|
|
|
Bank of America starts overdraft rebate outreach
Class Action |
2011/08/09 09:21
|
If you had a Bank of America account with a debit card between January 2001 and May of this year, you may be due some cash.
The nation's largest bank has started contacting customers who may be entitled to a refund. It recently reached a class-action settlement over the way it charged overdraft fees. Most of the other suits are continuing to work their way through federal court in Florida.
Bank of America agreed to set up a $410 million fund to settle the lawsuit. The money will be used to pay back customers who were charged overdraft fees as a result of the company's policy of processing debit card transactions based on the size of the transaction, rather than when the purchases occurred.
The bank is one of about three dozen named in a series of class-action lawsuits over the practice of "reordering." A policy that became widespread in the 2000s, reordering involves deducting purchases from an account starting with the largest dollar amount first. That means a customer may end up paying additional overdraft fees.
For instance, someone with an account balance of $95 and who made three purchases in one day, the first for $5, the next for $25 and the last for $75, would be charged two overdraft fees, rather than one.
The suits claim that reordering was done to intentionally increase the number of overdraft fees collected. Banks took in about $39 billion in overdraft fees annually before the Federal Reserve put new rules in place last year. Now banks are required to obtain a customer's written permission before providing overdraft protection.
To inform customers that they may be eligible for a refund of some overdraft fees, Bank of America is sending postcards to customers with a brief explanation of the settlement and the address of a website where more information is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once-exonerated Conn. man ordered back to prison
Breaking Legal News |
2011/08/09 02:21
|
A month after the Connecticut Supreme Court reinstated murder convictions against two men who had been exonerated, a judge on Monday ordered one of them back to prison but allowed the other to remain free while fighting cancer.
George Gould was sent back to prison while Ronald Taylor, whose lawyer says he has terminal colon cancer, was allowed to remain out on bail. Both men await a new appeal trial connected to their murder convictions in the 1993 fatal shooting of New Haven grocery shop owner Eugenio Deleon Vega.
Gould and Taylor were both sentenced to 80 years in prison for the killing. They filed habeas corpus appeals, challenges to imprisonment that typically come after other appeals fail.
They were freed in April 2010 after 16 years behind bars when Superior Court Judge Stanley Fuger ruled they were victims of "manifest injustice" and declared them "actually innocent." Fuger's ruling came after a key prosecution witness recanted her trial testimony. He ordered both men released.
Prosecutors appealed to the state Supreme Court, which issued a unanimous decision last month saying that Fuger was wrong to overturn the convictions because Gould and Taylor hadn't proven their innocence. The high court ordered a new habeas corpus trial for the two men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No class-action for suits over Calif. fish kill
Class Action |
2011/08/09 02:21
|
An appeals court has rejected class-action status for a lawsuit prompted by efforts to kill off an invasive fish in Northern California.
The Sacramento Bee says the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled last week that people suing the state had too little in common to comprise a single class and must sue individually.
In 2007, the state Fish and Game Department dumped thousands of gallons of poison into Lake Davis in Plumas County to kill the voracious northern pike. The lake was closed for several months.
The city of Portola and a number of businesses and property owners sued in 2009, arguing that the action caused a decline in tourism that hurt their income, property values and tax receipts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pozen says Texas court upholds Treximet patents
Court Watch |
2011/08/08 09:22
|
Drug developer Pozen Inc. said Monday that a Texas court upheld three patents supporting its migraine drug Treximet.
Pozen said the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the patents were valid. The court also found that generic versions of Treximet developed by Par Pharmaceutical Co. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. infringed on all three patents, while a version developed by Alphapharm Pty Ltd. infringed on two patents. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. had also challenged the patents, but was dismissed from Pozen's lawsuit in April 2010 after it agreed to abide by the court's decision.
The court said the Food and Drug Administration cannot approve the generics made by Dr. Reddy's and Par until Feb. 2, 2025, and that the agency can't approve the Alphapharm generic until Aug. 14, 2017.
Treximet is a combination of GlaxoSmithKline PLC's drug Imitrex and an anti-inflammatory drug developed by Pozen. GlaxoSmithKline markets the drug and pays royalties to Pozen. In the second quarter, those royalty payments accounted for $4 million of Pozen's $4.6 million in total revenue.
The FDA approved Treximet in April 2008 after years of delays, and Par filed for approval of its generic in October of that year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules firing of NJ casino dealer unlawful
Criminal Law |
2011/08/08 09:22
|
A federal appeals court has sided with an Atlantic City casino dealer who says he was targeted because he was involved in union organizing.
