|
| In 2007, Lieff Cabraser attorneys,
with local co-counsel, obtained a $50
million verdict against Daimler Chrysler in a wrongful death
action. Our firm has participated in over forty-two $100 million-plus
settlements and verdicts, including eleven
cases in excess of $1 billion. |
|
|
 |
| For updates
on lawsuits of widespread public interest and settlements in class
actions, please click here
to sign up for our Consumer Law Newsletter. |
|
 |
|
|
|
News
|
|
|
|
|
FALL
2001
|
|
|
| December
21, 2001 |
The Boston Globe, "Lawsuit Targets
28 Drug Makers Alleging Price Manipulation"
|
The
Prescription Access Litigation project, a Boston-based consumer
coalition, sued 28 pharmaceutical companies, claiming that
the drug companies are engaging in industrywide manipulation
of drug prices in violation of federal and state antitrust
laws, consumer protection laws, and racketeering statutes.
The
PAL project, which has enlisted class-action attorneys who
handled the ground-breaking lawsuits against tobacco companies,
began bringing a series of class-action lawsuits against
drug companies in April to challenge the prices of dozens
of drugs.
It's
the first time consumer groups have banded together to sue
pharmaceutical firms. But the issue the group raises in
its latest lawsuit -- how drug companies charge the federal
Medicare program and the elderly for their products --
is the subject of a wide range of criminal investigations,
congressional hearings, and federal reports. To learn more
about this litigation, click
here.
|
| |
| December
20, 2001 |
The Associated Press, "Drug Makers
Face Fraud Lawsuit"
|
A
coalition of 15 consumer groups filed a lawsuit alleging
28 pharmaceutical companies defrauded Medicare patients
by inflating prices of drugs they sold to the government
program. The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Boston, estimates that Medicare and individual
consumers were overcharged by more than $800 million in
2000. It is the third suit filed on behalf of consumers
making similar allegations in the past month.
Drug companies post their average wholesale prices in
lists used by the industry such as the Red Book and then
give a discount to Medicare, a government program which
provides health care to the elderly. The suit alleges
the drug companies sold drugs to doctors at prices far
less than the prices charged to Medicare. However, the
government and Medicare patients paid the amount based
on industry lists. Medicare only covers drugs dispensed
in doctors offices and hospitals, and patients pay 20
percent of the cost.
|
|
|
|
December
14, 2001
|
The New York Times, "Firms Settle
with Parents of Ill Children"
|
A
group of parents in Toms River, N.J., whose children were
stricken with cancer have reached a monetary settlement
with two chemical companies and a water utility that they
accused of causing the disease through pollution, lawyers
for the two sides announced yesterday.
The
agreement, in which the companies did not acknowledge
any responsibility for the cancers, ends four years of
negotiations. None of the parties would disclose the size
of the settlement, or how it would be divided among the
families. In all, 69 families, each with a member who
developed cancer in childhood, will share the payments
from the companies: Union Carbide Corporation, Ciba Specialty
Chemicals Corporation and United Water Resources Inc.,
a private company that distributes water in the area.
Sixteen of the ill young people have died since the first
alarms about a high incidence of childhood cancer were
raised in Dover Township more than 10 years ago.
"The
way I look at it, if we can just prevent one other child
from getting cancer, it will have been worth it,"
said Bruce Anderson, a computer specialist whose 20-year
old son, Michael, was found at 10 to have leukemia. "We
mustn't just look at our own families."
The
Toms River agreement is unusual not only in the cooperative
way it was reached -- through negotiation and mediation
rather than a lawsuit -- but also in the way the companies
settled without the existence of proof that pollution
they caused or distributed through the water system was
responsible for the cancers.
So
far, only a 1996 report by the State Department of Health
and Senior Services found an increased incidence of certain
childhood cancers in the Ocean County area, without attributing
responsibility to the water company or to two Superfund
sites tied to the two chemical companies. But the final
results of a more rigorous study will be released by the
health department on Tuesday.
Steven
Fineman, a lawyer who helped the parents, said the
settlement was reached without regard for what that report
might say, but the prospect of the state settling the
question of the companies' responsibilities, once and
for all, did hang over the negotiations.
|
| |
| December
13, 2001 |
Washington
Post, "Fed Acts to Curb Predatory Lending Practices"
|
Prodded
by consumer complaints about rip-offs in home-equity loans
and refinancings, the Federal Reserve Board yesterday
approved the strongest federal reserve ever to predatory
lending. New rules, debated for more than a year, will
increase the number of loans that are subject to scrutiny.
Consumer groups and congressional allies said that they
welcomed the changes but that the Fed should have acted
years ago and could have done more to protect borrowers.
The
changes significantly widened the pool of high-cost home-secured
loans covered by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection
Act of 1994, a federal law that guarantees extra disclosures
and consumer protections to borrowers. The law does not
cover loans to purchase homes.
Among
the major changes the Fed made yesterday was lowering
the threshold for what constitutes a high-cost first lien,
reducing the interest rate trigger to 8 percentage points
above comparable Treasury securities, down from 10 percentage
points above such securities. That means that under the
new rules, a 10-year loan would be considered high-cost
at today's interest rates if the rate is above about 13
percent.
The
Fed also added new protections, such as barring "loan
flipping" -- refinancing of high-cost loans
by the same lender or loan servicer within a year.
Lenders
also will be presumed to have violated the law --
which says loans shouldn't be made to people unable to
repay them -- unless they document that the borrower
has the ability to pay.
Note:
Lieff Cabraser has prosecuted several class actions against
banks and financial companies for alleged predatory lending.
