) this week, ending a deceptive business practices class action focusing on the impact of concussions on the brain.

“It’s been a struggle to get to this point, but today I will say I’m very proud that the NFL has decided to stand up for all the former players who are suffering from brain injuries,” Kevin Turner, a former NFL running back who has been diagnosed with ALS, said during a teleconference. “Today is so important for those who are…hurting. This will bring help for them today.”

The NFL concussion settlement, according to reports from CNN.com requires the NFL to pay $765 million to fund medical exams, concussion-related compensation, medical research for retired NFL players and their families, and litigation expenses.

The settlement, filed in US District Court in Philadelphia, is pending final court approval.

Former U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips, the mediator in the lawsuit, called the settlement “a historic agreement, one that will make sure that former NFL players who need and deserve compensation will receive it, and that will promote safety for players at all levels of football.”

“My hope is that any players or ex-players that are suffering, or begin to suffer, from symptoms of dementia, will be taken care of in a respectable manner through this settlement,” said Chris Dronett, one of the plaintiffs, whose husband Shane Dronett committed suicide in 2009 at age 38. Scientists found evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, in Shane’s brain after his death, CNN.com reported.

The lawsuit alleged that the NFL led a deliberate misinformation campaign—primarily through its Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee—to deny scientific data being presented in the medical community about health risks associated with concussion. And, the lawsuit claimed, that misinformation, trickled down to players so that they were unaware of the real nature of the risks they were taking while playing football.

Included in the settlement is the establishment of a $675 million fund to compensate players who have suffered brain injury, or their families; a maximum of $75 million for retired players’ medical exams, which could be used to diagnose future neurodegenerative disease; and $10 million devoted to research and education. The funds will be dispersed over the next 20 years.

Well done, and not a moment too soon.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Enjoy that 3-day weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.9.13 – Walmart, Health Juice, Gentek Siding

The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 9, 2013. Top stories include Walmart, Mona Vie and Gentek siding.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

What’s the Straight Talk, Walmart? Well, Walmart, it seems just cannot stay out of court. This time—a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging false and deceptive advertising has been filed against the world’s largest retailer and alleged co-conspirator StraightTalk.

The litany of alleged wrongs committed by the defendants include breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. That’s all.

Among the goals of the class action is to get clarity on the limitations of the data service. Straight Talk representatives, it seems, have allegedly refused to explicitly define throttling points for data access, and many customers have complained about receiving inconsistent data service without using much data at all, while others are able to use gigabytes of data without much issue.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the proposed class, an order permanently enjoining defendants from their improper conduct, and a judgment awarding restitution, actual damages, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Mona Vie Super Juice a Super Scam? Yes—according to a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed this week. The Mona Vie class action lawsuit claims that it’s no more than a multi-level marketing scheme to promote an expensive “super juice” (Mona Vie).

Filed in federal court by lead plaintiff Lisa Pontrelli, the lawsuit states “The Mona Vie juice scam is the newest creation of noted multi-level marketing scheme architect, and prior ‘super juice’ creator, Dallin Larsen, after his last venture was halted by the Food and Drug Administration because of false and misleading advertising.” Dallin Larsen is not a named defendant in the complaint but his companies are, namely Mona Vie Inc. and Mona Vie LLC, both of South Jordan, Utah.

“Mona Vie’s story is almost identical to that of Royal Tongan Limu—another ‘super juice’ product with too-good-to-be-true alleged health benefits,” the complaint reads.

Larsen created both products, which are based on an exotic ‘superfood’. Marketing for both products is based on claims that they provide outlandish health benefits when consumed, including curing cancer and diabetes. Both Royal Tongan Limu and Mona Vie were allegedly sold by untrained ‘distributors’ extolling the unproven health benefits to unwitting customers.

“The propaganda created through the Mona Vie scheme is false and misleading about the nature of and benefits attributable to consuming Mona Vie juice. The propaganda is an essential component of the scheme because the perpetuation of the belief that Mona Vie juice will cure or treat whatever health problems a consumer might have is the main reason defendants are able to charge the wrongfully inflated price of approximately $45 for a 25 ounce bottle,” according to the lawsuit.

