Week Adjourned - Part 21

Week Adjourned: 12.27.13 – Target, Meningitis Outbreak, Costco

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Target data breach, the Meningitis outbreak of 2012, and Costco gender discrimination.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Guess that 10% Discount wasn’t enough… This one made international headlines in December—well the data breach did. This week, a class action lawsuit was filed against retail giant Target, over the data breach of up to 40 million customer’s credit and debit cards.

Filed in California federal court by lead plaintiff Lisa Purcell (“Plaintiff”), the Target lawsuit seeks to represent all those similarly situated to obtain damages, restitution and injunctive relief for the Class. “The information Target lost, including Plaintiff’s identifying information and other financial information, is extremely valuable to thieves. As the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recognizes, once identity thieves have personal information, they can drain your bank account, run up your credit cards, open new utility accounts, or get medical treatment on your health insurance,”’ the lawsuit states.

According to a statement issued by Target, the so-called track data was stolen in real time as payment cards were swiped in its stores between November 27, the day before Thanksgiving, and December 15.

The Target data breach lawsuit states “ Investigators believe the data was obtained via software installed on machines that customers use to swipe magnetic strips on their cards when paying for merchandise at Target stores.” And “The thieves may also have accessed PIN numbers for affected customers’ debit cards, allowing the thieves to withdraw money from those customers’ bank accounts. Thieves could not have accessed this information and installed the software on Target’s point-of-sale machines but for Target’s negligence, and that Target failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach.”

Among the allegations is the clam that Target was negligent in its failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach. Further, “Target unreasonably delayed informing anyone about the breach of security of Class Members’ confidential and personal information after Target knew the data breach had occurred,” the lawsuit states.

Not so very Ho Ho Ho.

Top Settlements

Remember this? 2012—Nationwide Meningitis Outbreak? Sure you do. The outbreak affected over 700 people, with 64 fatalities in 20 states? Well, this week a $100M settlement was reached between the compounding pharmacy allegedly behind a massive fungal meningitis outbreak last year and victims and their families.

Paul Moore, a trustee of the now bankrupt New England Compounding Center, supported the preliminary settlement agreement. “We are pleased that a significant amount of funds will become available for distribution to victims and their families as compensation for the deaths, injuries and suffering they endured as a result of this tragic meningitis outbreak,” Moore told CNN.com. If approved, the settlement will also be used to pay out the pharmacy’s creditors.

In a statement issued announcing the settlement, the pharmacy’s owners said they deny any liability or wrongdoing, but want to play a major role in establishing a fund for those who died or suffered “as a result of this tragic outbreak.”

Bet Women at Wal-Mart are Watching this one… Costco has agreed to a tentative $8 million settlement in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit At the heart of the lawsuit are allegations the wholesale retailer engages in promotion practices that disadvantage women in the company: rather than posting positions internally and letting qualified candidates apply, candidates were hand-picked for promotions to managerial positions. The result was that fewer women rose to senior managerial positions.

If the Costco settlement is approved, it would provide compensation for current and former employees who were incorrectly denied promotions. Claimants still with the company who were improperly denied promotions may be eligible to receive up to $50,000, and former employees up to $300,000, depending on the position. Also part of the settlement terms is an undertaking by Costco to reform its internal promotion process, to allow employees equal opportunity to apply for management jobs going forward. A fairness hearing is scheduled for February 2014.

The lawsuit alleges Costco has pursued policies and practices on a continuing basis which result in the denial of equal job opportunities to qualified women. Specifically:

Relying upon subjective, gender-based and/or arbitrary criteria utilized by a nearly all male managerial workers in making promotion and compensation decisions;

Failing to follow a uniform job posting procedure to guarantee that all employees have notice of openings;

Discouraging females from applying for senior level management positions;

Failing and refusing to consider females for promotion on the same basis as males are considered;

Failing and refusing to promote females on the same basis as males are promoted and compensated;

Failing to provide females with accurate and timely notice of promotional opportunities; and

Maintaining and fostering a reputation for discriminatory conduct which deters females from pursuing promotion opportunities with Costco.

