Overdraft fees

Week Adjourned: 3.7.14 – TD Bank, Tech Workers, Data Breach Settlement

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements…top stories include TD Bank, Apple, Adobe, Google, Intel and the AVMEd data breach settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

TD Bank Teed Up for Another Overdraft Fee Lawsuit? If at first you don’t succeed—is that the mantra here? TD Bank got hit with a consumer banking class action lawsuit this week alleging the financial institution continues to manipulate the order of debit card transactions so that it can profit through the maximization of overdraft fees. The lawsuit comes less than a year after the bank paid $62 million to settle a multidistrict litigation alleging the same practice. I’m sad to say I’m not surprised by these allegations.

Filed in Pennsylvania federal court by lead plaintiffs Sheila and Emilio Padilla, the complaint specifically alleges that TD Bank has continued to use a software scheme to illegally collect overdraft fees, and that it assessed the fees even when customers have sufficient funds in their account to cover the debit card payments.

“Defendant employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft systems,” the complaint states. “These programs maximize the number of overdrafts, and thus the amount of overdraft fees charged per customer.”

The TD Bank class action complaint further states, “Many of the complained of practices continued as before, even after the class action settlement. Shockingly, unlike nearly all other banks sued in the multidistrict litigation, … TD has continued these practices even after it settled claims of wrongdoing based on these very same practices.”

The class action seeks to represent all TD Bank customers who opened a new account after the settlement class period ended on August 15, 2010, and who were charged improper overdraft fees. The class also seeks to represent those customers that had an account prior to August 2010 but were not charged overdraft fees until after that time.

Hi ho, Hi ho, it’s back to court they go!

Pays to Know Who’s in your Network? Well, maybe that’s what Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel thought—they’re facing a potential employment and salary fixing class action lawsuit over allegations they conspired to hire engineers from each other’s employee pools and knowingly shared salary data to establish pay ceilings. Nice.

Filed in California, the engineer and programmer class action lawsuit allegedly follows on from a 2012 investigation by the US Department of Justice which found that these practices were also evident at Lucasfilms, Pixar and Intuit. According to a report by the New York Times, the DOJ’s report suggests as many as 64,000 engineers and programmers were involved, which means the class action lawsuit could see billions in damages, if successful.

Rumor has it the sainted Steve Jobs was involved in cooking this one up. One to watch for sure.

Top Settlements

Finally—a Data Breach Class Action Settlement! And a finalized one at that. That’s right, final approval of a $3 million settlement has just been granted, ending the long-running AVMed data breach class action. Cast your mind back to 2009, when health insurance provider AvMed got hit with what was to become one of the first in a string of data breach lawsuits. This one alleged that sensitive data from 1.2 million customer records had been breached from unencrypted laptops. “Sensitive”? I think we’re talking health records, FYI.

Among the settlement terms is the stipulation that AvMed implement increased data security measures including mandatory security awareness training and encryption protocols on company laptops.

The $3 million settlement fund is set aside for plaintiffs to make claims for $10 for every year that they purchased insurance from AvMed, with a $30 cap: class members who experienced identity theft are reportedly eligible to make additional claims to recover their monetary losses.

Reportedly, this is the first settlement of a data breach lawsuit that provides compensation to plaintiffs who did not experience identity theft.

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

Week Adjourned: 5.17.13 – iPhone 4, Wells Fargo, Generic Drugs

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 17, 2013. Top stories this week include iPhone 4, Wells Fargo and generic drugmaker Ranbaxy.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Apple! The god of tech gadgets got slapped this week—with a potential defective products class action lawsuit (yes, another one), alleging its iPhone 4 has a defective power button, effectively preventing the operator from being able to use the phone. This power button failure allegedly occurs shortly after the phone’s one year warranty expires. And doesn’t that just figure…

The Apple iPhone 4 class action lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Debra Hilton, Debra Hilton v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-2167, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims “The failure of the power button that has plagued the iPhone 4 is more than an inconvenience… As a method by which the phone is toggled on and off, the failure of the button precludes general use of the phone and thereby effectively prevents iPhone 4 owners from being able to use the phone.” Yup.

According to the lawsuit, Hilton alleges the iPhone 4 power button defect is caused by the premature deterioration of a flex cable that connects the power button to the phone. When this cable deteriorates, the power button becomes harder and harder to depress, and eventually fails to work. Yup.

