Posts Tagged ‘ Bank of America ’
Week Adjourned: 1.6.12
January 6th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Pay your staff overtime? Just do it! A former employee of the San Francisco NikeTown Store has filed a wages and overtime class action complaint against Nike alleging that the sporting goods manufacturer failed to compensate him for overtime, meals and rest breaks as well as any additional shifts he worked. The lawsuit has two (2) potential classes: “All employees of Defendants who worked as Sales Associates, or any other non-exempt job position, who were subject to Defendants’ policy of searching Defendants’ employees upon exiting one of Defendants’ store locations in California from December 28, 2007, to the date of filing this Complaint.” This group is hereinafter referred to as the “California Class.” This period of time is hereinafter referred to as the “California Class Period.”
And, “All employees of Defendants who worked as Sales Associates, or any other non-exempt job position, who were subject to Defendants’ policy of searching Defendants’ employees upon exiting one of Defendants’ store locations in the United States of America from December 28, 2008, to the date of filing this Complaint.” This group is hereinafter referred to as the “Nationwide Class.” This period of time is hereinafter referred to as the “Nationwide Class Period.”
The employment lawsuit was filed by Webster Proctor, on behalf of himself and behalf of others similarly situated. According to the complaint, Proctor was employed by Nike from approximately April 2010 until approximately May 2011. During that time he alleges in the lawsuit that he generally worked four (4) 8-hour shifts per week and was deprived of pay for all the hours he worked, meal and rest breaks, and proper overtime pay.
Specifically, the wages and hour class action lawsuit alleges: failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; failure to maintain employee time records; and unfair competition.
Top Settlements
Is it snake oil? An unfair business practices lawsuit against dietary supplement distributors Iovate Health Sciences Inc., and Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc., look certain to be settled as the companies have agreed to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties and costs. This is reportedly the second largest multidistrict attorney dietary supplement settlement of its kind in California.
The lawsuit was brought by the District Attorney’s Office in Santa Cruz, Napa, Alameda, Marin, Monterey,
Week Adjourned: 12.9.11
December 9th, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Seems Green Mountain may have been Roasting More Than Coffee. The company got hit with a securities class action lawsuit this week alleging it has been cooking the books.
The class action is brought against GMCR, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Offering for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. GMCR, based in Waterbury, Vermont, is a leader in the specialty coffee and coffee maker businesses.
FYI—GMCR produces coffee, tea and hot cocoa from its family of brands, including Tully’s Coffee(R), and manufactures the popular Keurig single-cup brewing systems that use “K-Cup” portion packs.
The lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period, certain defendants systematically and strategically manipulated GMCR’s revenues. To do so, defendants used one of GMCR’s key fulfillment vendors, M. Block & Sons (“MBlock”), as a captive warehouse to harbor expired, excessively manufactured, or otherwise unsold product. Pursuant to the fraudulent scheme, GMCR improperly booked revenues associated with falsified sales orders for hundreds of millions of dollars in K-Cup and Keurig Brewer products, which resulted in the material overstatement of the Company’s profits, inventory, and product demand levels. GMCR also fraudulently overstated its assets in proportion to its fictitious revenues by carrying the proceeds of phantom sales as assets on its balance sheet throughout the Class Period.
On October 17, 2011, David Einhorn, a prominent activist investor, released a comprehensive report, including witness testimonials by former GMCR and MBlock employees, disclosing GMCR’s misconduct and questionable relationship with MBlock. Following the release of the report, the price of GMCR shares fell approximately 10% from its closing price of $92.09 on October 14, 2011 to close at $82.50 on October 17, 2011, the next trading day, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On October 19, 2011, after Einhorn’s presentation was more widely distributed, the price of GMCR common stock fell another 15% to close at $69.80 on October 19, 2011, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Finally, on November 9, 2011, GMCR announced disappointing earnings results and skyrocketing inventory. On this news, GMCR shares dropped 40%, from a close of $67.02 on November 9 to a close of $40.89 on November 10, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.
The securities lawsuit has been brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. (“GMCR” or the “Company”) between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), including purchasers of GMCR’s common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s public offering on or around May 5, 2011 (the “Offering”).