The initial lawsuit was filed in 2002, and refiled in 2004. It was not certified until September 2012. Talk about “keeping the faith!”

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Holidays, be safe, and we’ll see you at the bar in 2014!

Week Adjourned: 12.20.13 – Snooki Diet, Major Bank Credit Card Fees x 2

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions for the week include Snooki’s would-be diet wonder and major bank credit card fees.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is Snooki snookered? And maybe those of us using Zantrex? Christmas is not a good time to get the news that your diet pills may be snake oil. But, really, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Snooki, of “Jersey Shore” fame, is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations she promoted the diet pill Zantrex knowing that the pills don’t work. http://www.bigclassaction.com/lawsuit/snooki-zantrex-diet-pills-consumer-fraud-class.php

Basic Research LLC, Zoller Laboratories, three of their officers, and Nicole Polizzi aka Snooki are named as defendants by lead plaintiff Ashley Brady, who claims Zantrex combines caffeine with herbs that are “unsafe and ineffective for weight control or appetite suppression.” Brady further alleges that the three officers have been ordered to cease and desist selling fraudulent weight-loss products.

So re: the Snooki Zantrex lawsuit, here’s the skinny—(couldn’t resist that one) Brady alleges she bought a bottle of Zantrex-3 in 2010 after reading the label’s claims stating the drug would provide “546% More Weight Loss Than America’s #1 Selling Ephedra-Based Diet Pill,” and that it would make her lose weight “without diet and exercise.” (OK, what’s your first clue.)

According to the lawsuit, “Snooki represents … that Zantrex is safe and effective for weight loss and fat loss,” the lawsuit states. “These representations are false, misleading and deceptive because … Zantrex is neither effective nor safe for weight loss nor fat loss.” The complaint states that Snooki is the face of the Zantrex brand, promoting it on her websites, on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, and in celebrity gossip magazines.

Basic Research bills itself as “one of the largest ‘nutraceutical’ companies in the United States, with annual sales revenues in excess of $50 million,” the lawsuit states. Further, all three officers have come under fire for similar fraudulent schemes in the past. Defendant Dennis W. Gay is a principal and director of both Basic Research and Zoller; the FTC enjoined him in a similar case weight-loss fraud in 2006, according to the lawsuit. Additionally, defendant Daniel B. Mowrey was also enjoined from this conduct by the FTC’s 2006 injunction, and defendant Mitchell K. Friedlander, with Basic Research received a cease-and-desist order from the US Postal Service in 1985, also involving allegedly fraudulent weight-loss products, and a second USPS order involving bogus breast enlargement products, according to the lawsuit.

What’s that expression—“it’s the company you keep.”

Ho Ho Ho Baby!

What is this? Instant Replay? Almost. Following on the heels of a huge settlement by Visa and Mastercard in an antitrust lawsuit brought by thousands of small businesses across the US, (see below), a consumer banking class action lawsuit has just been filed against four major banks alleging they conspired to fix “interchange fees,” attached to the use of those same banks’ credit cards.

Those additional fees have cost consumers billions, according to the allegations. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

Not to sound cynical, but the list of defendants shouldn’t’ come as a surprise. They are JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Capital One FSB and HSBC Bank USA NA. The allegations are that they conspired with credit card companies to arrange or ‘fix’ the swipe fees charged to customers when they use their credit cards. The credit care fee lawsuit contends this has cost cardholders (you and me)—are you ready for this—over $54 billion in illegal credit card and bank fees annually. That would fund a few retirement but not ours apparently. No surprise, the class action claims this “price fixing” is in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions Code.

Filed by Melvin Salveson, Edward Lawrence, Dianna Lawrence and Wendy M. Adams, the potential class action seeks to represent a nationwide class of Visa and MasterCard holders.

The plaintiffs claim that they each purchased “thousands of dollars’ worth of goods and services and paid related Interchange Fees on Visa and MasterCard transactions at prices inflated by the Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy over many years.” Further, because of these fees, the plaintiffs contend, they have purchased products at artificially inflated prices. According to the lawsuit, “This price-fixing conspiracy is ongoing and additional overcharge dollars are being extracted from Cardholders pursuant to the conspiracy every time they swipe their Visa and MasterCard payment cards.”

