Lieff Cabraser: Consumer Law Newsletter Issue No. 5

Consumer Law Newsletter:
Issue No. 5

May 29, 2001

Top News

Breast Cancer Patients Charge Drug Makers with Price Fixing
How to Avoid Misleading Credit Card Offers
Sulzer Recall Update: 1,700 Revision Surgeries & Now Defects
with Sulzer Knee Implants
Hundreds of Millions Available in Settlements to Homeowners
with Defective Home Building Products
$250 to $1,000 Discounts Available for 5.8 Million GM Truck
Owners

Introduction

The Consumer Law Newsletter is published quarterly by the national law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. The Newsletter is sent to persons who have contacted our firm via the internet and provided their e-mail address. We hope you find the Newsletter of interest.

Top News

Breast Cancer Patients Charge Drug Makers with Price Fixing

The most promising news Massachusetts resident Helen Donega heard after her breast cancer surgery in 1998 was about a miraculous drug, tamoxifen (sold under the brand name Nolvadex), used to treat breast cancer that could cut her chances of relapse in half. So Donega called several pharmacies, only to discover the medication would cost her $80 to $120 a month. Donega then requested the generic version of the drug, which normally would cost only half as much as the name brand. That wasn't the case this time. The price: $80 to $120 a month.

On May 10, 2001, Lieff Cabraser filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Donega and other women across America accusing AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the maker of brand name tamoxifen, and the Barr Laboratories, the maker of generic tamoxifen, of conspiring to overcharge patients for tamoxifen, and demanding they refund the women thousands of dollars each.

Tamoxifen is the most widely prescribed cancer drug in the world. Scientists discovered the medicine nearly 30 years ago. The lawsuits note that Barr successfully challenged the tamoxifen patent held by AstraZeneca in April 1992. Plaintiffs allege that instead of introducing a generic version, Barr signed a "confidential settlement agreement" in which it agreed to drop its challenge to the patent in return for being supplied with AstraZeneca-manufactured tamoxifen for resale as a "generic" in the U.S. Barr's "generic" tamoxifen sells for only 5% less than Zeneca's branded version -- and far more than would a true generic.

The tamoxifen lawsuit is part of the growing scrutiny of generic drugs and the relationships between generic drug manufacturers and large brand-name pharmaceutical companies. Lieff Cabraser is at the forefront of this litigation, and is working in coordination with the Prescription Access Litigation Project, a new consumer coalition that was recently profiled in Time magazine. The coalition also maintains a website.

Lieff Cabraser has also filed price fixing lawsuits on behalf of persons prescribed the anti-anxiety medication BuSpar, and is investigating claims against the manufacturer of the potassium chloride supplement K-Dur.

How To Avoid Misleading Credit Card Offers

It is estimated that the average American household receives eight credit card offers per month. Moreover, credit companies are inundating college students nationwide with a blizzard of on-campus marketing literature and even targeting high school students with advertisements in magazines popular with youth. At the same time, some credit card companies charge interest in excess of 30% and subject their customers to a host of fees and charges for services that are poorly disclosed.

Recently, the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group ("PIRG") issued a comprehensive report on the credit card industry. Among the key findings: Credit card terms and conditions are becoming less favorable to consumers; many credit card marketing practices are misleading and deceptive; and card marketing to college students is too aggressive.

As part of its report, the PIRG listed several steps to
avoid falling victim to deceptive and misleading credit card
offers. The full list is at http://www.truthaboutcredit.org.
Here are a few key recommendations:

Shop around before you accept any credit card offer. Terms and conditions vary widely, so it's important to compare offers. Key terms to look for are the amount of the annual percentage rate (the lower the better), the number of grace days for payment (at least 25 days), the late payment fee and the annual fee (many cards today do not have annual fees).
Read the fine print. Forget the marketing fluff. Instead, focus on the fine print and ask family members or friends with credit cards for assistance if there is language you do not understand. This step is one of your best defenses in avoiding in enrolling with a credit card company that will cause you more problems than it is worth. For example, it is only in the fine print that so-called "punitive interest" rates are disclosed. These rates are often in excess of 30%, and are
applied by some credit card companies in addition to late and credit limit fees if you are late on a payment or over your credit limit, even on another company's credit card.
Do not feel it is necessary to have multiple credit cards. Carry only one or two major credit cards, and avoid using the full available credit line. When interest and other fees are included, credit card purchases are more expensive than cash or check purchases.

Lieff Cabraser has taken a leading role representing credit card holders in consumer protection lawsuits against several major credit card companies, including Providian, Capital One, Direct Merchants and Fleet, for unfair and deceptive business practices.

In the Providian case, the Court recently granted preliminary approval to a settlement of the case. The settlement requires Providian to pay $105 million in cash, credits and other benefits to the Class, and halt certain business practices. To learn more about the Providian settlement, and to obtain a claim form, please click here.

If you have been subjected to practices by a credit card company that you believe are unfair or deceptive, please feel free to contact an attorney at Lieff Cabraser and describe your experience.

Sulzer Recall Update: 1,700 Revision Surgeries & Now Defects with Sulzer Knee Implants

Headquartered in Switzerland, Sulzer Medica manufactures and sells hip and knee implants for sale worldwide. On December 8, 2000, Sulzer issued a press release announcing the recall of its Inter-Op™ Acetabular Shells. The shells were primarily sold in the U.S. after October, 1999, with a smaller number of lots sold between July, 1997 and October, 1999. Sulzer estimated 17,500 persons, most residing in the United States, had received the recalled shells.