Top Settlements
HRT Breast Cancer Settlement. This one was all over the news this week. Three women who filed lawsuits against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacia Upjohn alleging that their diagnoses of breast cancer were directly attributable to their use of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drugs, were awarded $72.6 million by a jury in Philadelphia hearing their consolidated lawsuit. The jury awarded $20 million to Ms. Elfont, $27.85 million to Ms. Kalenkoski and $24.75 million to Ms. Mulderig, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The three women filed individual lawsuits in July 2004 against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacia Upjohn, both of which have since been acquired by Pfizer.
The back story, in brief, is that Elfont, 66, had taken hormone therapy drugs for over two years before being diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997. Sixty-eight year old Kalenkoski was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002, having taken Prempro for over four years, while Mulderig, also 68, took Premarin and Provera for 11 years before she received her breast cancer diagnosis, the PennRecord reported. It’s tragic and shocking.
According to a Bloomberg News report, Pfizer’s Wyeth and Upjohn units have lost 10 out of the 18 hormone therapy cases against them in civil court trials since 2006. Earlier this year Pfizer announced it had settled a third of the pending Prempro cases, it had set aside $772 for related claims, Bloomberg reported.
Another Bank Biggie this Week… Bank of America (BofA) agreed a $315 million settlement in a securities fraud class action lawsuit that alleged the bank was misled about mortgage-backed investments sold by its Merrill Lynch unit. The settlement needs court approval in order to fly–and guess who’s making that decision? US District Judge Jed Rakoff–so all bets are off that this one get’s approved…
The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi pension fund led the lawsuit, alleging that the investments contained questionable subprime mortgages written by lenders Countrywide Financial Corp., First Franklin Financial, and IndyMac Bancorp – IndyMac went under in 2008.
Ok – That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar.
Week Adjourned: 11.11.11
November 11th, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
We’re Mad about Madoff! Still. Again. No kidding. Only this time someone’s naming a bank. Two former Bernard L. Madoff investors have filed a proposed consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co, claiming the banking giant was complicit in aiding Madoff in orchestrating the Ponzi scheme that robbed investors of more than $65 billion.
The lawsuit comes after a similar suit filed by the trustee appointed to represent Madoff’s victims was dismissed. The court ruled that the case filed by Irving Picard lacked standing, holding those claims belonged exclusively by the victims of Madoff’s fraud.
Among the allegations leveled in the lawsuit, investors charge that JP Morgan operated as Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC’s (BLMIS) primary banker for more than 20 years, and were faced with many indications that the fund was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
The lawsuit details that since 1986, all the money BLMIS collected from unwitting investors passed through JP Morgan in an account known as the 703 Account, where BLMIS co-mingled funds from investors.
The lawsuit contends that JP Morgan should have known that BLMIS’s activities were grossly inconsistent with those of an investment firm through a number of signs of impropriety.
JP Morgan, for example, was required to review a filing submitted by BLMIS to the SEC known as the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Reports or FOCUS. That report, the lawsuit states, contained glaring irregularities that JP Morgan should have reported to the SEC, including factual omissions and errors, such as failing to report any commission revenue.
Beginning in 2006 JP Morgan sold structured investment products related to BLMIS feeder funds to its clients, profiting on those transactions as well. In the course of structuring those products, JP Morgan performed due-diligence on BLMIS and became suspicious that the BLMIS was a fraud but did not report its findings, the lawsuit alleges, but did redeem $145 million from BLMIS and $276 million from BLMIS feeder funds in 2008.
The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Stephen and Leyla Hill, investors who incurred losses in BLMIS. It claims JP Morgan had knowing participation in a breach of trust, aided and abetted fraud, aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted conversion and received unjust enrichment. The suit seeks damages for the plaintiffs.
Top Settlements
Big Banks paying Big Bucks: But are the bucks big enough? A $410 million settlement was approved this week—you may have seen it splashed all over the news—by a federal judge in Miami, ending an overdraft fees class action lawsuit against Bank of America (BoFA) that claimed the bank charged excessive overdraft fees.