And—yes—there’s more—all this collusion has also resulted in a loss of competition from other cards, in that merchants were prevented, allegedly, from telling their customers that there were cheaper options when making a purchase

Entitled Salveson, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 13-cv-05816, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit claims “In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators also agreed to and have collectively imposed restraints on competition, such as so-called ‘Exclusionary Rules,’ ‘No Discount Rules,’ ‘No Surcharge Rules,’ and ‘Honor All Cards Rules,’ as well as Anti-Steering and other restrictions imposed upon merchants to the detriment of Cardholders,” the lawsuit states. The effect of these rules is such that merchants are prevented or prohibited from informing customers about the true costs associated with different forms of payments and from offering consumers an option to use a credit card with lower fees.

Specifically, “Through their common control of both Visa and MasterCard, Defendants and their co-conspirators have stifled competition between Visa and MasterCard and have thwarted competition from smaller competitor networks such as American Express and Discover,” the class action lawsuit states. “This reduction in competition among general purpose payment card networks has resulted in higher Interchange Fees, hindered and delayed the development and implementation of improved network products and services, and has lessened consumer choice.”

So these allegations, if proved true, would go along way to explaining how Visa and Mastercard can afford to pony up $5.7 Billion to settle an antitrust class action…but not everyone is happy with this settlement…

Top Settlements

Visa & MasterCard Pay Up… A settlement has been approved in a credit card fees class action lawsuit, by a United States federal judge. The settlement is for an estimated $5.7B, between Visa Inc (NYSE:V) and MasterCard Inc . The lawsuit was brought by thousands of retailers who alleged the credit card companies fixed fees that are charged to merchants every time their customers made use of their debit or credit cards. Additionally, the lawsuit claimed that Visa and Mastercard prevented merchants from informing customers about other forms of payments that were considerably cheaper.

The judge’s approval came amidst objections from literally thousands of retailers who were complaining that this amount was inadequate. It is believed that this settlement is the largest in any United States antitrust class action.

The class action was initially brought against Visa, then Mastercard in 2005, with both companies accused of fee fixing. A fairness hearing was held in September. The original settlement amount was $7.2B but was reduced to $5.7B after thousands of merchants dropped out of the settlement deal. The updated Visa and MasterCard settlement provides for cash payments to merchants across the country and also permits then to start charging customers and additional fee whenever a Master or a Visa card is used.

The National Retail Federation’s general counsel, Mallory Duncan said in a statement that his organization which had opposed this deal was now reviewing the ruling that they are expecting to file an appeal.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Holidays, be safe, and we’ll see you at the bar in time for a toast to 2014!

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 12.6.13 – Fisher-Price, Starbucks, FalconStor Software

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 6, 2013. Top class actions include Fisher Price, Starbucks and FalconStor Software.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Rock ‘N Mold? Heads-Up anyone who purchased a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Bassinet or baby seat prior to January 2010:

Fisher Price and Mattel are facing a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations the Rock N Play baby seat has design flaws which results in it growing mold. Nice.

The Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Mold Growth Class Action Lawsuit, entitled is Butler v. Mattel Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00306, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges Mattel and Fisher-Price were aware of the Rock ‘N Play design flaw since 2010. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the baby seat design does not allow for adequate ventilation around the seat, making the product conducive to dangerous mold growth. The lawsuit, states that mold “is linked with serious respiratory illnesses and inflammatory problems in infants and recent long-term studies have suggested that infants exposed to environmental mold are nearly three times as likely to develop asthma by age seven.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received in excess of 600 consumer complaints alleging mold growth between the Rock ‘N Play’s removable cushion and plastic frame, prior to the device recall in January 2013. At the time, 16 complaints included reports of infants becoming sick from the mold. Fisher-Price faced at least on lawsuit filed by a couple who alleged their son was hospitalized for respiratory problems after being exposed to mold that they claim developed on his Rock ‘N Play seat.

