Bad Beneficial! Heads up Beneficial West Virginia Insurance Policy Holders—yup—it’s a bad faith insurance class action lawsuit. This one filed against Beneficial West Virginia Inc, and Household Insurance Co, by two policy holders. Denzil and Cathy Shaw allege they are owed payments under the terms of their credit-disability insurance policy.
The Shaws state in their Beneficial West class action complaint that they submitted a claim to their insurer in October 2009, when Denzil Shaw became permanently disabled. They ha
d purchased the disability policy through Beneficial, and it was issued by Household Insurance. The lawsuit contends that the Shaw’s policy states that if either of the plaintiffs become disabled during the mortgage term, their mortgage would be paid for a period up to 180 months. The lawsuit states that the Shaw’s mor
tgage payments were paid through the policy until they received a letter stating the payments would stop in December 2012, which is in violation of the policy-stipulated 180 months.
The lawsuit claims that the defendants are in breach of contract, consumer credit and protection act, unfair claims settlement practices act, failure to disclose and first-party insurance bad faith.
The Settlement Fund will be divided equally among all Class Members (after fees and costs are deducted), who timely submit a valid Claim Form and do not exclude themselves from the settlement. It is estimated that approximately $1,132,053 will be available to be divided among Class Members who timely submit a valid Claim Form. Based on claims rates in other cases, the range of expected recovery per Class Member who submits a valid Claim Form is estimated at between $25 and $200. This is only an estimate. The actual amount paid out will depend on the number of Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms. Printing Error? SouthWest has agreed to pay $1.8 million in settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning allegations it “willfully” violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act (FACTA) by printing the expiration date on customers’ credit or debit card receipts at airport ticket counters between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or at cargo counters between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013. Got all that? Did you even know SouthWest was doing this?
If you made a non-business related credit or debit card purchase or transaction at a Southwest Airlines Co. airport ticket counter between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or a cargo counter between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013 and received a printed receipt, you may be entitled to benefits as part of a class action settlement.
Wait—there’s more—a settlement has been proposed in two related class action lawsuits alleging that Southwest Airlines Co. willfully printed credit card and debit card expiration dates on certain customer receipts. The settlement will provide benefits to any Class member who used a credit or debit card to make an individual, non-business related purchase or transaction at a Southwest airport ticket counter between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or a cargo counter between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013 and received a printed receipt.
To get the whole picture and for information on downloading and submitting claim forms, visit: www.SouthwestFACTASettlement.com, or write to Southwest Airlines Co. Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 3059, Faribault, MN 55021-2659.
Google to pay for Oogles —sorry that’s Ogles… to the tune of $17 million. A settlement has reportedly been reached in an Internet privacy class action lawsuit pending against Google Inc. The lawsuit concerns allegations that Google and another three online companies circumvented default privacy settings on Apple’s Safari web browser, for the purposes of placing tracking cookies without consumers’ knowledge. Oh that my Internet practices were that interesting!
Nevertheless, “Consumers should be able to know whether there are other eyes surfing the web with them,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said. Well, preferably, no other eyes.
As part of the Google settlement, Google has not admitted to any wrongdoing and stressed that they had “taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal information from Apple’s browsers.” Other terms of the settlement reportedly stipulate that Google honor default privacy settings on web browsers. Google will also “provide a separate stand-alone page or pages on the Google.com domain designed to give information to users about Cookies (the “Cookie Page).”
“Google shall maintain systems configured to instruct Safari brand web browsers to expire any Cookie placed from the doubleclick.net domain by Google through February 15, 2012 if those systems encounter such a Cookie, with the exception of the DoubleClick opt-out Cookie. Such systems shall remain in place until Feb. 15, 2014, at which time all Cookies placed from the doubleclick.net domain by Google on Safari brand web Browsers through Feb. 15, 2012 should have expired by design,” the settlement states.
The $17 million settlement fund is set to be split among each of the Attorneys General who filed against Google, in amount yet to be designated. The states are listed as beneficiaries of the settlement are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, and District of Columbia. Umm.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Thanksgiving!
An Explosive Situation… Heads up to Kia Soul owners and anyone leasing the 2010-2013 models. Kia Motors is facing a defective automotive class action lawsuit alleging that some of its vehicles have fuel tank placements that place vehicle occupants at risk for fire in the event of collision. The specific models cited in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit are the 2010-2013 Kia Soul.
The Kia Soul class action lawsuit contends that there was a scenario in Texas, in which a Kia Soul exploded in a collision, and as a result of the defective gas tank design all three passengers in the rear compartment of the car burned to death.
Filed in California federal court, the lawsuit, entitled Constance Sims, et al. v. Kia Motors America Inc. et al., Case No. 13-01791, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Kia Motors America Inc, falsely misrepresented some of its vehicles as being constructed with “world-class quality.”