Further, the Mona Vie lawsuit claims that the independent distributors, as an essential part of the scam.”Defendants and their ‘independent distributors’ sales force work together in a symbolic fashion to sell as much wrongfully overpriced Mona Vie juice as possible,” the lawsuit states.

“Defendants know that their co-conspirator ‘independent distributors’ generate false and misleading advertising about the health benefits of Mona Vie juice, but do not stop them because such advertisements generate sales of Mona Vie juice. The most insidious form of this false and misleading advertising are the testimonials where individuals attribute miraculous medical breakthroughs to their individual chronic health condition to drinking Mona Vie juice. Defendants, of course, taught their ‘independent distributors’ how to generate such testimonials by themselves hiring individuals of modest celebrity to make their own misleading testimonials.”

The lawsuit alleges the class has been defrauded by paying “outrageously inflated” prices for products that fail to deliver the promised “substantial prophylactic, healing, therapeutic and curative powers for an almost limitless universe of diseases and conditions.” Pontrelli is seeking an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.

Top Settlements

Gentek Siding Steel Peel Case Settles. Gentek, makers of exterior siding that suffers from “steel peel” (that’s certainly confidence inducing), will have to honor its warrantees, as ordered by US District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson, in a Final Order, approving a defective products class action settlement against the building products company.

The lawsuit, entitled Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:10-cv-02093-BYP, alleged the siding manufactured and sold by Gentek is defectively designed and manufactured in such a way that it will prematurely fail, causing damage to consumer homes.

The Gentek siding lawsuit was filed on behalf of a number of Plaintiffs who alleged that the exterior siding manufactured by Gentek is defective and fails within the warranty period. The manufacturer’s warranty is supposed to cover cracking, chipping, flaking, peeling or splitting for the life of the purchaser. The warranty is in effect for 50 years from the original installation in the case that the property is sold to a new owner.

According to the lawsuit, the siding peels, cracks and chips are within the warranty period. Furthermore, the lawsuit alleged that Gentek failed to honor its warranty. The Plaintiffs claim that instead of repairing, replacing or refinishing the siding as promised, Gentek only offers a small amount of money as compensation or offer to repaint the affected area only. The lawsuit claimed that the sum of money offered was inadequate to reverse the damage, and that repainting only the affected area would only lead to future repairs because it did not address the underlying problem. How helpful.

According to the Judge’s Order, for settlement purposes, the class in this litigation was certified to be all persons, organizations, municipalities, corporations and entities that own property, whether commercial or residential, on which Gentek Steel Siding was applied during the period January 1, 1991 through March 15, 2013, that are covered by a Gentek Steel Siding warranty and which siding experienced Steel Peel.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Have a good one—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.26.13 – Vitamin Shoppe, Acer, Sony TV

The weekly top class action lawsuit & settlement wrap for the week ending April 26, 2013. Top class actions include Vitamin Shoppe, Acer and Sony.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

True Athlete Training Formula Making Some Untrue Claims? Em, maybe. At least the folks who filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Vitamin Shoppe Inc, who make and market a pre-workout muscle building and performance enhancing product called True Athlete Training Formula, believe so.

The True Athlete class action lawsuit, entitled Steven Hodges v. Vitamin Shoppe Inc., Case No. 13-cv-02849, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, contends that the Vitamin Shoppe “knowingly and/or recklessly ignored” all relevant scientific evidence which shows that L-Arginine Alpha Ketoglutarate, the main ingredient in True Athlete Training Formula, does not enhance athletic performance, build muscle, or improve cardiovascular function, as advertised. Well, it does sound a bit too good to be true. But hey—I’m an optimist.

However…the lawsuit also contends that the defendant “knowingly under-doses the remaining active ingredients to save money but still entice consumers by using efficacy claims for the compounds Creatine Monohydrate, Beta-Alanine (as Carnosyn), and AstraGin”, compounds well-known within the sports industry, according to the class action lawsuit. Specifically, the lawsuit states: “Defendant unapologetically, and with no remorse, boasts the inclusion of these popular ingredients in the Product, and then under doses them in the formula to make the Product useless.” And: “The inclusion of the ingredients at levels under the clinical dosage is nothing more than a new tactic at selling consumers ‘snake oil.’” Snake oil? I’ve had that stuff before!