If you have been subjected to a predatory lending practice,
please contact us.
|
|
|
| December
12, 2001 |
The
Recorder, "Another Twist in Securities Case"
|
The
Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral
arguments in a case that could define the limits of a
judge's discretion in determining which lawyers will run
lucrative securities fraud class actions. Last week, the
court ordered that In re Copper Mountain Networks Securities
Litigation, 01-70772, be heard the week of Feb. 11. The
appeal by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach claims
that plaintiff with the largest losses in a case must
be permitted to manage the litigation.
In deciding the case, the Ninth Circuit could dictate
the standards for the "rebuttable presumption"
outlined in 1995's Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act. Under the legislation, intended to curb "lawyer-driven"
litigation, plaintiffs who suffered the largest losses
are presumed to be the party that should run the case
for the rest of the class. But the presumption can be
rebutted. Some federal judges invoke the loophole, citing
pricey fee agreements as evidence that a particular client,
and his firm, is not the best choice.
When Copper Mountain Networks Inc.'s stock dropped, Milberg
sued on behalf of several clients. Eventually the firm
proposed a group of five investors to run the case. One,
David Cavanaugh, lost nearly $1 million.
But U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker instead named a
Beatie & Osborn client, Quinn Barton, to run the case.
Osborn's loss is estimated at $59,000. While Milberg's
agreement was a 20 percent to 30 percent sliding scale,
Beatie & Osborn offered a 10 percent to 15 percent
scale. Walker cited Barton's more favorable fee agreement,
holding that selection of counsel was a leading indicator
of a plaintiff's ability to lead a class action.
Milberg then filed an appeal. Before the Ninth Circuit,
CalPERS, the largest public pension in the nation, filed
an amicus curiae brief supporting Judge Walker's decision.
The brief (joined by Barclays Global Investors) is also
notable for its authors - Stanford Law School securities
fraud expert Joseph Grundfest and Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein.
CalPERS and Barclays are members of the class. "They
do not want to pay a higher price for representation that
is not even argued to be superior," the brief reads.
|
| |
|
December
12, 2001
|
The Wall Street Journal, "Bristol-Myers
Faces Big Setbacks in Fight Against Generics"
|
Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co.'s efforts to protect its branded drugs from generic
competition face big potential setbacks, from both the federal
and state governments. In Washington, the company now appears
likely to lose a high-stakes lobbying campaign to protect
a lucrative diabetes medication from generic competition.
At the same time, Bristol-Myers was sued by more than half
of the country's state attorneys general Wednesday, who
say the pharmaceuticals concern illegally shielded an antianxiety
medicine from generic copies.
Attorneys
general from 29 states and Puerto Rico filed suit against
Bristol-Myers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. They assert Bristol "unlawfully maintained
its monopoly" on BuSpar, or buspirone, in late 2000
by falsely claiming to the Food and Drug Administration
that it had obtained a new patent on a method of administering
the antianxiety drug. Paul Novak, Michigan's assistant attorney
general, said Bristol's efforts to extend the patent on
BuSpar were "extremely aggressive."
|
| |
| December
12, 2001 |
The New York Times, "Overtime Becomes
Class-Action Fodder"
|
Chris
Lyle was excited about her promotion from waitress to store
manager at Pizza Hut in Northern California a few years
ago, but soon wondered what her new title really meant.
She said her duties were mostly making dough, mopping floors
and taking orders, pretty much what an hourly worker would
do -- except she was not paid overtime. "There were
times my employees were making more money than me, when
I looked at the hours I worked," said Mrs. Lyle, 30,
who lives in Fairfield, Calif.
Mrs.
Lyle worked as a manager in several Pizza Hut stores from
1993 to 1998, including a full-service restaurant and take-out
shops, starting at a salary of $18,000. "I thought
it was a lot of money," she said. But the 50-hour week
that managers were supposed to put in turned out to be more
like 60, she said.
Mrs.
Lyle, who now works at a mattress company, was a plaintiff
in a class-action lawsuit against Pizza Hut by salaried
workers who said they were misclassified under federal and
state labor laws as exempt from time-and-a-half overtime
wages. The suit was settled in May for over $10 million.
The
debate about who is legally entitled to overtime pay has
received more attention recently thanks to a flurry of class-action
lawsuits seeking overtime pay at household names including
Starbucks and U-Haul. One factor behind the trend was the
team-building craze of recent years that blurred the lines
between workers and managers, according to Jerry M. Newman,
professor of organization and human resources at the University
of Buffalo.
"In
a team, there's a lot more sharing of responsibilities and
less care is paid to who's the manager and who isn't,"
Mr. Newman said. In addition, recent labor shortages in
some industries forced more managers to take on rank-and-file
tasks. With the economy now in recession, companies are
further fueling worker discontent with layoffs and reduced
paid overtime.
Note: Lieff Cabraser has successfully represented
scores of employees of in lawsuits seeking unpaid overtime
wages, including cases against Dennys, Carrows
and the advertising firm TMP Worldwide. For more information,
click here.
|
| |
| December
10, 2001 |
Business Wire, "National
Law Journal Names Nation's Top 50 Women Litigators"
|
The
National Law Journal (NLJ) reports on the dramatic progress
women attorneys have made in the most elite area of law
practice, litigation. The NLJ names the nation's top 50
women trial attorneys, a list that includes outgoing U.S.
Attorney Mary Jo White, who rose to national prominence
by overseeing the prosecution and subsequent convictions
of the four men charged with bombing the World Trade Center.
In
addition to prosecutors like Ms. White, the newspaper profiles
women who have argued and won some of the biggest recent
corporate, class action and product liability suits. The
list includes Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
who has played a leading role in many of the largest class
actions ever launched and/or settled, including the state
and federal Exxon Valdez litigation, the $4 billion fen-phen
diet drug products liability class settlement, the $1.2
billion win against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. for the substitution of generic parts in car repairs,
and the current class action against Firestone.
|
| |
| November
21, 2001 |
The
Seattle Post Intelligencer, "Antitrust Deal;
Help for Schools"
|
Microsoft
Corp. has agreed to settle a spate of antitrust suits
by offering the nation's poorest schools more than $1
billion in cash, computers and software over five years.
