Top Class ActionsWe’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.
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.
Top Class ActionsBlackout at BlackBerry. Well—it took a while—but it’s finally here—BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIM) is facing a potential class action lawsuit over the major service interruption which occurred on October 11, 2011. The consumer fraud lawsuit was filed on behalf of all US consumers who are currently under an agreement and using a BlackBerry device.
According to the legal counsel, although the users’ contracts are through Sprint and not RIM, they pay the company fees through the carrier. The lawsuit estimates that RIM takes in roughly $3.4 million in revenue per day from the services paid through the wireless carriers. Better SMS this one.
Hey Oreck, when the Light is on the Germs are…where? If all I need to get rid of the common cold or flu viruses is a vacuum—I wonder what untapped potential lurks within my food processor? Oh, hold on a minute…Oreck is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that claims the company makes about its “flu-fighting” vacuum cleaners and air purifiers are false and misleading. Really?
The federal consumer fraud suit claims that Oreck, in its advertising, states its Halo vacuum and air purifier can “eliminate common viruses, germs and allergens, thereby helping to prevent the illnesses they cause.” The lawsuit claims that Oreck “represented to consumers that the products used scientifically proven technology to eliminate common viruses, germs and allergens, thereby helping to prevent the illnesses they cause.” And, Oreck claims its products can prevent colds, diarrhea, stomach upsets, asthma and allergies. “Unfortunately for plaintiffs and the class, defendants’ claims are not adequately supported by credible, scientific testing or other substantiation, and are not true.”
Thelaw suit goes on to state that “… these representations were false, deceptive and inaccurate. As such, Oreck’s actions violated the Magnum Moss Warranty Act (‘MMWA’), breached express warranties made by defendants, breached implied contractual warranties imposed by law, violated numerous California consumer protection statutes, and violated New York consumer protection statutes and common laws.
Unpaid overtime to be paid – at last. A $4 million settlement has been reached in an unpaid overtime class action against Sutherland Global Servies Ltd.
The lawsuit, brought by call center telemarketers in 2005, (yes – 6 years ago – not kidding) alleged that Sutherland didn’t pay its call center employees the overtime owed.
The lawsuit was originally brought by two Rochester employees of the Perinton-based process outsourcing company, and grew to 10 named employees and hundreds of unnamed workers, all of whom claimed they regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but were not paid overtime.
Although Sutherland denied the allegations, it agreed to a $4 million settlement to be divided among members of the class and U.S. District Judge David G. Larimer gave final approval to the settlement last week, ending the litigation.
Ok—That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar.
Close to 80% of you who voted in our poll that asked, “Did the Wal-Mart women have a case?” responded in the affirmative. Clearly, you disagreed with the US Supreme Court after it determined that the original class action lacked a cohesive enough group of plaintiffs (i.e., a “class”) with similar circumstances.
Well, as the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned—and sure as shootin’ there are still some mighty ticked off former female Wal-Mart employees who aren’t wanting to just let it ride. Their attorneys aren’t backing down either. They’re just moving on to plan B.
Plan B in this case is to slice and dice the original class action lawsuit—which was nationwide–into smaller regional sex discrimination cases. The first case has just been filed in California—so a heads up to the estimated 45,000 or so current and former California Wal-Mart workers: this is one to watch.
The new smaller lawsuits still allege Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts, and by promoting women less often.
Stay tuned.
The difference between this Hollywood lawsuit and yesterday’s post is that this one comes from a PR Rep who was actually on payroll.
Seems Daniel Malakhov—who worked for major PR firm Rogers & Cowan—filed a lawsuit against the firm alleging that he and other Rogers & Cowan publicists were required to work PR events after hours (when else are they typically?)—but they did not receive overtime pay, meal breaks or rest breaks. I suppose it has the makings of your basic California overtime lawsuit, if not perhaps that of a script-worthy plot line.
And let’s face it, if you’ve ever attended a PR event of any sort, it’s the PR folks who are hustling around, playing meet & greet, and ensuring all runs smoothly. Heck, even bathroom breaks can be hard to come by. It’s easy to see where overtime pay could be in order.
Apparently, too, the lawsuit claims that Rogers & Cowan didn’t mandate attendance at PR functions, but in making them voluntary made it clear that failure to attend such events would negatively affect their chances of career advancement.
So Malakhov is thinking bigger here—it’s Hollywood, after all. He’s seeking class action status on this one. And, Malakhov, showing a bit of altruism (?), is looking out for his PR brethren and filing the class action on behalf of all the firm’s employees.
The class action seeks the usual suspects: back wages and damages–along with an injunction that would force Rogers & Cowan to change its after-hours work policies.
In terms of the injunction, however, US District Judge George H. Wu ruled last week that Malakhov could not seek the injunction as Malakhov, himself, could no longer benefit from it as he is no longer an employee of the firm. Needless to say, Malakhov’s side is saying that to reject the injunction would mess with the the ability for the lawsuit to help those current employees who are seemingly still at the mercy of Rogers & Cowan’s existing (alleged) pay practices.
A lot of our readers have been asking for this, so we’ve gone ahead and added a Settlements-only feed to our main news RSS feeds.
If you’re looking for current news and info on lawsuits, class actions, settlements, emerging issues and more, we’ve put it all at your fingertips. Check here for what you’re looking for…
Free Weekly Legal News and Info Newsletter
LawyersandSettlements.com Main News Feed
LawyersandSettlements.com Hot Issues News Feed
LawyersandSettlements.com Settlements News Feed
LawyersandSettlements.com Emerging Issues News Feed
Daily Legal News Updates on Twitter @OnlineLegalNews
Daily Legal News Updates on Facebook
Our Tips & Travels on Foursquare
LawyersandSettlements.com Company News & Updates on LinkedIn
Oh, and of course, if you’ve got a complaint for a lawyer to review, simply fill out a claim form here.