Here’s the straight dope…the consumer fraud class action was filed on behalf of a proposed class of all California residents who purchased True Athlete Training Formula from the Vitamin Shoppe within the last four years.

Top Settlements

How’s your RAM these days? That would be Random Access Memory—the kind in your computer…(I don’t know about you, but the kind in my head is full and dates back to last century.) Well, it seems that Acer has decided to end a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging its RAM wasn’t up to the job either.

The official scoop on the Acer RAM class action— “The parties have reached a settlement in a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that Acer America Corporation (“Acer”) advertised and sold Acer notebook computers that did not contain enough Random Access Memory (“RAM”) to support certain pre-installed versions of the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system. Acer denies the claims, but has agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs and risks of a trial.“

And yes folks—you are a member of the class if you are a US resident who purchased a new Acer notebook computer that: (1) came pre-installed with a MicrosoftWindows Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate operating system; (2) came with 1 gigabyte (“GB”) of RAM or less as shared memory for both the system and graphics; (3) was purchased from an authorized retailer; and (4) was not returned for a refund.

Class Members may claim either: (a) a 16GB USB Flash Drive with ReadyBoost technology; (b) a check for $10.00; (c) a check for up to $100.00 for reimbursement of any repair costs that were incurred before April 25, 2013 in an effort to resolve performance issues related to insufficient RAM; or (d) for Class Members who still own their computer, a 1GB or 2GB laptop memory DIMM that will allow the Acer notebook to operate with 2GB of RAM.

Any class member may seek to be excluded from the settlement by filing a notice of “opt out.” Class Members who remain in the settlement, either by submitting a claim or doing nothing, have the right to object to the settlement or ask to speak at the hearing. Opt out notices, objections, and any requests to appear are due by July 24, 2013. In order to get any benefits from the settlement, Class Members must submit a Claim Form by July 24, 2013. Claim forms will also be mailed and emailed to those class members for whom Acer has contact information. For more information about the settlement or to file a claim, visit www.AcerLawsuit.com.

Sony Display Resolution Class Action Resolved…And while we’re on the subject of technology—remember this one? The Sony Grand Wega SXRD rear-projection television defective products class action? (Sony Electronics, entitled Date v. Sony Electronics, Inc. & ABC Appliance, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 15474,United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan). Filed some time ago, granted, it does appear that a resolution may finally be in sight.

A proposed settlement has been granted preliminary approval, which includes all United States end user consumers who purchased, or received as a gift from the original retail purchaser, a KDS-R5OXBR1 or KDS-R6OXBR1 television.

The backstory—short version—allegations that Sony et al falsely advertised the display resolution of its Sony Grand Wega SXRD rear-projection television models KDS-R5OXBR1 and KDS-R6OXBR1, because the televisions were incapable of accepting input of 1080p signals and could not accept and display video content at 1080p resolution via the televisions’ PC and HDMI Input. Not good.

Here’s what you need to know if you are eligible for part of the settlement:

All class members who send in a valid claim form establishing that they own both (1) one of these televisions and (2) a 1080p output device like a Blu-ray player or 1080p-capable laptop computer or gaming device will be eligible to receive a $60.00 gift card that does not expire and is redeemable for the purchase of any item available on the store.sony.com website or at a Sony retail store.

If you do not own a 1080p output device, you will not be eligible to receive a benefit, but you will remain in the settlement class (and release your claims in this litigation, all of which relate to the 1080p capabilities of the televisions) unless you choose to opt out of the settlement.

All claim forms must be received by the claims administrator at the address provided in the claim form by no later than June 10, 2013 to be valid. To download claim forms, review your rights and find out more information on the settlement, visit http://esupport.sony.com.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…and Happy Friday Folks!

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: 3.17.12 (Apple Siri, Plumb-PEX, Blue Sky)

The weekly wrap-up of class action lawsuits and class action settlements, for the week ending March 17, 2012.

