Settlement - Part 26

Week Adjourned: 8.3.12 – Zynga, JPMorgan, Netflix

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 3, 2012. Top class action lawsuits include Zynga, JPMorgan and Netflix.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Ladies and Gentlemen…Check your Portfolios! A lot of securities litigation this week—and at the top of the list is the Zynga securities class action. Not familiar with Zynga? Well, either you’ve been under a rock or you simply haven’t gotten sucked up into their addiction-creating game: FarmVille. Ask your kids…

The Zynga class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 12-cv-124007) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Zynga, Inc. (“Zynga” or the “Company”) between February 28, 2012 and July 25, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and includes those investors who acquired Zynga stock pursuant to and/or traceable to Zynga’s secondary stock offering on April 3, 2012. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

According to the Complaint, Zynga completed a secondary stock offering on April 3, 2012 which enabled Zynga insiders to sell over 43 million shares of their Zynga stock at a price of $12.00 per share for proceeds of approximately $516 million. On July 25, 2012, Zynga announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2012, reporting substantially lower than expected earnings and lowering its 2012 guidance. Following this announcement, the Company’s common stock plummeted 40% in value down to $2.97 per share.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, against Zynga, certain of its officers and directors, and those who served as underwriters in connection with Zynga’s secondary stock offering. The Complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions, including a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with Zynga’s secondary offering, about Zynga’s business, operations, and growth prospects.

Top Settlements

More from the Inflated Credit Card Rates Story (the one that never ends…) This week JPMorgan Chase & Co. reached a $100 million settlement of a credit card rate class action lawsuit in which JPMorgan was accused of improperly increasing its credit card minimum payments as a means to generate higher fees. (Could you recite these charges by heart… ya think?)

Filed in 2009, the Chase credit card lawsuit ( re: Chase Bank USA NA “Check Loan” Contract Litigation, Case No. 9-md-2032, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) alleged the bank decided in late 2008 and 2009 to boost minimum monthly payments for thousands of cardholders from 2 percent to 5 percent of account balances. Cardholders alleged that JPMorgan induced them to transfer credit card balances from other lenders to Chase card accounts, where the bank promised to consolidate their debt into loans with “fixed” interest rates until the balance were paid off.

However, the lawsuit claims JPMorgan increased minimum payments to force credit card holders to either accept higher rates in order to keep the lower payment, to make more late payments and trigger more fees or a 29.99% penalty interest rate, or to close underperforming accounts. This manipulation resulted in millions of dollars in additional fee income from thousands of new cardholders.

According to court documents, lawyers for the cardholders claim that the $100 million class action settlement is 45% of the $220 million in up-front transaction fees that their clients paid for the promotional loans. They called the class action lawsuit settlement an “excellent result” for cardholders, who would recover “a substantial portion of the transaction fees they paid.” The Chase credit card class action lawsuit settlement awaits final court approval.

Netflix Privacy Fix. Netflix made headlines this week due to a proposed settlement in a privacy class action lawsuit that claims the movie rental company unlawfully kept and disclosed customer information, including records on the movies and TV shows its customers viewed. Netflix denies that it has done anything wrong. Of course.

Here are the straight goods: Any current or former Netflix subscriber as of July 5, 2012 and lives in the U.S. or its territories is included in the Settlement.

The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Netflix has agreed to change its data retention practices so that it separates (known as “decoupling”) Entertainment Content Viewing History (that is, movies and TV shows that someone watched) from identification information for those subscribers who have not been a Netflix for at least 365 days, with some exceptions.

In addition, Netflix will pay $9 million into a Settlement Fund, from which it will make donations to Court-approved not-for-profit organizations, institutions, or programs that educate users, regulators, and enterprises regarding issues relating to protection of privacy, identity, and personal information through user control, pay notice and settlement administration expenses, attorneys’ fees of up to $2.25 million plus up to $25,000 in expenses, and a total incentive award of $30,000 to the Named Plaintiffs (a total of six individuals).

Proposals from potential donation recipients will be sought, and, after consideration, recommendations will be made to the Court. A list of the proposed donation recipients will be posted on the website. Class Members who do nothing will remain in the Settlement and their rights will be affected. If they do not want to be included, they must exclude themselves by November 14, 2012. If they exclude themselves they keep the right to sue Netflix about the claims in this lawsuit.