Bally's Park Place fired Jose Justiniano in 2007. The casino claimed he misused family medical leave time by attending a pro-union rally on a day he took time off to care for his daughter.
Justiniano had been active in casino unionizing efforts.
A judge upheld the firing, but the National Labor Relations Board disagreed and said it was unlawful.
Friday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., agreed with the NLRB. It noted that Justiniano attended the rally for 20 minutes. It also said Bally's policy on family leave didn't justify the firing.
A message was left seeking comment from an attorney representing Bally's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Class Action Lawsuits
Class Action |
2011/08/05 09:10
|
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Two Class Action Lawsuits on Behalf of Iowa Property Owners Alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ Herbicide Killed and Damaged Trees on Their Property
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm representing victims of defective products and toxic substances, together with its partner law firms, has filed two class action lawsuits on behalf of Iowa residents alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ herbicide killed and damaged trees on their property. The first, brought by Daryl and Mary Ann Haley of Tipton, Iowa, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-00085-LRRR). A second Imprelis™ lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nicholas L. Peters of Mars, Iowa, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City Division (Case No. 5:11-cv-04066-MWB). Both Complaints seeks class action status on behalf of property owners who have sustained damage as a result of Imprelis™.
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege Imprelis™ was applied to their lawns in accordance with directions and instructions supplied by DuPont. The Class Action Complaints allege that as a result of the Imprelis™ applications, the Plaintiffs suffered significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer even further damage to their lawn and garden because of Imprelis™. The lawsuits further allege that rather than being isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis™, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.
Both lawsuits charge DuPont with, among other things, negligence, strict liability, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis™, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis™.
Imprelis™, brought to market by DuPont in October 2010, is designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and wild violet. It is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." According to a New York Times report, reports of dying trees possibly associated with Imprelis™ started surfacing around Memorial Day, and have since prompted warnings from extension services in several states. Imprelis™ is now suspected of causing the death of thousands of shallow-rooted trees, including willows, poplars and conifers, on lawns, golf courses, parks and cemeteries throughout the country. The reports have prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin gathering information on the tree deaths from state officials and DuPont.
DuPont acknowledged it was investigating reports of tree deaths and damage possibly associated with Imprelis™ in a letter to turf management professionals dated June 17, 2011. On July 27, 2011, the company issued another letter stating that in the course of its review, “We have observed tree injuries associated with Imprelis™, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.” The problems appear to be concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, DuPont said.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and its partner firms have now filed three class action lawsuits on behalf of property owners who claim to have sustained damage following application of Imprelis™. A previous lawsuit was filed on behalf of an Ohio property owner in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-01517).
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports of Imprelis™ tree death and damage from around the country, including from homeowners, golf courses, universities, arboretums, nurseries and orchards, parks and recreational sites, and cemeteries. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is investigating these complaints on behalf of property owners who have sustained damages as a result of Imprelis™. More information regarding Imprelis™ side effects can be obtained at Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's DuPont Imprelis™ poisoning page. The page will be updated regularly as more information becomes available.
For more information regarding Imprelis™ class action lawsuits and Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit http://www.yourlawyer.com or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer pleads guilty to $47 million Ponzi scheme
Breaking Legal News |
2011/08/05 09:10
|
An Arkansas lawyer and businessman admitted today to staging a Ponzi scheme that netted more than $47 million, a scam that a prosecutor called the largest case of fraud in state history.
Kevin Lewis, 43, pleaded guilty today to one count of bank fraud in federal district court in Little Rock. He could face up to 30 years in prison, though U.S. Attorney Christopher Thyer said Lewis would likely receive between 10 to 13 years.
He will also have to pay restitution of almost $40 million, though that number could go down further as banks work to recover their losses.
Lewis acknowledged that he issued paperwork for fake rural improvement bonds often used by developers to defraud several Arkansas banks starting with a small bond in 1997.
That money went to maintain his business interests across the state, which range from a law firm to a clothing company. He used the money to make the payments on past fake bonds and support a personal lifestyle that included a house valued at more than $1 million, fancy cars and vacations, Thyer said.
Meanwhile, the bank that bought almost $23 million of the fake bonds, First Southern Bank in Batesville, was placed into receivership by authorities, Thyer said. Lewis had purchased majority ownership of First Southern, using a loan from another Arkansas bank that was backed by the fake bonds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