The Mattel and Fisher-Price marketed the Rock ‘N Play class action lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn consumers that the sleeper was prone to mold growth. The plaintiffs further claim the defendants failed to test the product for mold growth or humidity resistance prior to releasing it on the market, even though they were aware that the seat would be regularly exposed to moisture and warmth—conditions conducive to mold growth.

According to the lawsuit, “Within seven months of the Rock ‘N Play’s release, concerned consumers began to call Defendants to complain that their Rock ‘N Plays were ‘moldy’ and, in many instances, that their infants were having respiratory problems they attributed to the mold.”

The lawsuit goes on to claim that tests for mold were only conducted on the product after hundreds of consumer complaints had been made detailing babies becoming ill from mold exposure. And, the lawsuit states that Mattel and Fisher-Price did not take timely action to either fix the defect or warn consumers about the risks, even though they were aware of the design defect.

While the defendants issued a recall of the Rock ‘N Play on January 8, 2013, the lawsuit claims that it was inadequate because it “consists solely of a 16 page booklet of cleaning instructions downloadable from the Internet, instructing owners to inspect the product for visible mold and, if mold is seen, undertake an onerous cleaning process that will cause damage to the product.”

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of people who acquired a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper that was sold prior to the January 8, 2013 recall. The plaintiffs also seek to certify three subclasses of California, Pennsylvania and Maryland residents who purchased the Rock ‘N Play prior to January 8, 2013.

Phantom of the Paycheck. Well, here’s a new take on an old theme….taxable phantom wages…? Yup. Three ex-Starbucks employees have filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging the coffee company adds a taxable “phantom wage” of 50 cents an hour in tips to paychecks, which results in some employees receiving less than the minimum wage. The lawsuit claims that Starbucks in is violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which prohibits employers making deductions in employees pay that would result in those employees making less than minimum wage.

Entitled, Fredrickson, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 13-cv-02041, U.S. District Court Oregon, Portland Office, the lawsuit, filed by Hannah Fredrickson, lead plaintiff, states that Starbucks discourages employees from reporting their tips. Further, the lawsuit claims, “Starbucks just makes up that phantom number out of thin air.” Therefore, the lawsuit contends that Starbucks “willfully filed fraudulent information,” in violation of federal tax law, by reporting the made-up tips in W-2 returns.

According to the Starbucks class action, “Starbucks deducts amounts from its employees’ pay that reduce their paychecks below the minimum wage and/or overtime requirements. Its stated reason for the deduction is that the employees owe taxes on their tips, but that is false. Neither Oregon nor federal law require Starbucks to withhold taxes from unreported tips. The employees do not owe taxes on the tips, because their income is low enough that the withholdings from their regular wages are more than enough to meet their annual tax burden. Even if this were not the case, however, the employees would not have to pay any taxes on those unreported tips until the following April 15 (tax day). The FLSA requires employers to pay the minimum wage and overtime on payday, so the fact that the employees might receive a refund of these wrongfully deducted amounts (in many cases over a year later) does not eliminate the violation.”

Fredrickson is seeking class certification, an injunction, and damages for wage and hour violations and $5,000 or the sum of actual damages incurred, whichever is greater, for providing false information on tax returns.

Top Settlements

Securities Settlement News… FalconStor Software is going to pony up some cash, it looks like. A proposed $5 million settlement has been reached in the securities class action lawsuit its facing, which was filed by purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:FALC) common stock.

The FalconStor Software settlement would affect all persons who purchased the common stock of Falconstor Software Inc during the class period March 12, 2008 to September 29, 2010, inclusive.

Here’s the skinny: If you purchased FalconStor common stock during the period of March 12, 2008 through September 29, 2010, inclusive, you may be a member of the Class described above, and your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Litigation.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: www.strategicclaims.net.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than January 20, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to recovery, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Litigation, whether or not you submit a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion received no later than January 20, 2014, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who do not request exclusion will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation.

For complete information on the proposed settlement and class action lawsuit, and to download forms, visit: www.strategicclaims.net.