Class Members who remain in the Settlement can object to it by November 14, 2012.

The Court will hold a hearing on December 5, 2012 to consider any objections, whether to approve the Settlement, award attorneys’ fees, and incentive award. Any Class Member can appear at the hearing, but they don’t have to. They can hire an attorney at their own expense to appear or speak for them at the hearing.

Ok folks –it’s time for poolside libations! See you—well, you know where.

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 7.13.12 – Hyundai Elantra, Wells Fargo, ABM Security

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending July 13, 2012. Top class actions include Hyundai Elantra, Wells Fargo and ABM Security Services.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

More mileage out of its customers than its cars? Maybe. At least the folks who filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Hyundi Motor America think so.

The Hyundai Elantra class action lawsuit alleges that Hyundai deceived customers regarding gas mileage claims for the Elantra. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges that Hyundi’s ad for the Elantra was misleading because it included the phrase “The 40 mile per gallon Elantra.” The class action lawsuits, filed by Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, also claims Hyundai attempted to manipulate customers who are concerned about escalating gas prices and fuel economy.

The lawsuit further alleges that while the Elantra may average 40 mpg during ideal highway driving conditions, it does not achieve that same figure under most other driving scenarios.

Hyundai’s advertisements for the 2011 and 2012 Elantra models caused tens of thousands of California drivers to purchase the vehicle under false pretenses, the plaintiffs allege.

The lawsuit seeks to stop Hyundai from illegally using gas mileage numbers in its advertising of the Elantra without government-mandated disclosures and asks for damages on behalf of California residents who purchased or leased 2011 and 2012 Elantras.

Top Settlements

Wells Fargo hits the bottom of the well… A $175 million settlement has been agreed by Wells Fargo in a discrimination action brought against the nation’s largest residential home mortgage originator by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ alleged Wells Fargo manipulated African-American and Hispanic borrowers into taking on more costly subprime loans or charging them higher fees than those issued to comparable white borrowers. More than 30,000 minority borrowers were affected between 2004 and 2009, the Justice Department said. Unbelievable!

“If you were African-American or Latino, you were more likely to be placed in a subprime loan or pay more for your mortgage loan, even though you were qualified and deserved better treatment,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said in a statement.

“This is a case about real people—African-American and Latino—who suffered real harm as a result of Wells Fargo’s discriminatory lending practices.”

As an example, in 2007 a typical African-American wholesale borrower in Chicago seeking a $300,000 loan from Wells Fargo paid nearly $3,000 more in fees than a similarly qualified white applicant, the Justice Department said.

Wells Fargo has denied the government’s allegations, saying it agreed to settle the case “solely for the purpose of avoiding contested litigation.”

If the settlement receives final court approval, as part of the agreement, Wells Fargo will pay $125 million in compensation to victims of discrimination, and $50 million in down-payment assistance to borrowers in affected communities, CNN Money reports.

Cha-Ching! An $89.7 million settlement has been awarded by a California state judge to 15,000 former and present security guards of ABM Security Services Inc, who filed an unpaid wages class action lawsuit concerning rest breaks.

The ABM Security Services class action lawsuit, entitled Jennifer Augustus vs. American Commercial Social Security Services et al, was filed in July 2005. It alleged the guards were given “on-duty” breaks during which they were required to keep their cellphones or pagers on.

In his ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John S. Wiley said the company “balks at the notion that the employer must relieve workers of all duties for the rest break to be legally valid,” said in his ruling. “Put simply, if you are on call, you are not on break. That has been the law for many years.” Way to go!

Ok—That’s a wrap. Time for ‘tinis…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: 6.22.12 – Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

What Can I Get from the Paxil Settlement?

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

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

How Can I File a Paxil Settlement Claim?

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

How to Opt Out of or Object to the Paxil Settlement

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 6.8.12 – Catalina Restaurants, NobelTel, Hilton LAX

Weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending June 8, 2012; top stories include Catalina Restaurant Group, NobelTel, and Hilton LAX hotel

Top Lawsuits

Overtime Violations on the Menu at Catalina. First up this week, an overtime class action lawsuit. This one filed against Catalina Restaurant Group Inc. and JoJo’s California Family Restaurants, Inc. (“Catalina”) for alleged wage and hour violations.