Only thing is there are reportedly more than 13 million current and former customers who will be affected by the decision, customers who used debit cards over the past 10 years. Some reports suggest that most of the plaintiffs will likely only receive a fraction of the overdraft fees they paid. Ummm.
The lawsuit alleged that BoFA processed its debit card and check payments in such a way as to incur more customer overdrafts and consequently more fees. BoFA insists that its system was proper, despite the settlement. The settlement includes an estimated $123 million in legal fees for plaintiff’s lawyers…
Another bittersweet asbestos settlement this week. The widow of a man who died from peritoneal mesothelioma cancer has been awarded a settlement—a “substantial” sum—amount not publicly disclosed as compensation for loss of her husband, to put it bluntly. The settlement, negotiated on behalf of Mrs. Veraldo, was obtained midway through trial.
Mrs. Veraldo sued as executrix of the estate of her late husband, Randy Veraldo. He was 52 when he died in 2009, seven months after being diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma cancer, court records show.
Mr. Veraldo was a parts handler at a Teterboro, N.J., warehouse from 1978-85. The job required him to unpack clutch plates delivered on a near-daily basis from various suppliers. The clutch plates were said to contain asbestos, a mineral once widely used in the U.S. as a cheap insulating material until it was found to cause mesothelioma cancer.
Ok—That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar. And on this Veterans Day, a toast to all veterans, living and gone, the world over.
Mary Watson v. Plastic: A Tale of One Pissed-Off Retailer
April 18th, 2011. By Hunter West
We’ve been ticked off at credit card companies for a long time, haven’t we? The high interest rates, the late-payment fees, and the propensity to jack up the rates at the drop of a hat. Congress finally called the credit card companies to the carpet and forced them to reign in some of their practices—although critics have always maintained there will be other ways found to make up for any lost revenue.
And that’s just for us—the schmucks who use credit cards. What about the merchants?
Well, according to a proposed class action lawsuit filed Monday in Canada, merchants aren’t happy with the status quo, either…
Mary Watson is a retailer who operates a furniture store in British Columbia. She has since 1990. And like most merchants who sell big-ticket items, she can understand that most people would rather use plastic to buy that pricey leather sofa, than pull out a wad of hundred-dollar bills.
No, she’s okay with that. What Mary is upset about are all the fees charged to her business when a consumer uses plastic. The fees are hard to track. What’s more, she’s not allowed to promote, or suggest that her customers use an alternative form of payment, such as cash or debit.
She’s not exactly required to suggest her customers use their credit cards. But at the same time, Read the rest of this entry »
Week Adjourned: 3.4.11
March 4th, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Glass Ceiling with a $100M Price Tag at CIGNA? Well, this has certainly been a time for discrimination class actions. Filed, that is. Topping the list—Cigna Health Care—based on the number of potential plaintiffs—dollars. This one’s all about gender discrimination—in the form of a hostile work environment and differential treatment of males and females occurs company-wide the suit alleges.
The complaint, filed by Ms. Bretta Karp, a long-time contracting manager with Cigna, claims that Ms. Karp and other female employees were disriminated against by treating them less favorably than male employees in similar positions and by subjecting all females to intentional, deliberate and wilful discriminatory denials of promotions and pay raises, discriminatory evaluations, disparate terms and conditions of work, harassment, hostile work environments, and other forms of discrimination in callous disregard of their rights.
The complaint further details that CIGNA has created a hostile work environment where male supervisors harass and intimidate female employees, where management has made clear that it favors male employees over women, and where company investigations into complaints made by female employees are either nonexistent or superficial and inadequate.
And the amount sought in damages? $100 million baby—along with litigation costs and Read the rest of this entry »
Popular Categories
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Celebrity (RSS)
- Complaints/Comments (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Criminal Law (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (RSS)
- Discrimination (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Elder Care Abuse (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Human/Civil Rights (RSS)
- Insecurities (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lawyers Giving Back (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Real Estate (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Tort Reform (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
- Whistleblower (RSS)
Loading ...