The design of certain Kia vehicles has the gas tank located directly under the rear seat. Further, the lawsuit alleges there are no means of protecting or reinforcing the fuel tank with reinforcing straps or a whole-tank shield, which is a practice commonly used by other automakers.
Therefore, the lawsuit contends, Kia passengers are unknowingly put at risk in certain types of collisions. Plaintiffs allege that placing the fuel tanks under the rear seat “increases the risk that the gas tank will dislodge and ignite in a major collision.”
The Kia defective automotive lawsuit also alleges the fuel pump cover is placed directly under the rear seat cushion, in order to allow mechanics easier access in the event of problem: mechanics would not necessarily have to remove the entire gas tank. However, should the gas tank become dislodged, the covering is plastic, “increasing the likelihood of a ‘blow torch’ [sic] fire in the rear compartment,” the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs are seeking to represent anyone who purchased, leased and/or currently own or lease a Kia vehicle model that has a gas tank that is not properly secured or is covered by a plastic fuel pump service cover. They are also seeking damages for violations of the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, false advertising, breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment.
Having a Bad Hair Day? Wait till you read this… L’Oréal is facing a defective product class action lawsuit over claims that it failed to warn customers that Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum has, as its main ingredients, cyclopentasiloxane and dimethiconol, which are flammable. According to the class action, the anti-frizz serum can catch fire at temperatures above 171 degrees and can cause substantial risk of burns to face, head and neck. One teenager has suffered significant burns to her face and scalp.
The Garnier Fructis lawsuit has received certification by strict Court Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of California. The class action alleges that L’Oréal USA Inc, and L’Oréal USA Products Inc., failed to label the frizz-reducing product as combustible or flammable near flame, ignition or high-heat-producing styling appliances, and misrepresented the product as safe to use with such implements, according to court documents.
Filed by plaintiffs Jill Guido and Catherine Altamura of California; Natalie Lefebvre of Texas; and Lisa Pearly of New York, the lawsuit seeks to represent any person who purchased the Serum during the period from February 4, 2008, to the present. According to court documents, during the class period, L’Oréal sold some 9.9 million units of Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum in the US. So—heads up ladies… and gents.
All that Glitters is not Gold…and now there’s a settlement as a result. That’s right folks. A settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging that Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry manufactured by BCBG Max Azria Group Inc., and sold through Wal-Mart stores, contained cadmium.
The lawsuit, entitled Canamore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. CV-2010-534, claims that had the plaintiffs known the Miley Cyrus jewelry contained cadmium, they would not have purchased it.
The Miley Cyrus jewelry lawsuit was filed on July 2, 2010. Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and liability. The Court has not decided which side is right.
FYI—you are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry from a Wal-Mart retail store after July 1, 2005. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on December 30, 2013. There’s a little light reading with this one, so to find out your options, download forms, etc., visit: http://www.canamoresettlement.com.
Were you Scooped by Starbucks? If so, you may be entitled to some dosh. A proposed settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Starbucks. The global coffee company has agreed to reimburse consumers who purchased less than one pound of scooped (not pre-packaged) Starbucks coffee beans between December 9, 2007 and November 7, 2011. The beans may have been purchased from any company-owned Starbucks store in the United States, other than half-pound purchases during January to March 2008 of coffee that had half-pound prices posted on menu boards during that time.
Among the allegations in the Starbucks consumer fraud class action, is that Starbucks (“Starbucks” or “Starbucks Coffee Company” or “Defendant”) failed to disclose to certain Starbucks customers who bought Starbucks scooped coffee beans in amounts less than 1 pound that the price was greater per pound than the amount charged for purchases of 1 pound of Starbucks coffee beans, according to the Starbucks settlement website.
According to the terms of the proposed settlement, Starbucks would provide a common settlement fund of $1,733,025.71, inclusive of settled claims, administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Starbucks would credit the My Starbucks Rewards accounts of Class Members who are My Starbucks Rewards Members in an amount calculated by multiplying $0.45 (an estimate of the weighted average Upcharge of all transactions by Class Members in the Class Period) by the number of Covered Purchases on each My Starbucks Rewards Member’s account identified in Starbucks’ business records or $5.00, whichever is more.
For consumers who are Starbucks Class Members but who are not My Starbucks Rewards Members, claims forms can be accessed online at: https://scoopedcoffeesettlement.simpluris.com/pages/ClaimForm.aspx or by downloading a claim form from the settlement website at www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement that can be printed out and mailed to Simpluris, Inc. P.O. Box 26170, Santa Ana, CA 92799.
Again, if you think you’re affected by this settlement there’s a little light reading involved, which you can access at www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. And have a good weekend.