The reason for the recall was that an oily residue has been found on the exterior porous surface of certain Sulzer hip shells. The oil was used to lubricate tooling machines that produced the hip shells. During the manufacturing process, however, the machining oil steeped into coolant that was sprayed on the hip shells, and an oily residue remained on the shells when implanted in patients.

For many patients, the machining oil has inhibited the implant from properly bonding with the pelvis. The result is that the patient often experiences extreme pain and a lack of mobility, requiring additional surgery (known as "revision surgery"). As described by Californian Cherie Lewis, who received a defective Sulzer hip implant in October 2000, the pain from the loose implant was "a 12 on a scale of 1 to 10." Although it was investigating reports of early loosening of its hip implants for several months, Sulzer did not issue any warning of the failures to physicians or the general public prior to the announcement of the recall on December 8, 2000.

Initially, Sulzer claimed that relatively few people would be impacted by the defective devices. Subsequently, Sulzer began to acknowledge that more patients would be forced to undergo revision surgery to replace the defective implants, but steadfastly maintained that the numbers of revision surgeries would soon decrease. In early May 2001, Sulzer stated that about 1,000 revision surgeries had been performed. On May 21, 2001, however, Sulzer announced that they had uncovered several hundred additional revision surgeries, bringing the total to almost 1,700.

How many additional Sulzer hip recipients will have to undergo revision surgery remains unknown. Some physicians who used many Sulzer hip implants have found that a substantial percentage of their patients require revision surgery, including one orthopedic surgeon in Oakland, California who expects to do corrective surgery on half of his 225 patients with Sulzer hip implants.

Equally troubling is the fact that, despite denying for months that none of its other products is manufactured the same way as its hip implants, and that no other products were found to contain the oily residue, on May 21, 2001, Sulzer admitted that it has informed the FDA of possible problems with its knee implants. To date, Sulzer has not actually identified the precise cause of the problems with its knee implants, nor has it publicly disclosed to patients characteristic symptoms of a faulty knee implant.

Lieff Cabraser is representing over 125 hip implant recipients nationwide in individual lawsuits against Sulzer, and investigating bringing cases against Sulzer on behalf of knee implant recipients.

Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Available in Settlements to Homeowners with Defective Home Building Products

State and federal laws provide consumers with remedies for products that do not perform as warranted or advertised. Lieff Cabraser has successfully prosecuted numerous cases involving a wide range of such defective products, from faulty building and home products to faulty cars and tires. In particular, we have long represented homeowners against manufacturers of products like siding, shingles and windows that have failed to perform as promised and warranted.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in class action settlements for the replacement and repair of the allegedly defective products remain available to property owners, including in the following cases:

Weyerhaeuser Hardboard Siding Litigation: On December 22, 2000, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of the case. The settlement covers Weyerhaeuser hardboard siding applied at any time from January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1999. Under the settlement, Weyerhaeuser will pay all timely, qualified claims made during a nine year claims program. There is no cap on Weyerhaeuser's potential total liability. To learn more about the settlement or to file a claim, visit Weyerclaims.com.
ABS Pipes Litigation: In 1998, the Court approved a settlement of nearly $70 million on behalf of property owners whose acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene ("ABS") drainage pipe was allegedly defective and caused property damage by leaking. To learn more about the settlement or to file a claim, visit ABSpipes.com.
Masonite Hardboard Siding Litigation: Also in 1998, a settlement was approved for the costs of repair and replacement of failing Masonite hardboard siding installed between January 1, 1980 and January 1, 1998. To date, over $200 million has already been paid out from this settlement, and claims continue to be made and paid. To learn more about the settlement or to file a claim, visit Masonite Claims.com.

$250 to $1,000 Discounts Available for 5.8 Million GM Truck Owners

Ending years of legal stalemate, on April 18, 2001, General Motors Corporation mailed notices to current and former owners of 5.8 million older pickups who qualify for certificates or discounts of $250 to $1,000 on new GM vehicles as part of a massive class action settlement. The certificates are the centerpiece of a long-delayed settlement of suits filed in 1992 that claimed defective fuel systems made millions of GM trucks made from 1973 to the early 1990's more prone to catching fire or exploding in collisions.

Although the basic terms of the settlement were set five years ago, disputes over transferability of the certificates and other issues delayed its implementation. Recognizing that many class action members will not be in a position to take advantage of a coupon offer, Lieff Cabraser and other plaintiffs' counsel, along with several consumer groups, sought to create a secondary market for the certificates. GM objected to these provisions, and has filed new appeals designed to limit third party sales of the certificates.

Certificate applications were mailed out on April 18, 2001. If you have not received an application for a Certificate in an envelope with the words "Official Court Notice" written on the outside, and if you believe that you qualify for class membership, then you must send a letter to GM at the following address: GM Truck Settlement, P.O. Box 3257, Saginaw, MI 48605-3257. To verify that you owned an eligible vehicle as of 12:01 a.m. on July 4, 1996, you should include a copy of the relevant vehicle registration papers in your letter to GM.

Class members will obtain the maximum credit for their Certificates by using them toward the purchase of a new eligible vehicle but they may also sell their certificates to anyone they choose at the best price they can negotiate.

We can provide you with further information and assistance in transferring or selling your certificates and invite you to call 1-800-317-4997 to receive this information. We also have more information on the settlement, including the precise models of GM pickup trucks involved.