Some educators and attorneys praised the proposed settlement,
which was signed Monday and is subject to approval by
a federal judge. Other attorneys and analysts condemned
it as inadequate and selfserving.
Under
the proposal, about 12,500 schools nationwide would get
copies of Microsoft software, as well as refurbished computers
and money for training and technical support. An estimated
7 million students, all at schools receiving federal assistance,
would be eligible for the program, as would more than
400,000 teachers.
"It is a settlement that avoids long and costly litigation
for the company, and at the same time I think it will
really make a difference in the lives of some of the most
disadvantaged students in the country," said Microsoft
Chief Executive Steve Ballmer.
Robert Lieff, a plaintiffs'
attorney who helped negotiate the agreement, said it "permits
plaintiffs to generate real benefits to society while
at the same time holding Microsoft accountable for its
business practices." He said Microsoft's agreeing
to pay "a great deal of money is definitely not an
admission, but I'd say they're being held accountable."
After
the government filed its antitrust suit against the software company, in 1998,
Microsoft was hit with dozens of private lawsuits claiming antitrust violations
Many states dismissed the suits because new computer buyers did not
buy Windows directly. Some of the remaining cases were
consolidated under U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz in Baltimore. Motz is scheduled
to hold a preliminary hearing Tuesday to begin discussing whether the settlement
is "fair and adequate."
Under the settlement, Microsoft would:
- Donate
$150 million to set up a private foundation that makes
grants to local organizations to buy computers and software,
with the goal of "providing sustainable, longterm
funding for information technology in underserved schools."
Microsoft would also provide $100 million for matching
grants. Money granted by the foundation could be used
to buy nonMicrosoft software;
- Pay
$160 million into a separate fund, overseen by the foundation,
for
technicalsupport programs to assist participating
schools;
- Contribute
up to $90 million over the fiveyear period to train
teachers, administrators and support personnel in integrating
technology into the school curriculum;
- Establish
a program to ensure notforprofit organizations
provide at least 200,000 refurbished Pentium PCs and
Macintosh computers each year, and
- Provide
educational and other programs for all the PCs, laptops
and Macs a school owns during the fiveyear period.
|
| |
| November
21, 2001 |
Los Angeles Times, "Microsoft Agrees
to Settlement for Schools"
|
Microsoft Corp. said Tuesday that it would give
$1 billion worth of software and related goods and services
to needy schools in order to settle more than a hundred
classaction antitrust lawsuits filed on behalf of millions
of consumers.
At
a hearing next week, the world's biggest software company
will ask District Judge Frederick Motz to create a national
class of affected consumers and then move toward approving
the deal.
Some
educators hailed the proposed fiveyear settlement,
which would help the 14% of U.S. schools where 70% or more
of the student body is eligible for meal assistance. Yet
consumers would get nothing under the accord. Microsoft
would pay the classaction lawyers an additional amount
set by Motz. Microsoft said it would take a $550million
charge before taxes in the current quarter to cover spending
under the settlement.
Microsoft
will be aided by judges' general desire to settle rather
than oversee complex trials, by the favorable publicity
generated by a deal that aids schools, and by the support
of plaintiffs' lawyers including Robert
Lieff, a San Francisco attorney who had been helping
manage the California consumer cases against Microsoft.
|
| |
| November
19, 2001 |
The Recorder, "State, Private
Firms Team to Help Sept. 11 Victims"
|
California's
lawyers are teaming with state government to help secure
pro bono legal services for families of victims of the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks. The publicprivate partnership,
which was announced by Gov. Gray Davis on Friday, is designed
to assist those who could face immigration issues, the loss
of health benefits and wages, or will and probate problems
as a result of the worst attack ever on American soil.
This
effort will provide these victims and survivors with a trained
advocate who can help protect their legal and property rights,
Davis said in a prepared statement Friday. The job of the
attorneys is to cut through the red tape, and that pairings
between lawyers and families are already being made.
On
board with the program is the State Bar of California, the
Bar Association of San Francisco Volunteer Legal Services
Program, the Los Angeles County Bar Association and a number
of public agencies and private law firms. The firms that
have signed on are some of the same that made a pledge to
BASF last year to renew their commitment to pro bono.
Note: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is
one of the law firms participating in the program.
|
| |
| October
30, 2001 |
Austin American-Statesman, "Lawsuits
Against Sulzer to Resume"
|
An
appeals court order issued Monday could open the floodgates
for scores of stalled lawsuits to proceed against Austin's
Sulzer Orthopedics Inc., hurting the company's efforts to
settle with patients who received its faulty hip implants.
Sulzer has portrayed its inventive $750 million settlement
as a way to fairly compensate patients and stay in business.
Company officials said that without it, they would be forced
to file for bankruptcy protection.
The
order by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
overturns a lower court ruling that halted the state suits
against Sulzer while the judge considered the settlement.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen O'Malley in Cleveland had given
the proposal preliminary approval and planned to make a
final decision in March. But the appellate court said it
had "serious doubts as to the legitimacy" of the
proposal. The court also said any patient who wanted to
opt out of the offer faced "significant financial disincentives,"
harming their due process rights. Sulzer said it would first
pay off patients who agreed to settle; those who sued would
have to wait until 2008 to collect.
The
settlement is now in jeopardy, said Tommy Jacks, an Austin
lawyer representing several dozen patients suing Sulzer.
Richard Heimann, a San Francisco
lawyer whose firm represents more than 200 implant clients,
said he would proceed with the suits and explore a new settlement
that would be "fairer to our clients." Lieff Cabraser
did not take a final position on the proposed settlement.