Specifically? Violations of California labor laws in regards to overtime pay and requiring their employees to work off-the-clock without being paid for all their hours worked. McDermott, et al. vs. Catalina Restaurant Group Inc. and JoJo’s California Family Restaurants, Inc., was filed by attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, who are representing the plaintiffs.

According to the class action lawsuit, the restaurant “did not have in place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay Plaintiff and other California Class Members for the actual number of hours these employees worked each day, including overtime hours worked.” Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Catalina “consistently did not allocate enough labor hours such that there was not enough time for Plaintiff and California Class Members to complete their required duties.” As a result, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff and California Class Members were forced to clock out of Catalina’s timekeeping system, but were still required to perform additional work for Catalina for which they were not compensated for.

Furthermore, the complaint also alleges that the Plaintiff and California Class Members received non-discretionary quarterly bonuses from Catalina, but Catalina failed to include this extra bonus compensation in the regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating the correct overtime pay rates owed to these employees. The failure to include the bonus compensation in the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, according to the complaint, “has resulted in a systematic underpayment of overtime compensation” to the Plaintiff and members of the California Class.

The Complaint further claims that as a result of Catalina’s failure to record all hours worked by members of the California Class and Catalina’s failure to pay these employees the correct overtime rate, Catalina “failed to provide the Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class with complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, the correct number of all hours worked and the correct overtime rate for overtime hours worked.”

Founding partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal asserts, “when employers exclude non-discretionary bonuses from the regular rate of pay when calculating their employee’s overtime rate, they are violating the law.”

Top Settlements

Ignobel NobelTel? A settlement has been proposed in the of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit captioned Sabaj et al. v. NobelTel, LLC et al. (aka, NobelTel Prepaid Calling Card class action lawsuit)

It could affect you if you purchased prepaid calling cards that were sold, serviced or distributed in California by Nobel, Inc., Nobel, Ltd., NobelCom, LLC, and NobelTel, LLC (“Defendants”), or if you purchased any prepaid calling services sold online and submitted a California billing address through www.nobelcom.com and www.enjoyprepaid.com, between April 8, 2006 and May 24, 2012 (“Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards”). If you made such a purchase, you may be a member of the Settlement Class. (This is only a summary legal notice. A detailed notice is available at the websites and toll free number listed below.)

What Is The NobelTel Lawsuit About?

The consumer fraud lawsuit claims that the Defendants did not inform consumers sufficiently about the applicable rates and charges for their prepaid calling cards and services, failed to deliver minutes voice prompted by the cards, and violated California consumer protection laws. Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Am I Affected By The NobelTel Settlement?

You are a member of the Class if you purchased a prepaid calling card issued by Nobel, Inc., Nobel, Ltd., NobelCom, LLC, and NobelTel, LLC in California between April 8, 2006 and May 24, 2012. A list of eligible calling cards is available on the websites listed below.

You are also a member of the Class if you purchased any prepaid calling services sold online between April 8, 2006 and May 24, 2012 and you provided a California billing address through www.nobelcom.com and www.enjoyprepaid.com.

What Benefits Does The NobelTel Settlement Provide?

Defendants will provide 400,000 $5.00 calling card Settlement Personal Identification Numbers (“Settlement PINs”). These Settlement PINs can be used to make international and domestic calls, originating from California, to any place in the continental United States and to 879 foreign locations. A complete list of locations is available on the websites below. If you purchased Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards online, you may be entitled to receive one (1) Settlement PIN for up to the first $40 in Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards purchased, and an additional Settlement PIN for every $40 increment thereafter. If you purchased Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards in a physical store in California, you may be entitled to receive one (1) Settlement PIN for up to the first $20 in Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards purchased, and an additional Settlement PIN for every $20 increment thereafter, up to a maximum of six (6) Settlement PINs.

How Do I Make a Claim in the NobelTel Settlement?

If you purchased prepaid calling services sold online through www.nobelcom.com and www.enjoyprepaid.com, you will automatically receive the Settlement PIN(s) at the e-mail address you provided to Defendants without having to submit anything.

If you purchased a prepaid calling card in some other manner, you must submit a Refund Form to receive the Settlement PIN(s) by mail no later than November 20, 2012 to February 18, 2013.

What Are My Other Legal Rights?