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 11.1.13 – iMac, Trump U, Verizon

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include iMac faulty screens, Trump University and Verizon overtime class actions.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

More Bad Apples! It seems Apple just can’t stay out of the news – but is publicity really good publicity in this case? The tech Wunderstar is facing a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations that iMacs sold with 27 inch screens have faulty displays.

Filed by Corbin Rasmussen, the Apple lawsuit contends that half of Rasmussen’s iMac display failed after only 18 months. The lawsuit further claims that Apple wanted $500 to fix the problem.

Rasmussen alleges this is not an isolated incident, that the problem with the iMac screen is widespread, and that Apple refuses to address the problem. Rasmussen alleges Apple misled consumers by selling them iMacs with displays that failed prematurely.

The iMac screen lawsuit states that hundreds of consumers who purchased 27-inch iMac had half the display fail just months after their warranties expired. It also alleges that when Apple updated the iMac line in 2011 it failed to make any changes to the display or video card in order to prevent the issue from affecting future iMac buyers.

Rasmussen alleges Apple’s marketing led him to believe the iMac was “designed for a long productive life,” and that 18 months of usability he experienced fails to live up to that claim.

The class action seeks to represent Rasmussen and all those similarly situated who purchased 27-inch iMac in the US before December 2012. The suit targets iMacs that used LG’s LED backlit display.

And, Speaking of Bad Apples… Donald Trump is facing consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought by a California businessman who alleges he was duped into spending $35,000 on essentially bogus programs at Trump University.

Filed in the Southern District of California, Plaintiff Art Cohen seeks to represent other buyers of the programs in a class-action lawsuit against Trump.

According to the Trump University lawsuit, Cohen learned about Trump University in 2009 through a newspaper ad. He alleges he received a “special invitation” from Trump, by mail, to the school which included two VIP tickets to a free seminar. Cohen subsequently took programs which, he alleges he would not have paid for had known he wouldn’t have access to Trump’s real estate investing secrets. He further alleges that Trump had “no meaningful role” in selecting the instructors and that Trump University was not a “university.”

“Trump did not fulfill the promises he made to student-victims around the country — he did not teach students his coveted real estate investing ‘secrets’ at the Live Events, he did not contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the Live Events, and he did not handpick the Live Event seminar instructors and mentors who ‘taught’ student-victims at three-day Live Events and Elite mentorship programs — both of which were upsells from the free introductory Live Event called the ‘Preview,’” the 34-page complaint claims.

Cohen is not alone in his complaints against Trump University. According to the lawsuit, nearly a dozen state attorneys general and the US Department of Justice have received “numerous” complaints about Trump’s institution. In August, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Entrepreneur Institute, formerly known as Trump University LLC, for allegedly engaging in deceptive and illegal conduct.

I wonder if The Donald should be teaching courses in “Dodging Consumer Fraud Lawsuits” instead…

Cohen is seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself and the class, including, but not limited to, treble their monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

Top Settlements

Guess the Employees have been Heard Now! Verizon Communications has been ordered to pay $7.7 million to settle an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought by its retail employees.

The wage and hour class action alleged the wireless carrier was in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws, because it refused to its workers overtime and bonuses.

The Verizon settlement, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez, will end the Verizon unpaid overtime class action lawsuit which was filed over two years ago.

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

Week Adjourned: 10.11.13 – Toyota Prius, United MileagePlus, Motel 6

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements…Top stories include Toyota Prius, United Airlines MileagePlus, and Motel 6.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Prius Brakedown? Toyota’s making headlines again this week, over a national consumer fraud class action lawsuit, alleging consumer fraud related to its Pre-Collision System (PCS) in its high-end Prius Five vehicles.

The Prius lawsuit states that Toyota represents in its marketing materials and owner’s manual that the PCS employs radar to sense an unavoidable frontal collision, and then if needed, automatically applies the brakes to prepare for the accident. The PCS is part of an advanced technology package option that usually sells for over $5,000. The PCS option is believed to make up approximately $1,000 of that cost. Whoa Nellie!