The iPhone 4 lawsuit contends that thousands of consumers who purchased the iPhone 4 have experienced this failure forcing them to throw away their phone or pay Apple $149.99 plus shipping for a replacement. Yikes! Better get on it boys.

Top Settlements

Two Better than One for Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo made headlines twice this week, two settlements to report—both biggies. The first was a judicial order to reinstate a $203 million judgment against the bank in settlement of an overdraft fees class action lawsuit.

In a nutshell, the judgment, based upon the court’s findings, as affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, states that Wells Fargo violated California’s unfair competition law by deceiving its customers that debit card purchases would be posted chronologically to their accounts when in fact Wells Fargo posted them in a high-to-low order for the sole purpose of generating overdraft fees.

The case was brought on behalf of California Wells Fargo customers who, from November 15, 2004 to June 30, 2008, incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as a result of the bank’s practice of sequencing transactions from highest to lowest.

The second settlement with Wells Fargo’s name on it involves a force-placed insurance class action lawsuit brought by homeowners in Florida. (Force-placed insurance, btw, is sometimes referred to as “lender placed insurance”.) The lawsuit alleged that the homeowners were overcharged for the insurance, and that Wells Fargo unfairly took commission on the insurance, which it assigned to the homeowners through QBE.

The class was certified in 2012, and more than 24,000 homeowners were notified. During the class period, from April 2006 to February 2013, the class members were charged $77 million for force-placed insurance, according to the settlement documents, the South Florida Business Journal reports.

But wouldn’t you know it, just two months before they were due to go to court, the parties reached a $19.5 million settlement.

The settlement will provide a refund of the amount charged for force-placed insurance to the members of the class. Borrowers who were charged and paid the premium will be refunded 25 percent in cash. Those who were charged the premium but didn’t pay will get a credit of 25 percent off their bill.

Bet those homeowners are breathing a huge sigh of relief this weekend.

Largest Generic Drug Safety Fine. Ever. We’d be completely remiss if we didn’t mention this one… Ranbaxy has pled guilty to federal drug safety violations and will pay $500 million in fines to resolve the claims. The generic drug manufacturer is alleged to have sold subpar drugs and made false statements to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about its manufacturing practices at two factories in India.

According to the Justice Department, the settlement is reportedly the largest in history involving a generic drug maker. Part of the settlement involves Ranbaxy pleading guilty to three felony counts of violating the federal drug safety law and four of making false statements to the FDA.

According to a report by the New York Times, Ranbaxy acknowledged it had failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests of several drugs manufactured at its Indian plants, known as Paonta Sahib and Dewas, including generic versions of many common medicines, such as the epilepsy drug gabapentin, and the antibiotic ciprofloxacin.

In the case of gabapentin, also known as Neurontin, Ranbaxy reportedly admitted that between June and August in 2007, it was aware that certain batches had tested positive for “unknown impurities” and had unreliable shelf lives. Nevertheless, the company didn’t report this to the FDA and announce a recall until October of that year. The recall ultimately involved more than 73 million pills.

Further, testing of certain batches of drugs to ensure their effectiveness was reportedly not done for weeks or months after the company had told the FDA the testing had been carried out.

Ranbaxy has set aside $500 million in anticipation of the penalties, which will break down as a $150 million in a criminal fine and forfeiture, and the remainder going to settle civil claims brought by the federal government and all 50 states. A former Ranbaxy executive who alerted the federal government to the problems will receive close to $49 million in compensation for his role as a whistleblower, the Times reports.

That’s a wrap. It’s cocktail hour—somewhere in the world—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.11.13 – Kia, AT&T Mobility, Chase Bank

This week, our wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements is a consumer fraud hat trick! Read on for what’s been hot this week in class action news: Kia Sorento, AT&T Mobility, Chase Bank Overdraft Fees. All for the week ending January 11, 2013.

FYI…we’re going for a Consumer Fraud hat trick this week…

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Kia Sorento #EpicFail? Heads up anyone out there who owns a Kia Sorento 2002-2009 model…Kia Motors is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that these Sorento models are prone to catastrophic engine failure. That sounds rather alarming.