Remain in the Settlement: You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and give up your right to sue Defendants. To receive the Settlement PIN(s) see the instructions above.

Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to sue Defendants, you must exclude yourself by August 13, 2012.

Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in the Settlement, you can object to it by August 13, 2012. You give up your right to sue and are bound by all Court orders even if your objection is rejected.

A hearing in the case, Sabaj et al. v. NobelTel, LLC et al. Case No. BC435467 will be held on September 13, 2012 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys’ fees and expenses up to $500,000.

Umm… the phone card that never runs out…

Hilton Settlement–No not with Paris, This one’s in LA…The Hilton Los Angeles Airport Hotel has agreed a $2.5 million settlement in the wage and hour class action brought by 1,200 of its hotel workers. The Hilton lawsuit alleged that the hotel withheld wages, failed to pay overtime and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

Filed in 2008, the unpaid overtime class action covers all hourly workers who worked at the hotel from 2004 to 2011.

Other allegations included in the employment lawsuit were that the Hilton LAX did not pay its employees for time spent preparing for work and putting on and taking off work uniforms that were required to be left at the hotel. And, that plaintiffs were required to fill out time sheets saying they took breaks whether they truthfully did or not.

Well – someone had to pay for Paris’ exploits…

Ok – that’s a wrap. See you at the bar. Happy Friday Folks.

Week Adjourned: 6.1.12 – Chobani Yogurt, Exxon Mobil, BMW Privacy

The weekly wrap on the latest class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 1, 2012; this week’s highlights include Chobani Yogurt, Exxon Mobil and BMW.

Top Lawsuits

Food fraud de jour… We’re talking about Chobani Greek Yogurt to be specific. The “nothing but good” yogurt, if you recall. Chobani Inc is facing a class action lawsuit over alleged deceptive marketing claims (aka consumer fraud) concerning the use of certain terms on its Greek yogurt products. Who would have thought? Yogurt “terminology”? The Chobani lawsuit claims the terms violate federal and state food labeling laws.

Yes indeed, folks, that old chestnut—again. I bet if all food ingredients were listed by their chemical names—in any or all products—the average consumer would likely need a chemistry degree to read food labeling … although you pretty much do now…

Ah yes. The facts: Filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of California by California consumer Katie Kane, the lawsuit alleges Chobani’s use of ‘evaporated cane juice’, ‘all natural ingredients’ and ‘only natural ingredients’ as terms used to describe its 18 flavors of Greek yogurt products. The lawsuit claims Chobani failed to disclose that ‘evaporated cane juice’ is commonly referred to as sugar or dried cane syrup.

Federal and California state food labeling laws forbid the use of ‘natural’ labeling if the product contains artificial ingredients, flavoring, coloring or chemical preservatives, the lawsuit claims. Kane also alleges that Chobani made false claims in violation of these laws to actively promote the “naturalness and health benefits of its products” and drive sales.

Ok—well if you want to go down that road—show me company that isn’t on the green/health bandwagon? Oh yes, Exxon Mobil. But that’ll be coming up in Top Settlements.

The Chobani lawsuit further states, “For example, the Nutrition Facts for Chobani’s Greek Yogurt, Pomegranate flavor, state that it has 19 grams of sugar, but the ingredient section fails to list ‘sugar’ and/or ‘dried cane syrup’ as an ingredient.”

“If a manufacturer is going to make a claim on a food label, the label must meet certain legal requirements that help consumers make informed choices and ensure that they are not misled. In promoting the naturalness and health benefits of its Misbranded Food Products, Defendant claims to understand the importance of communicating responsibly about its products,” the lawsuit states.

“Nevertheless, Defendant has made, and continues to make false and deceptive claims on its Misbranded Food Products in violation of federal and California laws that govern the types of representations that can be made on food labels.”

It’s off to court they go…

Top Settlements

Ten Years After…As I was saying about Exxon Mobil—here’s one for the little guy. Bit late, bit small, never should have happened in the first place, but hey—it’s a result—because the townspeople of Pascoag, RI stood up for themselves. A Providence Superior Court Judge has approved a $7 million settlement of an environmental class action lawsuit brought by the citizens of the Town of Pascoag, Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Water District against Exxon Mobil Corporation as a result of the contamination of their well water supply by MTBE in 2001. According to attorneys for the class, the Exxon Mobil settlement finally brings some satisfaction to the citizens of Pascoag after almost ten years of litigation against Exxon Mobil for the contamination of the Town of Pascoag’s water supply.