The lawsuit claims that purchasers did not receive what Toyota represented with the PCS. Specifically, in vehicle testing by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), the Toyota Prius was one of only two models that failed to get any rating, leading the IIHS to state: “The Toyota Prius V wagon, which claims to have autobrake, had minimal braking in IIHS tests and currently fails to meet NHTSA criteria for forward collision warning. It doesn’t qualify for an IIHS front crash prevention rating.” Ok—now you have me.

The lawsuit is Lee v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc, in the United States District Court of California, and is seeking to force Toyota to reimburse owners for the cost of the PCS and to force Toyota to discontinue marketing that the PCS provides automatic braking. Go get’em!

So That’s What MileagePlus Means… United Airlines got hit with a potential deceptive business practices class action lawsuit this week. Filed by two Jersey City, NJ residents, the lawsuit claims the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number of miles needed for an award, depending on the number of frequent flyer miles the person has. Umm.

The federal United MileagePlus lawsuit was filed by Robert Gordon and Melissa Chan who claim United Airlines attempted to charge each of them different amounts of miles for the same hotel room last year when they were booking a trip together. Both are members of United’s MileagePlus rewards program. (who isn’t?)

According to the lawsuit, in August 2012, Gordon tried to use his miles to book a three-night stay at a hotel in Japan. Using United’s website, he was informed it would cost him 40,750 miles, which exceed the amount of points he had in his account, but was fewer than 41,733 miles in Chan’s MileagePlus account.

According to the lawsuit, Chan subsequently decided to book the same room for same dates using her miles instead. However, when she tried to do so only several minutes later, United’s website required her to use 44,500 miles, or 3,750 miles more than what it attempted to charge Gordon. To book the hotel room, Chan had to pay $26.10 to buy the additional miles that United charged her.

The lawsuit states that Gordon then called United, but was told the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number miles needed for an award, depending on the number of miles the person has. They claim United was deceptive in not disclosing this alleged practice. Well, this ought to be interesting….

Top Settlements

Motel 6 Checking Out of Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit…Actually, they’ve settled, tentatively, for a reported $890,000. Announced this week, the proposed Motel 6 settlement could end the pending wage and hour class action lawsuit entitled Monica Gould et al v. Motel 6 Inc. et al, case No. 2:09-cv-08157 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Central Division.

The lawsuit was brought by past and present Motel 6 employees who allege the company denied them meal and rest breaks, failed to pay wages upon termination and neglected to provide properly itemized wage statements.

Specifically, the wage and hour lawsuit, brought in 2009, claims Motel 6 is in violation of the California Labor Code, the Business & Professions Code, the Wage Order and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Motel 6 and G6 Hospitality Inc, the two defendants in the class action, deny any and all liability, but have agreed to settle. The class includes all current and former nonexempt employees employed by Motel 6 between March 25, 2006, and July 17, 2013, an estimated 18,280 members. Previously, Motel 6 and G6 Hospitality, which were formerly known as Accor North America, settled another class action in March 2006, reducing the current class to its present size, court documents indicate.

The final settlement hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2013.

Good Night Irene!

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

Week Adjourned: 9.27.13 – GoGo Wifi, Reserveage, Truvia Sweetener

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending 9.27.13. Top class actions include GoGo Wifi, Reserveage, Truvia Sweetener

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Internet Charges-A-GoGo! Hello! Gogo LLC, an inflight Internet service provider, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the company misleads consumers about its charges. Gogo, for those of us not wireless wired at 41,000 feet, provides in-flight Internet and wireless in-cabin digital entertainment services.

The GoGo lawsuit, filed by Kerry Welsh, president of WelCom Products, which produces folding hand trucks, claims that on August 7, 2011 Welsh paid $39.95 for up to 30 days Internet usage on any airline. However, Welsh contends that after the 30 days term ended on September 7, he was charged $39.95 every month until at least December 2012, even though he did not use the service.

In the class action, Welsh alleges he “received no communications from Gogo on a monthly basis notifying him of the recurring charges.”

Welsh, filed the lawsuit on behalf of class members who were “were misled to believe they were purchasing only a one-month pass, but were in fact charged every month thereafter.”