Heimann said Monday that though he does not want Sulzer
to go out of business, he thinks the company can afford
to pay more.
|
| |
| October
18, 2001 |
The Recorder, Bar Association of San
Francisco, Lieff Cabraser Honor Dru Ramey
|
As
reported in The Recorder, a legal who's who of San
Francisco turned out on October 16th, 1,000 lawyers strong,
to bid farewell to Bar Association of San Francisco Executive
Director Drucilla Ramey.
Chief
Justice Ronald George, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson
and Mayor Willie Brown, Jr. were among those who toasted
Ramey at the Fairmont Hotel. Ramey, whom speakers repeatedly
credited with redefining the role of the local bar association
in legal affairs, is moving to New York after 17 years at
BASF's helm.
"We
politicians would love to develop the kind of respect that
you have developed," Brown said. "And from my
personal standpoint, I am delighted that you are making
hats what they are." Brown was referring to Ramey's
signature fashion statement.
On
a more serious note, BASF President Douglas Young kicked
off the evening by announcing that Elizabeth
Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein had
endowed the association with $1 million in Ramey's honor.
The fund will be used to promote two of Ramey's most passionate
causes: BASF's Volunteer Legal Services Program and its
equal opportunity projects.
For
her part, Ramey described the evening as "an out of
body experience." "I'm not going to say good-bye,
because we'd just get all upset," she told the crowd.
Besides, she said, her relocation is not permanent, but
rather just "a change of venue."
|
| |
| October
10, 2001 |
Delaware
Law Weekly, "It's Not Chicken Feed"
|
A
federal wage and hour lawsuit against Perdue Farms Inc.
exposes the well-known chicken process to $60 million
in potential liability for allegedly underpaying its employees.
The suit arose out of the chicken processor's demands
that the employees don, doff and clean various items of
safety equipment on their own time at processing plants,
even though work rules require that equipment.
Nine
plaintiffs filed suit against the large chicken processor
in December 1999, seeking damages for the uncompensated
time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state
wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs also claimed damages under
the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act for
the company's failure to contribute to a supplemental
retirement plan.
|
| |
| October
10, 2001 |
Lexington Herald-Leader, "Coal
Mined Too Close to Pond, Report Says"
|
An
engineering study by a federal government contractor says
a Martin County Coal Corp. slurry impoundment failed last
year because the company had mined too close -- perhaps
within 15 feet -- to what became the bottom or side of
the coal-waste pond.
While maps submitted by the company had shown the distance
to be about 70 feet, the report said ``this minimal thickness
of solid coal barrier, combined with the continually increasing
hydrostatic pressure as a result of the rising slurry
level, resulted in ... erosion of the barrier and eventual
breakthrough of slurry into the mine workings.''
It
is not the first time the barrier between the pond and
mineworks has been linked to the 300-million gallon spill
on Oct. 11 last year, but the March 30 document -- obtained
yesterday by the Herald-Leader -- is the first official
written report making the connection that has been made
public.
Note: Lieff Cabraser represents approximately 400
individuals (about 270 properties) in Martin County, Kentucky,
arising from the October 11, 2000 spill of 2 million gallons
of coal slurry from a coal impoundment (a 90-acre coal
waste lake) operated by Martin County Coal Corporation.
For more information, click
here.
|
| |
SUMMER
2001 |
| |
| September
19, 2001 |
Austin American-Statesman, "U.S.
Judge Stops Lawsuits Against Sulzer"
|
A
federal judge in Cleveland has halted individual lawsuits
against Sulzer Medica AG while she considers the company's
$750 million proposal to settle class action lawsuits over
faulty hip implants. U.S. District Judge Kathleen O'Malley's
injunction stops dozens of suits from going to trial in
state courts this fall, including two cases that had been
set for jury selection today in California.
Lawyers
representing Sulzer patients said they would appeal the
action to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If O'Malley's
action is upheld, it would be a victory for the Swiss-based
company, which has been spending more than $2 million a
month on legal bills. O'Malley's ruling, issued Monday,
said that Sulzer would be unreasonably burdened if it had
to defend itself in dozens of state court cases while also
pursuing the federal settlement.
Sulzer
has six months to persuade patients to accept its class
action settlement. O'Malley has set a hearing for March
12, 2002 on whether to approve the settlement.
In
California, a state court judge coordinating hundreds of
cases is expected to rule this morning whether he'll allow
the cases to go forward despite O'Malley's ruling. "The
two cases scheduled to start trial this week and about 20
more in mid-October are entitled to go forward under California
law," said Richard Heimann,
a partner at San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein. The firm represents more than 200 clients
with faulty Sulzer implants. "She issued this order
without giving notice to anybody," Heimann said.
|
| |
| September
14, 2001 |
The Associated Press, "U.S. Hip
Implants Recalled"
|
Hundreds
of artificial hips are being recalled because one piece
-- the joint ball -- is made of a ceramic that may suddenly
crack. It's the second major recall of artificial hips in
the past year.
The
Food and Drug Administration announced the recall Friday,
warning surgeons not to use the affected implants - and
patients to call their doctors if they experience symptoms
suggesting the joint has cracked. The FDA has at least 14
reports so far of Americans in whom the recalled hips have
broken.
Symptoms
include hip pain, a sensation of grinding or limitation
of motion. The fracture sometimes is preceded by an audible
pop. The at-risk hips tend to break between 19 and 28 months
after they're implanted, said FDA compliance officer Carol
Fedorchak.