The Kia Sorento lawsuit, entitled Robinson et al v. Kia Motors America Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00006 U.S. district Court for the District of New Jersey, claims that Kia Motors knowingly concealed a manufacturing defect in the crank sprocket of its 2002-2009 Sorento models. This alleged engine defect can lead to a catastrophic chain of events beginning with severe heat buildup, the release of debris, and subsequent loss of steering control, engine failure and the potential for a hazardous accident, the plaintiffs allege. (And you thought sprockets were just something George Jetson worried about…)

“Not only did Kia actively conceal the material fact that this particular component is defectively designed (and requires costly repairs to fix), but it also did not reveal that the existence of this defect would diminish the intrinsic resale value of the vehicle,” the Kia lawsuit states.

Other allegations include Kia having knowledge of the engine defect for several years, as evidenced by numerous online complaints. However, it allegedly chose to withhold this information from consumers while making numerous statements about the quality and reliability of the Sorento. As a result of Kia’s “scheme of false and misleading advertising and marketing” thousands of people have purchased a Sorento, without knowledge of the defect, in preference to another vehicle without the alleged defect. Getting the picture?

The lawsuit also alleges that Kia Sorento owners who sought repairs for their vehicles while under warranty received only temporary repair of damaged parts, which may have included using similarly defective parts. Not good.

Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that Kia profits from the alleged Sorento engine defect by performing unnecessary parts replacements, computer reprogramming and software updates, despite knowing the true cause of the problem.

This lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers that purchased or leased the first generation Sorento. Ok.

Top Settlements

AT&T Mobility Customers May Get Relief From 7-Year Itch. A settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against AT&T Mobility LLC. The lawsuit claims that AT&T improperly charged fees to certain wireless customers—over a seven-year class period. That’s alotta fees—and sadly, seems to be a trend these days.

So—if you were assessed Universal Service Charges or similar charges under state or other laws (collectively “USC”) on data pay-per-use plans, visual voicemail services, customer custom packaging plans, international calls outside the United States or voicemail services only (“Covered Services”) by AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T Mobility”) on bills issued from January 1, 2004 up to and including December 31, 2010, you might be eligible to receive benefits from a class action settlement.

We must stress, that the AT&T Mobility settlement has to receive final approval. If approved, it will resolve the lawsuit entitled, MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 1222-CC09746, concerning AT&T Mobility assessment of USC on the Covered Services. AT&T Mobility will contribute $152,634,430.00 (“Settlement Proceeds”) which will be payable in the form of credits and cash payments to the eligible Settlement Class members after deductions for attorneys’ fees etc. The final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for February 20, 2013. Watch this space—we’ll keep you posted.

And for the Hat Trick…after all, three’s a charm! A $110 million settlement that just received final court approval, ending an overdraft fees class action lawsuit against Chase Bank. Yes—this is a form of consumer fraud, because “it ain’t on the level.”

The Chase Bank overdraft fee settlement is the latest to be reached in the massive class action lawsuit involving over 30 banks who are alleged to have manipulated customers’ transactions in such a way as to maximize overdraft fees. What’s on the level about those business practices?

The allegations also state that rather than declining transactions on an account that has insufficient funds to cover a purchase, Chase Bank authorized the transactions and then processed them in highest to lowest dollar order, which effectively increased the number of overdraft fees charged. Oh—don’t get me started!

As part of the settlement agreement, Chase will, for a period of at least two years, cease charging overdraft fees on individual debit card transactions of $5.00 or less. No comment.

Class members include anyone who (A) held a Chase, Bank One, or Bank of New York consumer deposit account accessible with a Chase debit card anytime between January 1, 2003 and March 29, 2010; and (B) were charged one or more overdraft fees as a result of Chase’s practice of posting debit card transactions from highest to lower dollar amount.

That’s it for this week. Off to you know where—see you there!

Week Adjourned: 9.21.12 – Arctic Zero, Payless Shoes, Citizens Bank, TD Bank

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending September 21, 2012.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Zero Truth? Before you take what you think may be a harmless mouthful of melt-in-your-mouth pleasure—namely Arctic Zero frozen desserts—WAIT—that ‘150 calorie per pint’ thing—may not be entirely accurate. At least that’s the claim in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed against Arctic Zero this week. The lawsuit claims the frozen desserts have 46% to 68% more calories than advertised. If this is true, it is seriously bad news for everyone.

