|
|
|
Credit card receipt rule leads to class-action suits
Class Action |
2007/12/05 09:48
|
A law to protect against identity theft has spawned more than 300 class-action lawsuits across the country. The lawsuits claim merchants failed to remove both the expiration date and sufficient digits of the credit card number on receipts they give back to customers. Lawyers are trying to get the lawsuits certified as class actions, potentially opening restaurants and stores to thousands or even millions of dollars in liability. The claims are filed under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA. Congress enacted the law in 2003 to address identity theft and credit card fraud. Most people, if they've dealt with FACTA at all, tapped a provision that gives consumers the right to a free credit report each year. But another section requires that businesses truncate credit card information on receipts. That's why retailers no longer print out receipts containing all 16 digits of your credit card number. They must limit the digits to five and remove the credit card expiration date. Lawyers say thousands of retailers across the country -- many using outdated credit card processing machines -- probably are in violation. Businesses that fail to comply with FACTA's credit card rule can be liable for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per consumer if the noncompliance is willful. Since it would be very difficult to prove actual damages -- that someone had their identity stolen or was the victim of credit card fraud because of receipt errors -- the FACTA lawsuits focus on the argument that the violation was intentional. Defense attorneys describe the lawsuits as the latest consumer class-action fad. "We have lawsuits growing out of a situation where, as far as we know, no one's been actually injured," said Thomas Zych, a partner at a Cleveland law firm that is representing the Children's Place clothing store chain in a FACTA case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fosamax Users Seek Class-Action Status
Class Action |
2007/12/01 09:42
|
| Lawyers for Fosamax users who believe their jaws were damaged by the osteoporosis drug on Friday asked a federal judge to order Merck & Co. to provide a dental monitoring program for the drug's users. The lawyers made the suggestion to U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan as they argued for the case to be certified as a class-action, in order to pursue claims by users who believe the drug caused osteonecrosis of the jaw, a condition in which portions of the jaw bone die, sometimes leaving the bone exposed. Timothy M. O'Brien, a lawyer for plaintiffs, said hundreds of thousands of patients would benefit from a dental monitoring program that would include regular dental screenings, X-rays and lab tests, all aimed at preventing the need for dental surgery. Paul Strain, a Merck attorney, called Fosamax a "life altering and life saving drug" that helps to prevent the kind of bone fractures that can hasten the deaths of people as they age. He said the drug was a pioneer 11 years ago. Strain also said there was no proven link between degeneration of the jaw bone in some patients and Fosamax. Damage to the jaw bone can result in many ways, including from using steroids, from diseases or weaknesses in the body and from poor dental hygiene. O'Brien said as many as one in every 296 patients who use Fosamax develop the severe damage to the jaw, though Merck disputed the figure. O'Brien said jaws were more susceptible to damage because they are used so frequently and are under greater stress than most bones. Keenan did not immediately rule after hearing arguments. Vance Andrus, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued a class-action certification would allow for a trial where a jury could decide whether Fosamax is toxic and hazardous and whether Merck was negligent and should have warned users of dangers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,000 Walmart Employees File Class Action
Class Action |
2007/11/30 07:23
|
More than 75,000 current or former Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) employees in the State of Washington will receive letters over the next several days notifying them that they are part of a statewide class action lawsuit against the nation’s largest private employer: Wal-Mart. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2001, is believed to be the largest class action in the State’s history. Beth Terrell, attorney with the Seattle law firm Tousley Brain Stephens, will address the Seattle media this morning at 10:30 a.m. at the firm’s offices: 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200, downtown Seattle.
According to the notice that could arrive in the mail as early as today, hourly employees who worked “off the clock” (without compensation) or worked through rest or meal breaks at Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club stores in Washington at any time from September 10, 1997, to the present are automatically considered Class Members. Employees in the class will share in any money or benefits that come from a trial or settlement.
The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court nearly six years ago and was certified as a class action in October of 2004. The case was put on hold when Wal-Mart appealed the class-certification decision to both the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals ruled against Wal-Mart and affirmed class certification. The Supreme Court denied review, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
Trial is expected to begin in Spring of 2009. King County Superior Judge Julie Spector will preside.
Attorney Beth Terrell (Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, Seattle), represents the employees. Terrell says the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed as a class action “is a victory for Wal-Mart employees who, like other hourly employees in Washington, deserve to receive proper rest and meal breaks and to be paid for all hours worked.”
For a decade now, hourly employees of Washington Wal-Mart stores have complained of missing their rest and meal breaks and having to work off the clock. Georgie Hartwig, one of the plaintiffs in the class action, will participate in today’s press conference.
Hartwig worked for the Colville, Washington store for six years, and estimates that she worked two to five hours over her “clocked” time every week. “For hourly workers like Wal-Mart employees, a few hours of pay a week can make a real difference in their paychecks,” Terrell stated. Hartwig’s work load was so heavy that she often skipped meal and rest breaks in order to finish her work.
Hartwig’s story is echoed by other Wal-Mart employees, not only in Washington, but around the country. In California, a judgment was entered against Wal-Mart for nearly $167 million brought on behalf of 115,919 employees who said they did not receive proper meal breaks. In Pennsylvania, a $151 million dollar judgment was entered against Wal-Mart on behalf of 187,000 employees who made similar claims about breaks, and worked off the clock without pay. A class action on behalf of 56,000 Minnesota Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club employees is currently in trial in that state. That trial is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Rachel Geman, co-lead class counsel (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York), says, “Wal-Mart’s own documents show that it systematically deprived its employees of hard-earned pay through widespread wage and hour violations. Wal-Mart knew about these violations but did nothing to correct them.”
WAL-MART EMPLOYEES SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE ENCOURAGED TO GO TO: www.walmartwageswa.com or call toll free 800-795-8543.
MS. HARTWIG AND ATTORNEY BETH TERRELL WILL DISCUSS THE LAWSUIT WITH MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AT 10:30 A.M. (PACIFIC). COPIES OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS ATTENDING THE PRESS CONFERENCE.
For further information, contact Seattle attorney Beth Terrell at 206-682-5600. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ericsson LM Telephone Co. Class Action Filed
Class Action |
2007/11/30 07:22
|
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Pennsylvania and Ohio, announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Ericsson LM Telephone Co. (“Ericsson” of the “Company”)(NASDAQ:ERIC) between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive, (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit was filed against Ericsson and certain officers and directors (“Defendants”).
If you are a member of this class and wish to view a copy of a complaint and join this class action, please e-mail us at info@gsk-law.com and request a copy of the complaint and a plaintiff certification. If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later than December 29, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. However, if you choose to remain an absent class member, unless and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements regarding demand for the Company’s mobile network equipment. When Defendants belatedly conceded that demand for its products was far weaker than disclosed, shares of ERIC reacted negatively to the news. Ericsson’s ADS shares, traded on NASDAQ, which had traded as high as $43.41 during the class period, fell to a three year low of $23.00 per share following its announcement that demand for its products had in fact fallen.
If you bought Ericsson securities between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive, and would like to obtain information about the lawsuit, then you are invited to call (888) 753-2796 to speak with an advisor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virgin Mobile USA faces class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2007/11/29 08:14
|
Shareholders who lost money after investing in Virgin Mobile USA have filed a class-action lawsuit against the mobile phone company. Virgin Mobile USA began as a 50:50 joint venture between Sprint Nextel and Branson's Virgin Group
Law firm Kahn Gauthier Swick filed the suit on behalf of investors and is urging those who lost more than $100,000 to inquire about applying for lead plaintiff status in the case.Virgin Mobile USA began as a 50:50 joint venture between Sprint Nextel and Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Group, which floated the company last month. The shareholders suing the business invested in Virgin Mobile USA's initial public offering, or later bought its stock in the open market. Last month, the pay-as-you-go service provider sold 27.5m shares for $15 each, at the low end of expectations. The shares rose as high as $16.63 a share on the first day on the open market, but have since steadily declined, amid a broader market sell-off. advertisementThey were trading down 27c at just $7.25 yesterday afternoon, having fallen around 55pc from their peak. The offering raised $413m. The company had said it would use the proceeds from the stock sale to repay debt and to buy out 16.7pc of Sprint Nextel's interest. A spokesman for the company said: ''The lawsuit is completely without merit and we will defend it vigorously." The company is a separate entity from Virgin Mobile in the UK, which was sold to cable giant NTL to form Virgin Media, in which Sir Richard is the largest shareholder - as he is is Virgin Mobile USA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JDSU Wins Class Action Jury Verdict
Class Action |
2007/11/27 08:02
|
| JDSU today announced that a jury has ruled in favor of the Company on all claims in a securities class action lawsuit filed by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland, California. "We are extremely gratified by the jury's verdict, as we have always believed that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit," said Kevin Kennedy, JDSU's President and Chief Executive Officer. "We will continue focusing our full attention on developing innovative products and delivering on the significant potential of our business model to create shareholder value." The Company noted that while the jury's decision in this case is a significant positive milestone, it continues to defend itself in the securities class action and related litigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
Class Action |
2007/11/17 09:18
|
The Rosen Law Firm today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. ("IEAM" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IEAM) (formerly IEAM.OB) stock during the period from November 14, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period"). To join the IEAM class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as case no. 07-CV-10321. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of court or you may contact counsel for plaintiffs Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com. The complaint charges that IEAM and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining to IEAM's business prospects and condition, and filing financial statements with the SEC materially false financial statements. On November 7, 2007 the Company announced that investors could no longer rely on its historical financial statements and that the Company had not properly followed generally accepted accounting principles, necessitating a revision of reported revenue, among other things. The Company also announced that it had suspended its CFO pending a review. As a result of these events, the Complaint asserts that the price of IEAM stock dropped, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of IEAM shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 15, 2008. If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