The
French company St. Gobain Desmarquest recalled nine batches
of its ceramic femoral heads -- the ball portion of the
hip implant -- that were manufactured since early 1998. The worst
batch has an 8 percent breakage rate, well above the one-hundredth
of a percent breakage rate expected for such parts, said
Fedorchak. The other eight batches had a far lower breakage
rate, but were being recalled as a precaution.
|
| |
| September
7, 2001 |
The Recorder, "Law Students Get
Firm Time With Minority Program"
|
Instead
of inquiring whether coffee drinkers preferred "tall"
or "venti," first-year law school student Loretta
James earned her summer money by clerking at Wendel, Rosen,
Black & Dean. "You get a very real life experience"
in the Bay Area Minority Summer Clerkship Program, said
James, a law student at the University of San Francisco
who was one of nearly 20 students participating this summer.
"Usually, it is really difficult to get into a law
firm as a first-year," she said.
The
program, sponsored by the Santa Clara, Alameda and San Francisco
bar associations, began in the South Bay in 1990 and has
expanded to include firms from San Francisco, Oakland and
other cities. Students from Golden Gate University, Santa
Clara University, Stanford, University of San Francisco,
Boalt Hall and Hastings compete for the paid summer clerkship
positions.
Last
month the participating firms were recognized at an Oakland
gathering organized by the Alameda County Bar Association.
The firms included Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.
|
| |
| August
31, 2001 |
American Lawyer Daily
Report, "Employment
Firms: EEOC Boosts Odds for Class Status"
|
A
few years back, Fred Alvarez flew to New Orleans to fight
off a bid by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") to intervene in a huge gender-bias case
against Atlanta-based Home Depot. The EEOC has long had
the authority to file its own pattern and practice suits
-- the agency's version of class actions -- to fight employment
discrimination, and EEOC officials and plaintiffs' lawyers
say there's nothing new or wrong about that. But defense
lawyers contend that the agency is finding more occasion
to intervene in private suits these days, often at the request
of plaintiffs who want help getting around the tough standards
for class certification spelled out in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Some
employer lawyers refer to it as piggybacking. But employee
lawyers call EEOC intervention a legitimate way to rout
out discrimination, and they insist that their opponents'
complaints are purely self-serving.
|
| |
| August
17, 2001 |
The San Francisco Chronicle, "$780
Million Offer for Faulty Implants"
|
Sulzer
Medica Ltd. has offered a settlement of about $780 million
in cash and stock to people who received a faulty hip or
knee implant in what has become one of the largest orthopedic
device recalls in history.
The
settlement, which has yet to be approved, would amount to
about $57,500 for a patient who has had to undergo surgery
to replace the device. Two-thirds of that sum would be cash,
with the rest in Sulzer stock.
Cherie
Lewis of Walnut Creek, California (represented by Lieff
Cabraser), who had to endure a second surgery, thought the
offer added insult to injury: "Why would I want stock
in a company that has already caused me such grief?"
Sulzer,
based in Winterthur, Switzerland, announced the recall in
December of about 40,000 artificial hips and has determined
about 26,000 of those were implanted in patients. In May,
Sulzer announced the recall of about 1,650 knee implants.
Sulzer is facing about 1,200 lawsuits from people all over
the country who received the faulty implants. So far, about
2,350 people have had the hip implants replaced and another
280 have had to replace the knee part.
Donald
Arbitblit, a partner in the San Francisco law firm of
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, said the firm
wants to investigate the company's ability to pay and whether
a Swiss firm can be held accountable in California courts.
"It must leave a pretty bad feeling to be given stock
in a company that has messed up your life," said Arbitblit,
whose firm has more than 200 clients and has filed about
100 cases. "The last thing they want to do is have
their own personal recovery linked to Sulzer's fortunes."
|
| |
| August
10, 2001 |
The
American Banker, "New Legal Front in Mortgage
Fight: Servicing"
|
The
mortgage business is under attack from all sides. Consumer
groups and lawyers have repeatedly charged lenders with
abusive lending practices. A court ruling recently extended
liability for predatory lending practices to include buyers
of loans in the secondary market. Regulators, too, have
been scrutinizing lenders. Now companies that collect
payments on mortgage loans are drawing fire.
In
a class action filed in March, Bank United Corp., the
Houston thrift company acquired in February by Washington
Mutual Inc., is accused of improperly assessing fees,
including late fees. The lead plaintiff, Laura Sandoval
of Tacoma, is represented by four firms, including two
that made headlines in their successful class action against
Providian Financial Group.
Bank
United charged property-inspection fees more often and
in violation of the law and its own agreement with Ms.
Sandoval, the suit claims. It further charges that Bank
United delayed processing payments for Ms. Sandoval's
mortgage and then applied late payment fees.
The
two law firms from the Providian case that are representing
Ms. Sandoval are Girard & Green LP and Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, both of San Francisco. In
its last fiscal year $18 billion-asset Bank United originated
about $3 billion in single-family mortgages and did $31.8
billion of servicing. The thrift started servicing Ms.
Sandoval's mortgage in June 1999, when it bought the rights
to collect payments on the loan.
|
| |
| August
7, 2001 |
The
New York Times, "When Medical Devices Fail in
the Body"
|
Last
October, Robert Stahl had his arthritic hip replaced with
an artificial one, a ball-and-socket joint made of titanium.
Neither Mr. Stahl nor his surgeon knew it, but at that time,
the maker of the replacement hip, Sulzer Orthopedics Inc.
of Austin, Tex., was investigating reports that its implants
were prone to fail. The socket, designed to let bone grow
into it and hold it in place, sometimes came loose from
the pelvis, causing severe pain and instability. On Dec.
8, Sulzer recalled the hips. By then, Mr. Stahl's implant
was already failing. He needed another major operation to
replace it.
The
FDA does not require the tracking of artificial hips. Since
1995, there have been 39 recalls of artificial hips, the
agency reports. In two-thirds of the recalls, the parts
were merely mislabeled, not defective. Of the 13 recalls
for manufacturing or design flaws, the Sulzer case is by
far the largest: 40,000 sockets, of which 26,000 had been
implanted. The company said it did not believe that all
26,000 implanted hips were defective.