The lawsuit, entitled Brenda Freeman v. Arctic Zero, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-2279 L BGS, US District, Southern District of California, alleges the company deceptively labels and markets its frozen treats as having only “150 calories per pint.” However, the frozen desserts contain up to 68% more calories than advertised based on findings from recent independent laboratory tests performed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. The deserts include Arctic Zero Chocolate Peanut Butter, and Arctic Zero Vanilla Maple which allegedly has 46% more calories than the 150 calories prominently advertised on the front of the product packaging as well as on its nutritional label, according to the class action lawsuit.

The Arctic Zero class action lawsuit is seeking to represent a proposed class of all U.S. persons who, since 2009, purchased any Arctic Zero frozen desserts advertised as containing 150 calories per pint or less. They’re seeking damages and restitution for Class Members as well as an injunction barring Arctic Zero from continuing to falsely advertise the calorie content of their products.

Top Settlements

Payless to PayMore? Payless shoes looks set to pay more to settle fraudulent advertising claims for its Champion toning shoes. A proposed settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (“Payless” or “Defendant”). The Payless toning shoe lawsuit has been brought on behalf of a nationwide class of persons who purchased any Champion-branded style of toning shoes.

The lawsuit alleges that Payless engaged in untrue and deceptive advertising promotion and marketing practices associated with its Champion-brand toning shoes. You may be a member of the Settlement Class and might be eligible to receive a merchandise certificate worth $8.00 if you are a person who purchased any Champion-branded toning shoes during the period January 21, 2006 through June 25, 2012.

If you are a Settlement Class member and the Court gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement:

You may be entitled to receive an $8.00 merchandise certificate (a “Settlement Payment”).
You will be giving up the right to bring certain legal claims in the future, as discussed more fully below.

To Submit a Payless Toning Shoe Settlement Claim Form

If you are a Settlement Class member and would like to receive your Settlement Payment, you must submit a Claim Form, either through the mail or by by clicking here. You will be giving up legal claims against the Defendant and other related entities. Your claim must be submitted or postmarked no later than January 5, 2013.

If you do nothing, you will not receive your Settlement Payment. You will, however, still be giving up legal claims against Defendant and other related entities.

To Exclude Yourself from the Payless Toning Shoe Settlement

You will receive no benefits, but you will not be giving up your right to sue Defendant or related entities.

If you believe you are a Settlement Class member and would like further information, go to paylesstoningshoeclassaction.com

More bang on your buck? Umm, maybe not. Hopefully not. It all depends on whether or not preliminary settlements are approved in two class actions brought against Citizens and TD Banks.

This week, a federal judge in Miami preliminary approved two settlements in the excessive overdraft fees class action lawsuits against Citizens Bank and TD Bank. If approved, Citizens and TD Banks would be the first two of 14 banks to settle their cases. The settlement agreement will see Citizens pay $137.5 million and TD $62 million. Cha ching!

The lawsuit alleged the banks charged excessive overdraft fees on checking account customers. Specifically, the banks’ internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. The plaintiffs alleged that this practice resulted in bank customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

A final hearing seeking approval of the settlements is scheduled for March 7, 2013.

Okee dokee. That’s it for this week—See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 7.7.12 – Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of July 7, 2012. Top stories this week include class action lawsuits involving Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Putting the Squeeze on Coca-Cola. Well, maybe. Seems something’s going on down at the grove. First it was Tropicana, now Coke’s Simply Orange has been hit with a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week over allegations it falsely advertises the Simply Orange orange juice as all pure and natural, when the juice is actually heavily processed and flavored.

Filed by Nezzie Rose Christina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola has been falsely stating that the Simply Orange orange juice is “100% Purse Squeezed Orange Juice” and is “a pure, natural orange juice with a taste that’s the next best thing to fresh-squeezed.”

Well, you don’t have to be a chemist to squeeze an orange at home, compare the juice you get from that with what comes out of your grocer’s freezer, and see a difference—now do you?

So the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola is deceptively promoting Simply Orange in order to take advantage of consumers’ preference for natural products and their willingness to pay a premium price for those products. “Mass marketed orange juice such as Simply Orange cannot be fresh squeezed as fresh squeezed orange juice is unstable and has a short shelf-life,” the lawsuit states.

The class action lawsuit alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and is asking for the return of the purchase price of the juice, plus interest, expenses, and attorney’s fees. This could be a juicy one! (Ok, ok—that’s bad, I know).