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that was mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1990, requiring that fuel oxygenates be added to gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide in the air, was first noticed in the Summer of 2001, when a strong disagreeable odor had been reported by various Public Utility District customers.

On August 30, 2001, a resident of Pascoag, Rhode Island requested that a sample of his tap water be tested, as it had a bad taste. MTBE concentrations, above allowable state limits, were detected. Thereafter, an investigation by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) revealed that gasoline containing MTBE had leaked from the Main Street Mobil Gasoline Service Station and contaminated the town’s well water. The DEM ordered that the Pascoag well pumping stations be shut down, and arrangements were made to pipe in well water from the neighboring Town of Harrisville.

In 2003 a lawsuit was filed against Exxon Mobil (yes—it’s really taken 9-10 years) alleging that the use of MTBE in gasoline was among other things, a defective product. The investigation revealed that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies knew MTBE posed a threat to drinking water years before the industry began blending the additive with gasoline.

According to a statement issued by attorneys for the town of Pascoag, “the Pascoag, Rhode Island case was the largest MTBE case in the history of the state.” Court documents showed that the oil companies knew about MTBE’s problems as early as the early 1980’s. The oil industry defended the use of MTBE, claiming that the federal government allowed MTBE to be used with knowledge of its characteristics.

MTBE readily dissolves in water and does not cling to soil near a spill site, as most chemicals do. It degrades slowly and travels quickly and travels far in water.” Other dangerous gasoline compounds, like benzene, are rarely found more than 300 feet from a spill site, while MTBE has been found, as in this case, thousands of feet away,” the plaintiffs attorney stated in the press release. Documents and statements from Exxon Mobil and other oil companies show they knew all this almost as soon as they began producing MTBE in the late 1990’s. When 20 percent of the tanks nationwide were known to leak, they put MTBE in tanks knowing it would make its way to ground water and drinking water supplies.

In this case, the utility and citizens that sued over MTBE were not seeking damages because customers got sick from drinking the additive. Such claims are nearly impossible to prove, said the attorney for the plaintiffs. Instead, the damages were to compensate the homeowners for their inconvenience and to the Pascoag Public Utility District to allow them to install new wells, plus pipe lines to bring the water to homes once served by private wells. This includes the cost of putting filters in, digging up dirty soil and installing systems to pump the MTBE out of the water.

Better in a Beamer? …maybe not… Here’s something we’re seeing a lot more of these days—privacy class actions. The offenders in this class action lawsuit are BMW and its telematics services provider, Agero Connected Services, Inc. (formerly known as ATX Group, Inc.) The lawsuit claims that BMW recorded BMW Assist calls without first disclosing that a call may be monitored or recorded. (Can you imagine listening to all those recordings? OMG.)

The skinny: The BMW Assist settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit, entitled Skuro v. BMW of North America, LLC, that alleges BMW and its telematics services provider, Agero Connected Services, Inc. (formerly known as ATX Group, Inc.) violated several consumer privacy laws by allegedly recording BMW Assist calls.

Class Members of the BMW Assist class action settlement include all individuals who connected to the BMW Assist program between October 13, 2009 and February 1, 2011 and the BMW vehicle owner was receiving benefits in the BMW Assist program with a California billing address. The settlement could affect anyone who connected to the BMW Assist program during the class period, including entitlement to benefits, including up to $50 cash.

BMW and ATX deny any wrongdoing, but have agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to avoid the expense of ongoing litigation.

Class Members of the BMW Assist class action lawsuit settlement can choose to receive one of the following two benefits:

1. Service Benefit. “Service Benefit” means either a 6-month upgrade to the BMW Assist “convenience plan” (for Class Members who currently have an active basic safety plan on their BMW vehicle), or a 6-month extension to the BMW Assist basic safety plan (for Class Members who currently have an active basic safety plan on their BMW vehicle, or Class Members who have no BMW Assist Service on their Class Vehicle). To receive the Service Benefit, Class Members must enter into a Subscription Agreement Addendum no later than July 10, 2012.