Sulzer
has said it will pay for the operations to replace the implants
if they are not covered by the patients' insurance, as well
as for lost wages and compensation for pain and suffering.
Hip replacement surgery typically costs between $20,000
and $50,000. A Jan. 17 fax from Sulzer to Mr. Stahl said,
"We will also work with you to compensate you for your
lost income on an ongoing basis."
Mr.
Stahl said: "Initially, during the first month or so,
they were pretty friendly. I think they believed their own
press release that it was only going to be a minor problem.
Somewhere around the end of January, they just became a
black hole. They stopped replying to anything." Mr.
Stahl never received the promised money to replace his lost
income -- he is a self-employed corporate trainer -- and
after his second operation in February, he sought a lawyer.
Sulzer paid some of the expenses of the second operation,
Mr. Stahl said.
"The
public relations has been to the effect, they want to take
care of everything promptly," said Donald
C. Arbitblit, a lawyer with Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein in San Francisco, the firm representing Mr. Stahl.
"I think Sulzer has had a number of credibility problems."
|
| |
| July
19, 2001 |
USA Today, "Sprinkler Recall Could
Cost Tyco $200 Million; Replacement Could Affect Fire Systems
in 9% of USA's Buildings"
|
Central
Sprinkler's replacement of 35 million potentially faulty
fire-suppression sprinkler heads could cost corporate parent
Tyco International $200 million over the next 5 years. The
recall and replacement effort is the third-largest product-replacement
program in Consumer Product Safety Commission history. Only
recalls of halogen lamps and window blind cords involved
greater numbers of products.
Central
initiated the replacement program after tests showed that
the O-ring seals of some model GB series sprinkler heads
corroded over time, causing sprinkler heads to fail to activate
during fires. The sprinkler heads have been cited in 13
reports of fire-related failures and two property claims.
Central
says the recall could cover sprinklers in up to 9% of the
USA's buildings, including offices, homes, apartments, hospitals,
day-care centers, schools and nursing homes.
Central's
deal with the CPSC comes as three lawsuits are pending against
the company. Central and Tyco face a California state class-action
lawsuit over defective sprinkler heads, a federal class-action
lawsuit on behalf of other U.S. property owners, and a federal
case filed June 20 on behalf of the Building Owners and
Managers Association, which represents major commercial-property
owners.
"The
scariest part of all this is that their effectiveness decreases
over their purported lifetimes, so people have a false sense
of safety," says Robert Nelson,
lead plaintiff's attorney in the lawsuits for the firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.
|
| |
| July
18, 2001 |
The Recorder, "Migrant Workers
Aim for Back Pay"
|
Initially,
it was set up as protection a mandatory savings program
to ensure that Mexican farm and railroad workers laboring
in the United States during the 1940s would not go home
penniless. At the insistence of the Mexican government,
the US government deducted 10 percent of Mexican workers'
wages to be transferred to Mexican banks where laborers
would be able to withdraw their money.
Half
a century later, Mexican workers, known as braceros, say
they never knew about the program and were never paid back
the money withheld from their paychecks. Flanked by five
prominent plaintiffs firms in the Bay Area, Chicago and
New York, retired workers have filed a multimillion-dollar
class action against the US and Mexican governments, Wells
Fargo Bank and three Mexican banks to recover an estimated
$70 million in lost wages, plus interest, damages and attorneys
fees. Attorneys working the case say interest and damages
could propel the case into the hundreds of millions.
|
| |
|
July
6, 2001
|
Sacramento Bee, "Hip Implant Toll
Mounts in US: 18 Patients in Capital Area May Need Corrective
Surgery"
|
Eighteen
Sacramento-area patients face the possibility of corrective
surgery to replace hip implants recalled in December by
a Texas medical technology company, officials at Sutter
General Hospital said Thursday. More than 70 people received
a Sulzer hip implant at Sutter General Hospital in Sacramento
between November 1999 and September 2000. Of those, 40
implants were from lots involved in the recall.
Dr. William Bargar, an orthopedic surgeon at Sutter General,
was one of the first physicians in the country to notify
Sulzer of problems with the implants after two patients
needed surgery in August to remove faulty prostheses,
Sutter officials said. After he and another surgeon replaced
implants that had failed to bond with surrounding bone,
Sutter stopped using the device in September, said spokeswoman
Nancy Turner. "At this point, we reported the cases
to the company, and Sulzer stated that they only knew
of two other cases of loosening, and they didn't know
of any manufacturing defect," Turner said.
Faced with mounting costs in hundreds of US lawsuits arising
from the recall, Sulzer Thursday announced plans to separate
its US and Swiss orthopedics divisions. Some view Sulzer's
reorganization as a bid to shield its European division
from the suits. The restructuring, Sulzer spokesman Bill
Miller said, created two regional units -- Sulzer Orthopedics
USA in Austin and Sulzer Orthopedics Europe/Asia/Latin
America based in Baar, Switzerland. "This was a marketing
decision," Miller said. "It has nothing to do
with the lawsuits."
Still, attorneys at a San Francisco law firm that has
taken a lead role in filing suits against Sulzer said
the move shows the Swiss parent company's role in its
US operations. "It further demonstrates the control
the Swiss entity exercises over the American unit, which
goes to our naming both Sulzer Medica and Sulzer Orthopedics
in our suits," said Richard Franco, a partner at
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco.
|
| |
SPRING
2001 |
| |
| June
19, 2001 |
The
Recorder, "Lawyers Divide $59M Fee in German
Holocaust Case"
|
Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein was awarded about $3.7
million in attorneys' fees last week for work helping to
establish a fund for Holocaust victims and their families.
More than 50 lawyers around the country received a piece
of the pie to pay legal fees and related costs that accrued
during international negotiations leading to the $5 billion
fund last July settling all Holocaust claims against German
businesses and the government.