The lawsuit states that “every other class member purchased in-flight Internet serve from Gogo prior to December 31, 2012, using a registration website that had representations about the monthly cost of the service but had no representations about the recurring nature of charges for the service.” While the Gogo website now states that monthly services charges will be recurring, “… it did not do so in 2011,” the lawsuit states.

Were you overcharged for inflight Internet access?

Anti-Aging? Um, not so much… Anti-honest? Very possibly, according to a consumer fraud class action filed against Reserve Life Organics LLC (d/b/a Reserveage Organics). According to the lawsuit, the company makes false and misleading statements regarding the health benefits of its anti-aging products. (No!)

The Reserveage lawsuit, entitled Kathleen Hold v. Reserve Life Organics, Case No. 3:13-cv-02206, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, claims that the Reserveage product made by Reserveage Organics does not contain resveratrol, an ingredient derived from French red wine grapes. Instead, the lawsuit asserts, the product actually contains Japanese Knotweed, a cheaper, more readily available source of resveratrol (couldn’t you just drink red wine instead?)

Filed by plaintiff Kathleen Holt, the lawsuit states that Reserveage deceives consumers into paying a premium for health supplements that contain very little of the advertised resveratrol, an ingredient that allegedly has anti-aging capabilities. Holt also claims Reserveage Organics does not admit that the products contain substantial amounts of magnesium stearate, an additive that is allegedly hazardous to human health by adversely affecting the immune system.

Specifically, the lawsuit states, “The main ingredient in resveratrol, and the main ingredient providing substantial resveratrol, is nonorganic Japanese Knotweed, not French red-wine grapes, (!) which is a much cheaper and more plentiful source of natural, as opposed to organic, grape-based resveratrol.” Further, “In addition, despite defendant’s claim of ‘From the Heart of France,’ plaintiff believes that defendant’s Japanese Knotweed is sourced from China.”

The consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and all California residents who purchased Reserveage resveratrol products within the last four years. The lawsuit contends that the company’s marketing violates California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition law, among other claims.

I think direct application of red wine grapes—ingested in the form of wine—should be put to the test…

Top Settlements

A sweet deal for consumers? Maybe. A $5 million proposed settlement has been agreed by Cargill Inc, potentially ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the food manufacturer misled consumers into believing its Truvia stevia sweetener is “natural.”

According to the consumer fraud lawsuit, entitled The Truvia False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Martin, et al. v. Cargill Inc., Case No. 13-cv-2563, U.S. District Court of Minnesota, the main ingredients in Cargill’s Truvia stevia sweetener are “highly processed” and/or derived from GMOs.

If approved, the Truvia settlement would distribute the $5 million in settlement funds among eligible class members as cash or vouchers. Class Members will be eligible to claim a cash refund or voucher based on the amount of money they spent on Truvia products during the Class Period.

Lead plaintiffs Molly Martin and Lauren Barry asked the Court to preliminary approve the proposed settlement. Eligible class members include consumers who purchased 40-count and 80-count packages of Truvia Natural Sweetener packets, and any size of the Truvia Natural Sweetener spoonable jars and baking blends, from July 1, 2008 onwards.

A Preliminary Approval Hearing is set for October 23, 2013.

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

Week Adjourned: 8.16.13 – Campbell’s Soup, LA Fitness, Payday Loans

Top class actions for the week ending August 16, 2013. Top class action lawsuits and settlements include Campbell’s Soup, LA Fitness and payday loans.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Souped up Claims? Some unhealthy allegations were leveled at Campbell’s and The American Heart Association (AHA) this week. The two organizations are facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit challenging the validity of the heart-healthy claims displayed on some Campbell’s soups.

The Campbell’s Soup lawsuit centers on the AHA’s “Heart-Check” certification and whether it rightfully conveys that certain types of Campbell’s soups have particular health benefits. The lawsuit alleges that the AHA allows Campbell’s and other companies, to use its “Heart-Check” label on products that run counter to its stated mission, to fight heart disease and stroke, in exchange for fees.

According to the AHA’s website, a product displaying the “Heart Check” certification must contain no more than 480 milligrams of sodium per serving. However, the website also states the definition of low sodium is 140 milligrams or less per serving.