Fat-Busting Shapewear…Busted? All I can say is DAMN! A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Wacoal America Inc. and Maidenform Brands, Inc. over allegedly deceptive marketing claims the Defendants made regarding the purported slimming benefits of the Novarel Slim Fabric used in “Novarel Slim iPant” and “Flexees” brand shapewear. Hope on a hanger it’s allegedly not! Damn, damn, damn!
The Novarel and Flexees class action lawsuit, which was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 5, 2013, seeks class action status for all persons who paid, in whole or in part, for shapewear constructed with Novarel Slim fabric and manufactured, marketed or sold by Wacoal or Maidenform for personal, family or household uses. (Case No. 2:13-cv-06122).
According to the class action lawsuit, the Defendants claim that Novarel Slim Fabric, manufactured by Nurel SA, contains ingredients that can be absorbed by the body and permanently change the wearer’s skin tone and body shape. These ingredients include embedded microcapsules containing caffeine to promote fat destruction, vitamin E to prevent the effects of aging, ceramides to restore and maintain the skin’s smoothness, and retinol and aloe vera to moisturize and increase the firmness of the skin. Specifically, Wacoal American and Maidenform promise that use of Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees products will result in fat destruction and reduce the appearance of cellulite (see video below…). According to the complaint, the companies charge up to 50 percent more for shapewear products that contain the Noveral fabric compared to the cost of comparable shapewear that does not purport to contain these ingredients.
The Novarel and Flexees class action lawsuit alleges that the claims used by Wacoal and Maidenform to market Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees shapewear are deceptive and misleading. Among other things, Plaintiffs point to research from the Mayo Clinic, which found that cellulite cannot be “cured” with topical applications.
Bottom line—(pardon the pun)—I still have to diet… Damn!!
The lawsuit claims violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranties and unjust enrichment. It seeks, among other things, restitution for the amount of money Class Members spent to purchase Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees garments.
What’s in your Air Conditioner? If it’s a Lennox Air Conditioning unit—you may not be surprised to learn there’s something defective in it. The company is facing a defective products class action lawsuit alleging its air conditioning units are susceptible to formicary corrosion as a result of the deficient materials used in the manufacture of its coils. The Lennox air conditioner lawsuit further alleges that Lennox has not informed its customers of the defect, even when it is called to replace failed coils in existing units. This conduct, the lawsuit claims, means that customers are unable to make informed decisions regarding the purchase of a Lennox Air Conditioner.
Formicary corrosion—in case you were wondering—is a particularly insidious defect in an evaporator coil because the resultant leakage is difficult to detect, and usually results in consumers being forced to repeatedly refill their air conditioners with Freon, often at significant cost, which only works to mask the defect for a period of time, until the leak is detected and the coil needs to be replaced.
Lennox Coils are allegedly defective because they are manufactured with materials that, within the industry, are well known to be prone to formicary corrosion, which makes the Lennox Coils unreasonably susceptible to premature rupture and refrigerant leaks under normal use and conditions.
The federal class action, filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomas, of Illinois, is brought on behalf of the following nationwide consumer classes (the “Classes”):
All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and who paid to replace a Lennox AC evaporator coil. The lawsuit also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all members of the Classes who reside in Illinois.
It’s a Blockbuster Drug! (of sorts…) Fitting though, considering the players. Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion in a Qui Tam (whistleblower) investigation. The settlement will resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. Got all that?
Officially—the Risperdal settlement whose “…global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.” (source: US Dept of Justice).
The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.
Here’s the skinny from the DOJ:
J&J Subsidiary Janssen Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Antipsychotic Drug.
In a criminal information filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the government charged that, from March 3, 2002, through December 31, 2003, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, introduced the antipsychotic drug Risperdal into interstate commerce for an unapproved use, rendering the product misbranded. For most of this time period, Risperdal was approved only to treat schizophrenia. The information alleges that Janssen’s sales representatives promoted Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion.
The information alleges that the company created written sales aids for use by Janssen’s ElderCare sales force that emphasized symptoms and minimized any mention of the FDA-approved use, treatment of schizophrenia. The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion and intended use by basing sales representatives’ bonuses on total sales of Risperdal in their sales areas, not just sales for FDA-approved uses.
In a plea agreement resolving these charges, Janssen admitted that it promoted Risperdal to health care providers for treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behavioral disturbances exhibited by elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Janssen will pay a total of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $334 million and forfeiture of $66 million. Janssen’s guilty plea will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.
So, enquiring minds want to know how many people were prescribed this drug when they didn’t actually need it…
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. In advance of Monday—Here’s to our Veterans – THANK YOU. And have a good weekend!
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.
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 !