The
settlement resolves all German Holocaust claims, including
those related to slave labor, insurance and banking. Payment
to individual claimants as well as attorneys was held up
until the dismissal in recent weeks of more than 50 cases
in US courts.
Surviving
slave laborers -- mostly survivors of Jewish concentration
camps -- are expected to receive about $7,500 each. Forced
laborers who worked in Nazi war factories in Eastern Europe
will receive about $2,500 each. Morris
Ratner of Lieff Cabraser said he's been handling claims
on behalf of Holocaust victims for the last five years.
His firm will collect the attorneys' fees involved in the
German claims case, but he noted that in a separate case
involving Swiss banks his firm donated about $1.4 million
earned in attorneys' fees. The funds were donated to New
York's Columbia Law School to endow a chair in clinical
human rights.
|
| |
| June
19, 2001 |
The
Austin American-Statesman, "Knee Implant Case Worsens
For Sulzer"
|
Austin's
Sulzer Orthopedics Inc. said Monday that problems with
one of its artificial knees may be worse than it had expected.
Sulzer
said a "substantial number" of patients may
need to have the faulty implants replaced. It had said
earlier that it anticipated few, if any problems, with
the implant.
The
knee implants have the same problem that caused Sulzer
last year to recall thousands of artificial hips -- traces
of oil that prevent them from bonding with bone in some
patients. Sulzer has not recalled the knee implants.
"These
are very serious surgeries with very serious injury, stress,
anxiety and pain for folks who have these defective knee
products," said Richard
Heimann, a San Francisco lawyer whose firm is representing
numerous hip implant patients. He said Monday he expects
to file suit on behalf of up to a dozen knee implant patients..
Sulzer
Orthopedics' parent company, Sulzer Medica, is being spun
off from Sulzer AG, a Swiss conglomerate, next month.
But Sulzer is not setting the stage to declare bankruptcy,
Sulzer spokesman Bill Miller said. Heimann said his firm
has included Sulzer's Swiss parents in the lawsuits because
it does not think that Texas-based Sulzer can cover all
of the claims. Heimann estimated that Sulzer has $250
million in insurance based on financial information from
Switzerland. Miller said the company is not disclosing
that.
|
| |
| June
9, 2001 |
Los Angeles Times, "Drug Makers:
New Targets of Class-Action Lawsuits"
|
Drug
makers in recent weeks have been hit with lawsuits accusing
them of blocking cheaper generic versions of lifesaving
medications. The suits assert that drug makers used loopholes
in the law to stymie competition and unfairly inflate
prices of drugs used to treat cancer, heart conditions
and other serious maladies. Working in tandem with plaintiffs'
attorneys are activist state attorneys general, a combination
that helped extract billions of dollars in settlements
from cigarette makers. So far, government lawyers have
announced one lawsuit, but say other filings are likely.
|
| |
| June
8, 2001 |
The Boston Globe, "Consumer Group
Sues Three Drug Makers, Alleges Market Manipulation"
|
A
Boston-based consumer coalition yesterday expanded its legal
attack on drug makers, saying that three pharmaceutical
companies conspired to keep off the market a cheaper, generic
version of a drug used by thousands of elderly Americans.
Community Catalyst filed six lawsuits over the drug K-Dur,
which is used to treat low blood potassium levels, in a
complaint similar to one filed by the Federal Trade Commission
in April.
Like
the FTC, Community Catalyst says that when American Home
Products and Upsher-Smith tried to bring generic versions
of K-Dur to the market in the mid-1990s, Schering-Plough
sued the two companies and then entered into settlement
agreements that violated antitrust laws.
Under
one agreement, Schering-Plough paid Upsher-Smith $60 million,
as long as the company agreed to keep its generic product
out of drugstores until September 2001. Schering-Plough
also licensed five products from Upsher-Smith, but has never
sold four of the products, the complaint alleges.
In
a similar agreement with a division of American Home Products,
ESI Lederle, Schering-Plough agreed to pay the company up
to $30 million in return for ESI keeping its generic potassium
supplement off the market until January 2004. Schering-Plough
also licensed two products from ESI, though it has made
no sales of those products, Community Catalyst said.
|
| |
| June
5, 2001 |
The
Philadelphia Inquirer, "Hotel chains sued for California
energy surcharges"
|
California's
power crunch has prompted many hotels to start assessing
energy surcharges. Now a San Francisco law firm has filed
a class action suit against several big hotel chains,
contending that charging extra for electricity is illegal.
Barry R. Himmelstein
of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein filed separate
lawsuits against the Starwood, Hilton, Hyatt and Marriott
hotel chains, challenging the hotels' practice of adding
undisclosed energy surcharges to room bills.
The
suits, filed in San Francisco Superior Court and one against
Marriott in Los Angeles Superior Court, allege that the
chains "repeatedly breached their contracts with
customers and committed unfair and deceptive business
practices by imposing 'energy surcharges' above and beyond
the basic room rates that customers are quoted when they
make their reservations."
The
hotel suits cite state law, but the issue applies to more
than California. The Sheraton Austin Hotel in Austin,
Texas, in recent months posted a sign on the check-in
counter citing the current high cost of energy and announcing
a surcharge of $2.50 per room per night, plus tax.
|
| |
| June
4, 2001 |
The
Recorder, "Locals Hit The Road For AIDS Bike Ride"
|
In
the first week of January, Sarah Kowalski plunked down
her $55 registration fee for the ride. By the end of the
month, she'd signed on as an associate with Farella Braun
& Martel. Even though Kowalski, 30, mountain biked
recreationally, she didn't have a pair of road biking
shorts to her name. Over
the past six months, Ms. Kowalski crammed an arduous training
regimen of hundreds and hundreds of cycling miles in between
her personal life and practice -- and, in the process,
raised thousands of dollars to benefit the San Francisco
AIDS Foundation.