Top Class Actions

But Siriously Folks…Apple got hit with a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit…Siri Siri Siriously…The lawsuit alleges the company’s voice assistant feature found on its latest iPhone, called Siri, doesn’t work as advertised. Oh dear. What is more frustrating than technology that doesn’t quite do what it’s supposed to do?

The Apple iPhone Siri lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, brought by iPhone 4S customer Frank Fazio, states “Promptly after the purchase of his iPhone 4S, [Fazio] realized that Siri was not performing as advertised,” the lawsuit says. “For instance, when [Fazio] asked Siri for directions to a certain place, or to locate a store, Siri either did not understand what Plaintiff was asking, or after a very long wait time, responded with the wrong answer.” Consequently, Fazio believes that Apple has overpromised on Siri’s capabilities.

“Notwithstanding Apple’s extensive multi-million dollar advertising campaign showcasing the Siri feature, and the fact that the iPhone 4S is more expensive than the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4S’s Siri feature does not perform as advertised, rendering the iPhone 4S merely a more expensive iPhone 4,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple is in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, is in breach of warranty, and has committed both intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The suit seeks class action for other iPhone 4S owners, with the end goal of an injunction against Apple selling the device, as well as damages.

Top Settlements

For all of you who were victim to some dodgy plumbing fixtures–Plumb-PEX plumbing system— you will no doubt have been relieved to hear this week that a proposed settlement has been reached in the Plumb-PEX class action lawsuit. In fact, a notification program has begun to inform people and entities who own or owned a home, building or other structure containing a Plumb-PEX plumbing system, about the proposed settlement in a defective products class action lawsuit.

The settlement aims to resolve claims about whether Radiant Technology, Inc. and Uponor, Inc. (“RTI” or the “Defendants”) sold Plumb-PEX plumbing systems containing ASTM standard F1807 brass insert fittings and stainless steel clamps that may leak and cause damage to property. The Defendants deny all of the claims in the lawsuit, but have agreed to settle the case to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial.

The settlement includes a group of people called a “Class” or “Class members” and consists of anyone who owns or owned a property containing an RTI Plumb-PEX plumbing system containing ASTM standard F1807 brass insert fittings and stainless steel clamps (“RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System”) installed on or after May 15, 1999. Owners of systems that have: (a) had a leak in one or more of the system’s components, or (b) a water flow differential of 50% between the hot and cold lines that supply one or more fixtures may receive benefits from the settlement. People and entities that paid for damages or repairs related to a qualifying leak in an RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System may also submit claims.

The settlement will reimburse Class members for property damage caused by a qualifying leak in a system component. It will also provide repairs or possibly the replacement of an RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System in structures that have had two or more qualifying leaks. Eligible Class members will have at least 18 months to file a claim even if that time period expires after their warranty.

More information, and there is more information –including how to access a claim form, a picture of the RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System components and the Settlement Agreement–can be found here.

Did you buy a bit of Blue Sky? –The soda that is. If so, you may be interested to know that a federal court in San Francisco has preliminarily approved a consumer fraud class action settlement that provides 50% cash refunds on purchases of Blue Sky brand beverages.

The settlement applies to purchasers in the United States of Blue Sky brand beverages between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006 (the “Class”). It excludes purchases by retailers, distributors, resellers, and the judge handling the case.

Class members can submit a claim for refund of fifty percent of the price they paid. Refunds are limited to $100 per household (if Proof of Purchase is submitted) or $6 per household (if no Proof of Purchase is submitted). Proof of Purchase means an itemized retail receipt that shows a purchase of a Blue Sky beverage, and the date, place and amount of purchase.

The Blue Sky settlement resolves a lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corporation (formerly known as Hansen Natural Corporation), Monster Energy Company (formerly known as Hansen Beverage Company) and Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. (collectively, “Hansen”).

Class members also have the right to object to the settlement by filing papers in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California (Chavez v Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., et al., N.D. Cal. 06-cv-06609-JSW) and serving those papers on the attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants. Those who object may ask to appear at the hearing or hire their own attorney to appear.

To get the whole story, find out if you’re eligible o to download a claim form see our full post on the Blue Sky settlement.

OK –That’s a wrap. Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone—see you at the bar!