Oh Yoo-Hoo Yahoo! This One’s for You! Yahoo following in Google’s footsteps? Umm, maybe…Yahoo got hit with a proposed Internet Privacy class action lawsuit this week, in case you missed it.
The Yahoo privacy lawsuit alleges Yahoo illegally reads, copies and analyzes emails in direct violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Specifically, John Kevranian and Tammy Zapata, named plaintiffs in the action, allege Yahoo accesses Yahoo Mail users’ emails in order to make money on targeted advertising, profiling, data collection and other services.
According to the lawsuit, entitled Kevranian et al. v. Yahoo Inc., case number 5:13-cv-04547, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Yahoo put in place a new email system which became the default interface for all Yahoo users in May 2011. At the time, Yahoo said the system could “look for keywords and links to further protect you from spam, surface photos and in time, serve users with Internet-based advertising,” the lawsuit states. After a short grace period, all Yahoo email users were switched to the new version. Any of this sounding familiar?
Short version: The lawsuit states that Yahoo told its email account holders that the new email search capability looks for patterns, keywords and files in users’ communications, and that the automated system would scan and analyze all incoming and outgoing email, instant messages and other communications content sent and received from a user’s account in order to personalize his or her experience. “In employing the above described device, plaintiffs and the class allege that Yahoo intentionally intercepts and reviews the content of their electronic communications for financial gain.”
Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs allege “Yahoo’s acquisition and use of content from plaintiffs’ and class members’ email sent to Yahoo Mail users, and those emails sent from Yahoo Mail users to plaintiffs and class members, is not necessary to the transmission of email or to the operation the electronic communication service known as Yahoo Mail,” the lawsuit states.
Might be time to start writing more interesting emails…
LG Spinning Washer Efficiency Claims? And now—from “dirty laundry” to clean—or not…LG Electronics USA Inc. and Sears Holdings Corp got hit with a defective products class action lawsuit this week, alleging the companies manufactured and sold defective washing machines.
The LG defective washer class action lawsuit, entitled Laury Smith v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-04361, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges the defendants misrepresented LG’s top-loading washing machines as being “high efficiency” , claiming the machines featured “extra high” spin speeds of 1,050 to 1,100 revolutions per minute. The lawsuit contends, however, that the machines tended to fall apart at high speeds. That’s useful!
The defective washing machines named in the class action are LG models WT5001CW, WT5101HV and WT5101HW; and Kenmore Elite brand models 29002, 29272 and 29278.
And the laundry list of charges (ok—that’s bad) are… unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California’s False Advertising Law. Got all that?
Who Knew? Even Bankers get Screwed on Unpaid Overtime…This week, an $11.5 million settlement was proposed in an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against RBS Citizens Financial Group Inc. The lawsuit is brought by employees against the financial institution and two of its subsidiaries alleging they failed to adequately compensate employees for overtime pay.
All six of the complaints, which have been consolidated into one lawsuit, entitled Cuevas v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-03871, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges RBS violated federal and state laws throughout New England and the Northeast and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
One of the lawsuits, filed by Kevin Martin in Pennsylvania in 2010 on behalf of all nonexempt employees working at Citizens Bank retail branches and its two subsidiaries, RBS Citizens NA and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, alleged Martin worked in excess of 40 hours per week but RBS prevented him from recording the additional work hours. Martin also alleged he was required to work through his breaks without pay, and that the institution erased or changed his recorded time to reduce his reported overtime hours.
The class or collective members involved in the litigation include some 5,827 employees such as assistant branch managers or hourly employees. Under the proposed settlement terms, the payout will cover class members’ payments, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and enhancement awards, with assistant branch managers averaging an award of $2,000 and hourly employees averaging an award of $850.
Additionally, the 10 plaintiffs named in the action and who initiated the six lawsuits, will each receive $7,500. A further 36 people who testified at or provided a deposition for one of the case’s three-week jury trial will receive $1,500. Well done!
Big News for Vytorin. This one’s definitely a biggie…: A $688 million Vytorin settlement has been approved by a federal judge effectively ending claims that Merck & Co. Inc. and its subsidiary Schering-Plough Corp. concealed test results on the efficacy of their anti-cholesterol drug Vytorin.
Back in 2008, New York Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo began investigating whether Vytorin’s marketing campaign violated the state’s laws regarding false advertising. Specifically, officials were concerned that, despite results from a study that found Vytorin was no more effective than generic drugs.
This whopper of a settlement was initially proposed in February—interestingly—just prior to the class action’s trial date. Neither Merck nor Schering-Plough admits any wrongdoing—why would they?
The settlement will end claims against the companies for the vast majority of the class, except for 187 plaintiffs who opted out, according to court papers.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Have a good one—see you at the bar !