Lisa
Leebove, 30, at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
had an equally intense training schedule. A first-time
rider, she started her days off with spinning and other
exercise classes at 5:30 in the morning twice weekly before
work. She also headed to the gym for a two-hour evening
workout once a week after wrapping up her day's practice
in Lieff Cabraser's San Francisco headquarters. A partner
she works under, Jonathan Selbin, supported her as few
partners would.
"[Once]
he stayed at night until four in the morning so I could
get home early and go to bed to train at 5 a.m.,"
she said. Leebove also remembers a number of out-of-town
assignments Selbin could have used her help on, but he
let her stay in San Francisco to make sure she could keep
up her training. "I'm sure he'll cash in his chips
eventually," she said. Lieff Cabraser has also sponsored
her with $2,000.
|
| |
| June
4, 2001 |
The Disability Compliance
Bulletin,
"New suit claims that high school exit exam discriminates
based on disability"
|
California's
implementation of a high school exit examination is being
challenged by a new federal lawsuit, which claims that the
exam unlawfully discriminates against students with disabilities.
The suit challenges the alleged absence of procedures relating
to the provision of accommodations and alternate assessments.
It also says that the exam tests some disabled students
on materials they have never been taught.
Attorneys
at Disability Rights Advocates in Oakland, California, filed
the suit earlier this month along with Morris
Ratner of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP. The plaintiffs are three students with learning
disabilities and the Learning Disabilities Association of
America, a volunteer organization that advocates for the
rights of people with learning disabilities. The defendants
include the California Department of Education and the Fremont
Unified School District.
|
| |
| June
1, 2001 |
The
San Francisco Chronicle, "Implant producer pulls
product; Company also recalled hip"
|
Sulzer
Orthopedics Inc., the company that produced a faulty hip
implant that led to a worldwide recall in December, is
investigating a potential problem in one of its artificial
knee parts.
The
Austin, Texas, manufacturer is not recalling the product
but withdrew it from the market in March. The company
has notified the US Food and Drug Administration about
the investigation and also sent a letter to doctors.
|
| |
| May
29, 2001 |
The Recorder, "Cal Micro Fraud
Suit Settles for Total of $26 Million"
|
If
only every week were this good for Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein. First the firm netted more than $2 million
of an approved $30 million settlement in securities fraud
litigation involving Network Associates Inc. Then on Thursday
it settled the final piece of a long-running securities
fraud case over faulty financial statements at Cal Micro
Devices Corp.
US
District Judge Vaughn Walker approved the final piece of
a total settlement of around $26 million. Under the agreement,
former Cal Micro executive Chan Desaigoudar will turn over
more than 1 million shares of the company, worth around
$7 million.
|
| |
| May
23, 2001 |
The
Recorder, "Alsup's Securities Experiment Settles"
|
On
Monday, US District Judge William Alsup approved a class
settlement in the Network Associates
securities litigation of $30 million and attorneys' fees
of just 7 percent, a figure far below the benchmark and
one which was hailed as proof that a novel process of requiring
firms to bid for class counsel status means more money for
class members.
Judge
Alsup had balked at rubber-stamping a Philadelphia pension
fund's selection of class counsel and when the fund backed
out of the case, he personally interviewed replacements.
Eventually,
he chose lawyer Robert Vatuone as the lead plaintiff. Through
the bidding process, which remains rare but is gaining wider
acceptance, Vatuone chose Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
to represent the class.
In
the end, Alsup approved the 7 percent fee agreement, which
will be calculated after Lieff Cabraser deducts expenses
of approximately $360,000. The firm will earn more than
$2 million for its work on the case.
The
fee is far below the benchmark in such cases, and Alsup's
intention to find a lead plaintiff to adequately navigate
the litigation and drive a hard bargain on fees seems to
have worked. Even class action critic Lawrence Schonbrun
submitted a declaration approving the agreement.
|
| |
| May
16, 2001 |
San Francisco Examiner, "S.F. Woman
Sues Two Drug Firms"
|
A
San Francisco woman has filed a proposed class-action suit
against two drug manufacturers she claims unfairly made
millions from women suffering with breast cancer. The suit
states that Barr Laboratories unlawfully colluded with AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals to artificially raise the price of the drug
tamoxifen
Tamoxifen,
sold by AstraZeneca under the brand name Nolvadex, is a
popular drug used to treat breast cancer. According to the
American Cancer Society, about 182,800 women are diagnosed
with breast cancer each year and 40,800 people annually
die from the disease. It is the second most common cancer
in women, following skin cancer.
San
Francisco attorney Eric Fastiff,
whose firm is working on the case, said the sheer number
of people affected is enormous, as nearly everyone diagnosed
with the disease is prescribed tamoxifen Members of the
class would include anyone who has purchased the drug during
the last four years, potentially millions of plaintiffs.
"It's very hard to find a woman that hasn't taken the
drug or who knows someone that has," he said.
|
| |
| May
11, 2001 |
New York Law Journal, "Holocaust
Pact Wins Judge's Approval"
|
Southern
District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram cleared the way yesterday
for the payment of billions of dollars in reparations to
victims of the Holocaust. After refusing twice during the
last four months to dismiss claims in 10 consolidated class
actions charging that German and Austrian banks looted accounts
and seized property during the Nazi-era's "Aryanization"
campaign, Judge Kram said she felt that the remaining impediments
to a proposed settlement in the cases had been removed.
Judge
Kram said she was satisfied that certain claims holders
would be adequately represented in the settlement. "I
want to commend everyone for expediting these developments,"
Judge Kram stated.
The
dismissal of the cases that make up In re Austrian and
German Bank Holocaust Litigation, 98 Civ. 3938, was
the last major bar to the payment of $5.4 billion to Holocaust
victims from a foundation created | |