According to the complaint, one can of Campbell’s “Healthy Request” condensed Chicken Noodle Soup, displaying the AHA’s “Heart Check” certification, is listed as having 410 milligrams of sodium per half-cup serving. However, there are two or more servings per can, meaning there would be at least 820 milligrams of sodium in a can, the plaintiffs allege.

“The AHA, for a fee, abandons its general, non-commercial dietary and nutritional guidelines,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit states that the AHA’s “Heart Check’ mark is misleading in that people who see the mark think that the products displaying it, in this case Campbell’s soups, “possess some cardiovascular benefit not enjoyed by products that have not been certified by the AHA.” The only difference is that Campbell pays money for the certification, according to the suit.

It’s a salty tale indeed—and will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Been paying 1,000%-1,500% interest on Payday loans? Don’t know? Read on. A deceptive business practices class action lawsuit has been filed over FastLoan payday loans sold by the following banks: Bank of Albuquerque, Bank of Arizona, Bank of Arkansas, Bank of Kansas City, Bank of Oklahoma, Bank of Texas, and Colorado State Bank and Trust.

The payday loan lawsuit alleges that some customers of these banks who obtained “FastLoans” were charged annual percentage rates grossly in excess of the rates represented in the FastLoan agreements. FastLoans are similar to payday loans. The banks told consumers that the loans had an APR of 120% for a term of 30 days. Typically, however, the bank repays itself from the customer’s account in a much shorter time, resulting in APRs of well over 120%—and sometimes over 1,000% or 1,500%. The lawsuit alleges that the bank breached its FastLoan payday loan contract with its customers and that the FastLoans violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), and state consumer protection laws. Money, money, money…how does that song go?

Top Settlements

A Settlement Fit for Approval? Very possibly. LA Fitness has reached a revised settlement in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against it. The LA Fitness lawsuit claims the fitness company continued to charge New Jersey customers after they cancelled their gym memberships.

Sound familiar? This isn’t the only such lawsuit LA Fitness faced—we posted one filed in southern California, and another stating violations of Florida’s consumer protection laws.

If granted final court approval, the settlement will resolve the lawsuit entitled The Martina v. LA Fitness International LLC, Case No, 12-cv-02063. A final court hearing is scheduled for September 17, 2013.

Ok—back to this settlement: there are two proposed classes of plaintiffs affecting people who either cancelled their monthly dues membership with L.A. Fitness during the time period of February 28, 2006 through March 31 2012 OR who entered into a fitness service agreement with L.A. Fitness in the state of New Jersey during the period of February 28, 2006 through March 31 2012.

The Fitness Service Agreement Class is defined as “all Individuals: (a) who entered into a Fitness Service Agreement with L.A. Fitness in the State of New Jersey during the time period February 28, 2006 through March 31, 2012.”

Subject to final court approval, the parties have agreed to a settlement under which Class Members will receive either (a) ) two free individual personal training sessions of 25 minutes each with a certified personal trainer (not a master trainer) at any New Jersey L.A. Fitness facility, except a Signature Club location; or (b) a credit of One Hundred Dollars (the “$100 Credit”) to be applied toward the purchase of a new Monthly Dues Membership at any L.A. Fitness facility (and can be used to offset any initiation fee and/or initial dues as applicable).

The Membership Agreement Class is defined as “all Individuals: (a) who entered into Monthly Dues Membership Agreements with L.A. Fitness in the State of New Jersey, and (b) who paid for an additional month of dues after L.A. Fitness received and processed a Notice of Cancellation during the time period February 28, 2006 through March 31, 2012 (in addition to the application of pre-paid last month dues), and (c) the payment of the additional month of dues was not subsequently refunded.”

Subject to final court approval, the parties have agreed to a settlement under which Class Members will receive a 45 Day Access Pass to any L.A. Fitness facility in New Jersey, except Signature Club locations. Class Members may also receive a payment equal to one-third (1/3) of one month’s dues.

For complete details and to download claim forms, visit www.NJGymSettlement.com. The deadline to request these benefits and/or use them is September 17, 2014.

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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