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 ActionsUnlikely Couple Teams up vs DuPont Imprelis. A Pennsylvania homeowner and an Indiana golf course company filed a nationwide class action lawsuit this week, against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (“DuPont”). The charges? You may have read about them—that the use of a weed killer called Imprelis, made by DuPont, is causing widespread death among trees and other non-targeted vegetation across the country. Non-targeted vegetation? What is that—environmental collateral damage?
No wait—non-targeted vegetation means anything that’s not a weed. According to the lawsuit, DuPont failed to adequately disclose the risks for Imprelis damage to trees, even when applied as directed (oh great), and failed to provide adequate instructions for its safe application. Even better.
Lead plaintiff Marsha Shomo, a resident of Johnston, Pennsylvania, claims that the trees at her house of are dying after her lawn was sprayed with Imprelis. Included are two trees Shomo’s sister bought after her diagnosis with cancer, which took her sister’s life in 2001. “My sister was so anxious that the new little trees she bought be taken care of,” Shomo stated. “I promised her I would do that. I want DuPont to know that there is a problem out there and people do have special trees with many years invested in them. This isn’t right. I am filing this lawsuit to make sure DuPont answers to everyone harmed, and make DuPont act more responsibly in the future.”
As for the golf course, Plaintiff R.N. Thompson Golf, LLC, in fact owns and manages several golf courses in the greater Indianapolis area, including the Winding Ridge Golf Course and the Ironwood Gold Course. “We have witnessed catastrophic tree loss around our golf courses after the application of Imprelis, and have received numerous complaints and inquiries about the tree damage and appearance of our courses from our customers,” explained Mark Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of R.N. Thompson Golf, LLC. “We filed this lawsuit to inform other businesses and homeowners about this problem to let them know there is reason their trees are dying and to give them a course of action to fix the problem.”
If Imprelis is affecting your environment, check this Imprelis lawsuit out.
The proposed class consists of all persons and entities whose property was exposed to Imprelis between October 4, 2010 and the date of trial, in particular, those who own: (a) property on which Imprelis was applied; (b) trees or other vegetation whose roots extend under property on which Imprelis was applied or; (c) property onto which Imprelis migrated. Anyone with damaged trees is being advised to preserve the evidence.
Drilling Deal. Amidst all the media coverage of a rather dubious practice of extracting natural gas called fracking —and the allegedly related water and health issues surrounding it, property owners on the Marcellus Shale belt in Pennsylvania have just won $14 million from a drilling company that reneged on their contracts to drill. Most people are trying to stop the drilling, but these property owners want it.
The out-of-court settlement was signed off by a Westmoreland judge, ending the two year civil suit brought by 230 property owners against State College-based Rex Energy. The fracking lawsuit was filed in 2009 by property owners in the rural areas of Cook, Derry, Fairfield, Ligonier, Mt. Pleasant and Unity townships. The lawsuit alleged that Rex Energy reneged on 137 drilling contracts the owners claimed they had finalized in 2008. The property owners also claimed that the company failed to honor promises of bonus and rental payments on the drilling leases.
According to a report on Triblive.com, the disputes involves oil and gas drilling rights on about 7,200 acres, or almost 11 square miles. The settlement permits landowners who had not signed leases with other companies and still wished to sign with Rex to do so at $2,500 per acre. The new, five-year leases give landowners a 15 percent royalty on any gas produced. Better get Fracking!
Finally…Score One for the Little Guy. Bank of Hawaii reached a tentative settlement with account holders this week concerning an overdraft fees class action lawsuit brought pissed-off customers who alleged the bank engaged in a systematic policy of re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount. You could almost recite that sentence in your sleep it’s so common, unfortunately. The lawsuit claimed that this alleged practice allowed the bank to deplete the customer’s available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.
The Bank of Hawaii settlement amount is $9 million, and, if approved will be used to refund class members for overdraft fees they were charged. “The tentative settlement, subject to documentation and court approvals, provides for a payment by the company of $9 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys’ fees, administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release of all claims asserted against the company,” the bank said in a filing with the Securities Exchange Commission.
OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar.
Top Class ActionsAXA axing pay? Pay—overtime, regular time, anytime in fact that requires payment is a recurring theme in class action lawsuits. This week, thousands of commissioned US employees at global financial giant AXA filed a potential class action against the company alleging they worked as many as 60 hours a week, but weren’t paid minimum wage or overtime.
Because this is apparently a long-running problem—the suit alleged the violations go back as far as 2005 —the potential class could consist of more than 1,000 current and former employees: from the company’s financial product marketers and financial product marketer trainees to cold callers, according to the suit.
Employees of the company were paid a $24,000 base salary plus a percentage share of any commissions earned by licensed brokers, if they were successful in obtaining new accounts for the brokers, according to court papers. So, maybe we’ll pay you—but you can put in the hours anyway? Am I reading this correctly? Failure to pay overtime violates the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) which covers employees paid commissions.
One employee, Bennet Marcus, of New York City, worked from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. five days a week and was unpaid during his training, according to the suit. He worked for AXA from October 2010 through February 2011 as a trainee and cold caller. Where’s Charles Dickens when we need him?
FYI—AXA is one of the world’s largest insurance companies with 2010 revenues of 91 billion Euros—$129 billion. In case you’re having trouble calling the company to mind—their popular TV commercials feature a 900-pound gorilla–that’s him above. No small irony there.
The suit, which requests a jury trial, seeks unspecified back wages and overtime, damages, interest, attorney fees and costs. In addition to the claims under federal law, the plaintiffs also are seeking damages for underpayment of wages under New York State law for AXA’s workers in New York.