Top Settlements

Something to Bank on. One by one—it seems the banks are falling in line. Finally and at last. This week—it was US Bank—who agreed to pay $55 million to settle class action lawsuits that accused the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues. The lawsuits, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, are pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

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

FYI—US Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank ($110 million), Citizens Bank ($137.5 million), TD Bank ($62 million) and PNC Bank ($90 million) have been announced in recent months.

Employee Rites? Here’s one for the little guy! An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought against Rite Aid Corp by its employees, looks likely to be settled, as the company has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million in a settlement of the federal class action.

The Rite Aid class action lawsuit was brought in December 2008, by a store manager from Georgia, who alleged violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically, that she was denied overtime payment.

The settlement combines 13 cases from various federal court districts in which Rite Aid assistant store managers and co-managers alleged they put in more than 40 hours of work some weeks, but were denied overtime because the company classified them as supervisors. According to the Rite Aid class action lawsuit, the workers’ duties did not include store or department management, and workers lacked the authority to hire or fire or directly supervise other employees.

The class action settlement was recently approved by US District Judge John E. Jones III. The settlement could affect 6,100 people in 31 states.

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

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

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

Top Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok—That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder if that settlement amount includes interest?

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

Week Adjourned: 2.10.12

A weekly wrap up of the latest class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements, for the week ending February 10, 2012

Top Class Actions

If you didn’t need Zantac before, you may need after reading this… Walgreens is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations the drugstore chain, in partnership with Par, a manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals, marketed generic versions of antacid Zantac and antidepressant Prozac in dosage forms that weren’t subject to private and governmental reimbursement limitations. “As a result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and other third-party payors paid two to four times more than they would have had the prescriptions been filled as written,” the lawsuit claims.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) who filed the lawsuit, alleges in the Walgreens class action lawsuit that Walgreens and Par “engaged in at least two widespread schemes to overcharge insurance companies, self-insured employers and union health and welfare funds for the generic versions of Zantac, Prozac and other drugs.”

According to the lawsuit, “Walgreens purchased these dosage forms from Par—at a cost substantially higher than the widely prescribed dosage forms—and systematically and unlawfully filled its customers’ prescriptions with Par’s more expensive products, rather than the inexpensive dosage forms that were prescribed by physicians.”

Pharmacies cannot legally change a prescription without a physician’s express authorization; however, this class action lawsuit alleges Walgreens used expensive capsules manufactured by Par to fill prescriptions for the lower-priced tablets.

Top Settlements

For DES Daughters, Settled but not over… In a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler has this week ordered 14 pharmaceutical companies to negotiate compensation for 53 women who brought a DES class action lawsuit against the drug companies. The women alleged their breast cancer was caused by their mothers’ use of an anti-miscarriage drug, taken decades ago, called Diethylstilbestrol, also called Stilboestrol or DES.

DES was a synthetic hormone given to six million women worldwide between the 1940s and the early 1970s to prevent miscarriage. The drug was taken off the market when studies showed serious Diethylstilbestrol side effects, including a link between DES and vaginal cancer–as well as a link between DES and breast cancer, in women exposed to the medication while in the womb.

Bowler’s decision, which will have far reaching consequences, came following expert testimony from the scientific community including the Chair of Harvard’s Department of Epidemiology. The testimony included facts supporting the women’s claims that prenatal exposure to DES substantially increased risk for breast cancer among “DES Daughters” over the age of 40. The data came from information collected by the National Cancer Institute DES Follow-Up Study, and shows that DES daughters over the age of 40 are roughly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as their counterparts who were not exposed to the drug in-utero.

Manufacturers of DES include Eli Lilly and Company and E. R. Squibbs & Sons, the predecessor to Bristol-Myers Squibb. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control an estimated 10 million women in the United States have been exposed to DES—including DES mothers, DES daughters, DES sons and DES grandchildren. Attorney’s representing the plaintiffs expect there may be many more women affected by DES who will come forward as a result of this ruling.

Now it’s time for JP Morgan Chase to write a check…as they have tentatively agreed to pay $110 million to settle an overdraft fees class-action lawsuit filed by customers who allege the bank charged excessive checking overdraft fees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2009 by Andrea Luquetta of Los Angeles, claimed JPMorgan engaged in “unfair, deceptive and unconscionable” assessment and collection of overdraft fees. Her complaint also refers to the practices of Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought in 2008.

Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that JP Morgan Chase processed its debit card transactions unfairly so it could maximize the overdraft fees customers paid, which, according to the lawsuit, was typically between $25 and $35 per overdraft. The lawsuit remains to be approved in court, and details of the settlement terms haven’t been made readily available yet, so watch this space for updates.

OK—they’re buying—that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 11.11.11

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 7.23.11

Top Class Actions

Unlikely Couple Teams up vs DuPont Imprelis. A Pennsylvania homeowner and an Indiana golf course company filed a nationwide class action lawsuit this week, against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (“DuPont”). The charges? You may have read about them—that the use of a weed killer called Imprelis, made by DuPont, is causing widespread death among trees and other non-targeted vegetation across the country. Non-targeted vegetation? What is that—environmental collateral damage?

No wait—non-targeted vegetation means anything that’s not a weed. According to the lawsuit, DuPont failed to adequately disclose the risks for Imprelis damage to trees, even when applied as directed (oh great), and failed to provide adequate instructions for its safe application. Even better.

Lead plaintiff Marsha Shomo, a resident of Johnston, Pennsylvania, claims that the trees at her house of are dying after her lawn was sprayed with Imprelis. Included are two trees Shomo’s sister bought after her diagnosis with cancer, which took her sister’s life in 2001. “My sister was so anxious that the new little trees she bought be taken care of,” Shomo stated. “I promised her I would do that. I want DuPont to know that there is a problem out there and people do have special trees with many years invested in them. This isn’t right. I am filing this lawsuit to make sure DuPont answers to everyone harmed, and make DuPont act more responsibly in the future.”

As for the golf course, Plaintiff R.N. Thompson Golf, LLC, in fact owns and manages several golf courses in the greater Indianapolis area, including the Winding Ridge Golf Course and the Ironwood Gold Course. “We have witnessed catastrophic tree loss around our golf courses after the application of Imprelis, and have received numerous complaints and inquiries about the tree damage and appearance of our courses from our customers,” explained Mark Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of R.N. Thompson Golf, LLC. “We filed this lawsuit to inform other businesses and homeowners about this problem to let them know there is reason their trees are dying and to give them a course of action to fix the problem.”

If Imprelis is affecting your environment, check this Imprelis lawsuit out.

The proposed class consists of all persons and entities whose property was exposed to Imprelis between October 4, 2010 and the date of trial, in particular, those who own: (a) property on which Imprelis was applied; (b) trees or other vegetation whose roots extend under property on which Imprelis was applied or; (c) property onto which Imprelis migrated. Anyone with damaged trees is being advised to preserve the evidence.

Top Settlements

Drilling Deal. Amidst all the media coverage of a rather dubious practice of extracting natural gas called fracking —and the allegedly related water and health issues surrounding it, property owners on the Marcellus Shale belt in Pennsylvania have just won $14 million from a drilling company that reneged on their contracts to drill. Most people are trying to stop the drilling, but these property owners want it.

The out-of-court settlement was signed off by a Westmoreland judge, ending the two year civil suit brought by 230 property owners against State College-based Rex Energy. The fracking lawsuit was filed in 2009 by property owners in the rural areas of Cook, Derry, Fairfield, Ligonier, Mt. Pleasant and Unity townships. The lawsuit alleged that Rex Energy reneged on 137 drilling contracts the owners claimed they had finalized in 2008. The property owners also claimed that the company failed to honor promises of bonus and rental payments on the drilling leases.

According to a report on Triblive.com, the disputes involves oil and gas drilling rights on about 7,200 acres, or almost 11 square miles. The settlement permits landowners who had not signed leases with other companies and still wished to sign with Rex to do so at $2,500 per acre. The new, five-year leases give landowners a 15 percent royalty on any gas produced. Better get Fracking!

Finally…Score One for the Little Guy. Bank of Hawaii reached a tentative settlement with account holders this week concerning an overdraft fees class action lawsuit brought pissed-off customers who alleged the bank engaged in a systematic policy of re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount. You could almost recite that sentence in your sleep it’s so common, unfortunately. The lawsuit claimed that this alleged practice allowed the bank to deplete the customer’s available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.

The Bank of Hawaii settlement amount is $9 million, and, if approved will be used to refund class members for overdraft fees they were charged. “The tentative settlement, subject to documentation and court approvals, provides for a payment by the company of $9 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys’ fees, administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release of all claims asserted against the company,” the bank said in a filing with the Securities Exchange Commission.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar.