Similar to Vioxx and Celebrex, Bextra is a Cox-2 inhibitor used to relieve symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis. Bextra was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November, 16, 2001, but was voluntarily removed from the market by Pfizer in 2005 in response to concerns of increased risk of cardiovascular events (including heart attack and stroke).

Fohne claims she had been taking Bextra for more than six months prior to her heart attack. The lawsuit alleges that the drug sold to Fohne was defective and potentially harmful. As a result, the lawsuit further alleges, Fohne was subjected to increased risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular events that effectively outweighed the potential benefit of the drug. In addition, she claims Pfizer did not adequately test its product, sending it to market without proper warnings and ignoring existing data suggesting the drug possessed serious, life-threatening side effects.

Fohne is seeking restitution in excess of $250,000.

A lawsuit was filed Monday in Perry County Circuit Court by Illinois Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey M. Feltman on behalf of Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the People of the State of Illinois against Du Quoin's Heartland Ford Inc., Automotive Partners Inc., Illinois Automotive Partners Inc., Peter Iodice and Donald James McPherson alleging consumer fraud and deceptive business practices.

The suit alleges that the company allegedly took vehicles as trade-ins and did not pay the outstanding debts resulting in damages to a number of individuals. 

The suit also alleges the business in many instances didn't pay sales taxes, license and title fees and other expenses that it contracted to pay when people traded in their vehicles to purchase other vehicles.

The suit seeks to enjoin defendants from engaging in any vehicle business in Illinois, to have contracts with harmed people rescinded, and it asks for a civil penalty against each defendant of $50,000 per violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.

Feltman said the first priority is assuring that none of the corporations or individuals comprising Heartland Ford is ever allowed to engage in the automobile sales business in Illinois. Along with the injunctions being sought, the state is also seeking restitution and rescission, he said.

Rescission would in essence nullify the outstanding contracts between Heartland and the people whose contracts weren't followed by Heartland and its owners, he said. He said this would require payment of all of the outstanding obligations.

The chancery suit lists a dozen people who allegedly purchased vehicles between April 7, 2006, and June 5, 2006, with the deals including a vehicle trade-in on which they owed from $1,680 to $18,457 but which was not paid off by Heartland as was promised in the deal.

The suit claims that one or more of the individuals suffered damage to their credit ratings, that they have been "dunned" by creditors, that they have had to make payments on both their old and new vehicles, that they have been charged for repairs that should have been covered under extended warranties that they paid for but for which funds weren't forwarded to the appropriate places.

It's also alleged that in one or more cases, the involved parties had their licenses revoked for having no insurance, that they have been driving without insurance because they can't insure vehicles for which they don't have paperwork or that they are unable to get titles and licenses for vehicles.

The lawsuit alleges that Heartland, located at 1355 S. Washington St., was dissolved involuntarily June 16, 2006, after an Illinois Secretary of State Police investigation. According to the suit, Heartland was acquired by Automotive Partners Inc. between Sept. 29, 2005, and Feb. 16, 2006, and ownership transferred to Illinois Automotive Partners Inc. On that February date, McPherson allegedly paid $100,000 to Peter Iodice for a 10 percent interest in the business and since that time they operated as co-owners, Madigan's suit claims.

It further alleges that they operated as owners from then until the business was closed down and during that time they failed to pay off trade-in loans, Department of Revenue taxes, third party gap insurance, extended warranties and license and title fees on numerous vehicles and yet McPherson allegedly deposited money in an account at the Du Quoin State Bank from which he withdrew $100,000 between May 29 and June 15, 2006, despite owing the outstanding debts.

Feltman said those named in the suit are representative of 31 complaints the office has on file from former Heartland customers. He said the investigation led authorities "to the conclusion that litigation was the only option" to assure no more problems occur and that the victims are properly compensated.

The defendants in the case have 30 days to file a response to the lawsuit; Feltman said it is "total speculation" as to how long it will take to resolve the case. It could be completed soon or could last for some time.

In the meantime, he said if others have complaints against the business they should call the attorney general's regional office at 529-6400 for a consumer fraud complaint form and complete and return that form.

Those whose complaints are already being handled, Feltman said, should contact private attorneys to learn what their rights and obligations are at this time regarding the outstanding debts on their vehicles, both new and trade-ins.

Perry County State's Attorney David Stanton said he is awaiting reports from investigating agencies before determining if and what charges he might file. He said the Secretary of State Police and Attorney General's office have been working together on the investigation and filing of the civil lawsuit this week and he anticipates soon having reports that will enable him to determine whether or not criminal charges are appropriate.

According to a recent story the Manchester Times of Manchester, Tenn., Iodice was extradited to Tennessee March 13 and is in Coffee County Jail for contempt of court for allegedly failing to appear in a chancery case there in August 2006 to account for funds and automobiles from the Manchester Chevrolet of Tennessee, Inc. which he formerly owned.

Authorities say Iodice, 57, of Ruby, S.C., recently received a suspended 10-year sentence and was ordered to pay $100,000 restitution to a Ford dealership in Cheraw, S.C., after pleading guilty to obtaining property under false pretenses. Officials said the investigations are continuing.

In the meantime, about a dozen vehicles still remain on the lot of the closed Du Quoin dealership as many unhappy former customers are making two car payments for vehicles either there or in locations unknown, officials said.

Two consumer watchdog groups called Thursday for the California stem cell program to put a hold on a $2.6 million cloning grant announced last week for a Los Angeles research enterprise that the groups say is linked to ethical lapses involving a South Korean fertility specialist.

CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute, described as a nonprofit subsidiary of a for-profit South Korean company, CHA Health Systems, was among 29 grant recipients listed last Friday by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

The CHA researchers at the Los Angeles institute intend to make customized nerve cells from patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, using human embryonic stem cell lines and a cloning method known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The Los Angeles Times reported last month that Kwang Yul Cha, a well-known South Korean infertility expert who heads CHA Health Systems, may have plagiarized another researcher's work. Cha denies the charge. He also was accused of improperly identifying himself as a medical doctor in California even though he isn't licensed to practice medicine in the state.

A medical director at a CHA-affiliated fertility center in Los Angeles is at the center of a dispute by a patient.

The watchdog groups are also raising issues about the nonprofit status of the CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute. Only nonprofits were allowed to compete for the $76 million worth of stem cell grants approved on Friday.

All these allegations were given fresh circulation Wednesday by an Internet site called the California Stem Cell Report, which tracks the $3 billion state stem cell research program authorized by state voters in 2004 under Proposition 71.

Citing "an array of troubling questions" about the $2.6 billion grant, Marcy Darnovsky, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, called Thursday for the state Prop. 71 agency to "live up to its oft-stated commitments to transparency and responsibility by freezing this multimillion-dollar award while a thorough investigation is undertaken."

Separately, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica sent a letter to Dr. Zach Hall, president and chief scientific officer of the stem cell agency, also calling for an investigation.

"It's imperative that stem cell research funded by the state of California be conducted only by organizations demonstrating the highest ethical standards," wrote John M. Simpson, stem cell project director at the Santa Monica group. "Based on what is known so far, a thorough examination of the activities of CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute, its affiliates and leadership are in order before any funds are transferred."

Jason Booth, a spokesman in Los Angeles for CHA Health Systems, said the research unit is a bona fide California nonprofit whose status was not at issue, and that its "grant was based on a thorough scientific review that speaks for itself."

A spokesman for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine said any questions about the conduct or credentials of researchers will be investigated as a matter of course during a pending administrative review.

Dale Carlson, communications director for the agency, said neither of the two nonprofit groups "understands how the review process works."

He said the researchers were judged on scientific merit of their proposals, which in the CHA case was deemed to be "nicely developed" but in some respects "overly ambitious" by a panel of experts, who wound up giving the proposal a winning score of 77 out of a possible 100.

Carlson said that matters such as corporate versus nonprofit status, and researcher credentials, will be examined in the staff review built into the process. "Only when that is completed does a notice of grant award go out," he said.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and the San Francisco Giants said Wednesday that they would team up to place the first solar energy system at a major league ballpark.

But storm clouds are gathering over the plan to install nearly 600 solar panels at AT&T Park, the Giants' home field. Consumer advocates contend the project is little more than a publicity stunt and that shareholders, not ratepayers, should be footing the bill.

The panels will generate about 120 kilowatts of energy, enough to power more than 20 homes, utility spokesman Keely Wachs said.

Power from the 590 panels would be transmitted to the general power grid for PG&E to sell to customers around Northern California. The company plans to ask the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to bill those same customers for the purchase, installation and maintenance of the panels.

PG&E, a subsidiary of San Francisco-based PG&E Corp., and the Giants trumpeted the proposal in a news release complete with laudatory comments from executives and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

"PG&E is committed to helping the Giants, the city and county of San Francisco, and all of the communities we serve to increase power generated from solar energy," said Tom King, chief executive of Pacific Gas & Electric.

The Giants noted that energy conservation had been a priority in AT&T Park's design and daily operations, including installation of a new Diamond Vision scoreboard that uses 78% less energy than the ballpark's original scoreboard.

But Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, objected to the planned use of ratepayer funds for the solar project.

"This was an attempt to get a nice PR ploy, and if that's the case, then PG&E shareholders should pick up the tab," Court said.

Although PG&E has helped 15,000 customers connect their solar panels to the grid, representing 110 megawatts, the company currently doesn't own any solar panels.

PG&E has committed to spending more than $7.5 million on solar installations and has been attempting to burnish its image in San Francisco by sponsoring websites and advertisements promoting environmentally friendly energy.

One site, http://www.LetsGreenThisCity.com , lists classes that customers can take to learn about installing solar panels and incentives. Renewable energy accounts for 12% of the power that PG&E provides to its customers.

A Bulgarian EU commissioner has hit out at Apple's "improper" policy of bundling iTunes with its iPod players.

The claims were made by Meglena Kuneva, EC Commissioner for Consumer Protection, who has a responsibility to protect the rights of European consumers.

"Do you find it proper that a music CD can be played on all trademarks of players, but the music sold in iTunes can be played only on an iPod?" Kuneva asked German magazine Focus. "I find it quite improper and I will do my best to change it."

Apple could face separate legal action in Norway, which is not a member of the EU, after the government criticised the iTunes monopoly in January.

The Norwegians have set a deadline of October 2007 for Apple to open its digital rights management system up to other companies.

Consumer rights groups in Finland, Germany and France have also laid into the iPod maker in recent months.

Timothy Hammond, a Benton roofing contractor, has been named in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan Monday alleging he scammed consumers out of more than $12,000.

Filed in Franklin County Circuit Court, the lawsuit states that Hammond was running a roofing business through three Benton companies, Centamark, Kwik Seal and Allied Roofing. The complaint claims Hammond solicited roof repair contracts and collected payments but failed to begin the repair work, to complete it and in other instances to perform the work in "a competent and professional manner."

"We will continue to work to protect Illinois consumers from contractors who fail to do a complete and professional job," Madigan said. "Promising to perform a service to get the consumer to sign a contract and then failing to deliver on the promises is a violation of the consumer protection laws and will be prosecuted."

The lawsuit states that the Consumer Fraud Bureau investigated Hammond and his businesses based on five consumer complaints. The lawsuit details one of numerous complaints alleging Hammond entered into a contract for $3,800 to roof a Franklin County residence. Hammond then received a down payment of $1,900 but failed to return to even start the job.

The person who entered into the contract sent a certified letter to Hammond demanding the down payment back, but the Benton contractor refused to return the money or to do the work, the suit alleges.

The lawsuit charges Hammond with consumer fraud and deceptive practices.

The lawsuit also alleges Hammond failed to provide homeowners with a verbal and written notice of their legal rights to cancel contracts, failed to obtain and maintain a roofing license and failed to provide consumers with copies of the "Home Repair: Know your Consumer Rights" pamphlet required under state law for contracts more than $500.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims Hammond failed to carry adequate insurance and also failed to register the names of Centamark, Kwik Seal and Allied Roofing with the county clerks where the businesses operated.

The lawsuit asks the court to ban Hammond from engaging in home repair and to make him pay restitution. The lawsuit also seeks a civil penalty of $50,000 and additional penalties of $50,000 for each violation that was committed with the intent to defraud.