2. Non-Revisionary Fund. Class Members who decline or who do not have the option for the Service Benefit can file a claim for a cash payment from the Non-Revisionary Fund, which will be paid on a pro rata basis, up to $50, to Class Members who file a valid claim postmarked no later than July 10, 2012.

More information about the settlement, a Subscription Agreement Addendum and claims forms can be found at the Settlement Administrator’s website: www.BMWAssistSettlement.com.

See you at the bar—happy, happy…and don’t ask to see the ingredients in your Martini.

Week Adjourned: 5.25.12 – Facebook IPO, AllianceOne Calls, Asbestos

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is going to be interesting…

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 5.18.12 – Tetley Tea, Skechers, Verizon

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 18, 2012. This week’s top stories: Tetley Tea, Skechers and Verizon.

Top Class Actions

Actually, this week it’s Top Consumer Fraud Class Actions—because false advertising class action lawsuits seem to be the theme right now…

What’s Brewing at Tetley Tea? Let’s take Tetley Tea as an example—as of this week, the Tetley Tea is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an “excellent” or “natural” source of antioxidants.

The Tetley Tea lawsuit states, “Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters” to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever’s Lipton Tea.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers in California who purchased Tetley Tea’s Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and other bits and pieces, for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. That’s some laundry list.

Top Settlements

Couple of big preliminary settlements on—you guessed it—consumer fraud/false advertising class action lawsuits to tell you about this week…

Skechers Sketchy Health Claims. This one, all over the media, implies that Skechers may be guilty of sketchy health claims. At least the FTC thinks so. But not the shoe manufacturer, of course. Nevertheless, Skechers USA has agreed to pay $45M to resolve allegations brought by the US and state governments that it deceived customers about the health benefits of its Shape-ups athletic shoes.

The allegations center on claims that the shoe manufacturer’s athletic toning shoes help people lose weight and strengthen their buttocks and legs. Skechers aren’t the first athletic shoe maker to face penalties for their advertising claims—Reebok also got hit and settled for $25 million, but hey, according to news reports, these shoes are big business. Skechers reportedly made $1.4 billion in 2009.

According to a statement by the US Federal Trade Commission, Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, also made false claims in advertising for its Resistance Runner, Tone-ups and Toners shoes.

According to a report by Bloomberg, the ads for Skechers that were challenged by the FTC include one for Shape-ups that told consumers they could “get in shape without setting foot in a gym,” according to the statement. The FTC alleges the company made unsupported claims that the shoes would provide more weight loss and muscle toning than regular fitness shoes.

You may be a class member if you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes since August 1, 2008, with limited exclusions. The Court has not yet ruled on whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. The Court may not grant preliminary approval or may require certain changes to the proposed settlement.

If the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, you will have rights which you may wish to exercise, including rights to opt-out of the settlement or object.

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Skechers has agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008:

Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers

Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles

Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals

Skechers boots

Skechers clogs

Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole)

The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased from August 1, 2008, onwards, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members.

Possible reimbursements could be:

$40 – $80 for Shape-ups;

$27 – $50 for podded sole shoes;

$20 – $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and

$42 – $80 for Resistance Runners

To find out more about the Skechers settlement, whether or not you could qualify as a class member, and to download forms, visit http://www.skecherssettlement.com.

Verizon Calling —Verizon Land Lines that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Verizon. This time, it’s not health claims that are the issue—but third-party charges.

If you were billed for third-party charges on your Verizon landline telephone bill, you may be entitled to a payment from this class action settlement, if the settlement is approved.

The Settlement will provide for payments to all class members who properly submit Claim Forms by November 15, 2012. The payments will be either $40 in the case of approved Flat Payment Claims or the full amount (i.e., 100%) of unauthorized Third-Party Charges you paid in the case of approved Full Payment Claims. Some class members may have a claim for less than $40. Class counsel contends that some class members may have a claim for hundreds of dollars, or more.

You must submit a claim form in order to qualify for payment. This is the only way to get a payment. You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid. To file a claim, you must complete a Claim Form either online or download a Claim Form, print it out and mail it to the Settlement Administrator by November 15, 2012. You can find the claims forms by visiting www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.

The Court in charge of this case has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement but still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved.

OKee dokee. Enough business as usual—it’s the weekend! See you at the bar—where the health benefits are obvious and require no advertising…