From unpaid overtime to retirement…it’s all about employees. This week a federal judge approved a $30 million settlement ending a 5-year old ERISA class-action filed against Duke Energy.
The lawsuit, brought by 20,000 class members who worked for Duke Energy Corp, alleged the company broke federal law when it changed its retirement plan. Now why would they want to do that?
According to the Greenville News, Duke workers said the Charlotte, N.C., company violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in how it administered and calculated benefits under its retirement cash balance plan. A penny saved is a penny earned—not a penny pinched.
UMB made the most of his weekend? UMB Financial Corp, has agreed to pony up $7.8 million in settlement monies, potentially ending the class action lawsuit brought against it in April 2010. The suit alleged that UMB Bank, a subsidiary of UMB Financial Corp, unfairly charged overdraft fees by treating pending deposits differently than pending withdrawals, thereby rearranging withdrawals to maximize overdraft fees.
By way of example, David Johnson who filed the suit, claims that UMB charged him 17 overdraft fees, each in the amount of $36, over a single weekend. This included a $36 overdraft fee on a eighty-five cent purchase. UMB then charged Johnson additional overdraft fees and negative balance fees after these 17 fees depleted the hundreds of dollars of available funds in his account.
Nice! That’s certainly putting your customers’ needs first.
The settlement, subject to approval by Jackson County Circuit Court, includes no admission of wrongdoing. Of course it doesn’t. But money talks.
That’s enough good news for one week. See you at the bar.
Top Class ActionsProctor & Gamble in a fix over Fixodent—they got hit with a class action lawsuit this week over allegations that their product caused the plaintiffs neurological illness.
According to an investigative report by ABC News, the two lead plaintiffs, Mark Jacoby of New York and Anne Coffman of Maine, are both wheelchair bound as a result of being exposed to high levels of the mineral zinc—also known as zinc poisoning. Zinc poisoning interferes with the ability of the body to absorb copper. Both Jacoby and Coffman, and their respective physicians reportedly believe that their health problems are a result of the zinc found in Fixodent.
Just in case zinc poisoning is news to you—a paper published in Neurology in 2008 showed that “Denture cream contains zinc, and chronic excessive use may result in hypocupremia and serious neurologic disease.” In 2009, Proctor & Gamble updated the warning label on Fixodent stating that “prolonged zinc intake may be linked to adverse health effects.”
Just as an fyi—products linked to the denture cream poisoning also include PoliGrip, and Super PoliGrip.
Bet Pfizer had some hot flashes this week. The maker of the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) Prempro, agreed to pay $330 million this week, to resolve claims that the menopause drug caused breast cancer. The settlement brings to an end eight years of litigation including some 2,200 related Prempro lawsuits that alleged Wyeth, the company that developed Prempro and was subsequently bought out by Pfizer, knew of the cancer risk but was not forthcoming about it.
According to Bloomberg, over 6 million women used Prempro and other related menopause medications to treat symptoms such as mood swings and hot flashes. Then, in 2002, results from a large cohort study, The Women’s Health Initiative, showed a link to cancer.
Pfizer reportedly faced over 10,000 lawsuits alleging that Prempro caused breast cancer in its users. The company has settled many of them in the past five months, Bloomberg reports. Those settlements include “8,000 cases consolidated in federal court in Arkansas and other cases in state courts in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Minnesota.”
BofA over its limit on overdraft fees. A federal lawsuit alleging that America’s largest bank charged excessive overdraft fees looks likely to be settled. BofA reportedly states in a recent court filing that it has reached a memorandum of understanding to settle the claims in the suit by paying $410 million. Isn’t that really just giving the money back to the people it was gouged from in the first place? That is, if the settlement is approved in court.
The suit is one of several filed against several banks from plaintiffs in 14 states, which were consolidated in a federal court in Florida. Other banks named in related suits include Wells Fargo and Citibank.
Be interesting to see how this plays out.
In the meantime—I’ll see you at the bar—coz that’s it for this week.
Top LawsuitsDilantin on the Defense. Pfizer, Parke Davis and Warner Lambert are facing a drug-related class action—this time over the alleged development of what can be a fatal skin disease—Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) or Toxic Epidural Necrolysis (TEN)—associated with the use of drugs that contain Dilantin.
The defendants make drugs used to treat epilepsy that contain Dilantin. The plaintiffs claim that it caused them or their deceased relatives to develop SJS/TENS.
Just in case you’re wondering what SJS/TENS is—it is characterized by the discoloration or exfoliation of skin, the shedding of hair and nails, hives or burns to the body, loss of eyesight and/or damage to internal organs, according to the suit. And it turns out that certain racial groups can be more susceptible to SJS/TENs that others.
The suit claims that despite mounting evidence of Dilantin’s risks, especially to different populations, the defendants aggressively marketed their products and failed to report associated severe reactions. The plaintiffs allege they were unaware of how dangerous their prescriptions containing Dilantin could be. One plaintiff was originally prescribed a medication containing Dilantin over 10 years ago, but claims that the statute of limitations has not expired because he was not aware of the source of his injuries until within the last two years.
The list of allegations reads like a rap sheet—strict products liability, negligence, failure to warn, negligence in bringing Dilantin to market, negligent misrepresentation, misrepresentation by omission, negligence per se, fraud and misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and wrongful death.
Is the tide finally turning? With BP and the Gulf Oil Spill at front of mind—this possible Read the rest of this entry »


