≡ Menu

If You Bought, Received or Acquired a KitchenAid Brand Stand Mixer Marketed With A Horsepower Designation, You May Be Entitled to Benefits From The KitchenAid Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

Whirlpool Corporation has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a consumer class action lawsuit against it in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade Florida (captioned as Stuart Bornstein v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 12-1532 CA 42) alleging, among other things, that Whirlpool over-stated the horsepower of certain 6-qt., 7-qt., and 8-qt. KitchenAid -brand stand mixers manufactured by Whirlpool and marketed with a horsepower designation, purportedly in violation of consumer protection statutes and in breach of express warranty, according to the KitchenAid stand mixer horsepower class action settlement notice.

Who Is Included In The KitchenAid Class Action Settlement?

The KitchenAid mixer settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all persons in the United States and its territories who before June 18, 2014 either (1) purchased a Mixer or (2) received a Mixer as a gift or (3) acquired possession of a Mixer through other lawful means.

What Settlement Benefits Does The KitchenAid Class Action Settlement Provide?

The KitchenAid stand mixer class action settlement reportedly provides, among other things, that Whirlpool will change its records to extend the written warranty two years for all covered KitchenAid mixers and will provide on its website and in marketing materials that reference horsepower the following statement:

“Motor horsepower for our mixer motors was measured using a dynamometer, a machine laboratories routinely use to measure the mechanical power of motors. Our 1.3 horsepower (HP) motor reference reflects the horsepower rating of the motor itself and not the mixer’s horsepower output to the mixer bowl. This robust motor, the backbone of our new mixer, delivers .44 HP to the bowl enabling your mixer to deliver consistent power to small and large loads with less heat build-up; resulting in years of dependable mixing. When combined with and guided by our new advanced motor control board, this is our longest lasting and most efficient motor yet. Simply put, our new, highly efficient, special purpose motor delivers the power you need when you need it.”

Where Can You Obtain More Information About The KitchenAid Class Action Settlement?

For more information about the KitchenAid settlement, write to the  Bornstein v. Whirlpool settlement administrator  at P.O. Box 43281, Providence, RI 02940-3281, or visit the KitchenAid settlement website at www.mixersettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The KitchenAid Class Action Settlement, Share Your KitchenAid Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If You Purchased A Lenova Ideapad Ultrabook Computer Laptop model U310 or U410, Your Rights May Be Affected By The Lenova Class Action Settlement.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. has reportedly agreed to a settlement of a consumer class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (styled as Kaesuta, et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. SACV 13-00316-CJC (RNBx) alleging, among other things, that Lenovo sold certain Ultrabook computers that had a design defect that affected the Wi-Fi performance of the computers, according to the Lenovo class action settlement notice.

The Lenovo Ultrabook Ideapad Laptop Computer Wi-Fi class action settlement reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, people who bought either a Lenovo Ideapad model U310 computer or Lenovo Ideapad model U410 computer.

The Lenovo class action settlement reportedly provides that class members who file valid claims can elect to recover a cash refund of $100 or a $250 credit certificate towards the purchase of products on Lenovo.com.  Alternatively, Lenovo class action settlement members who have not previously returned the Lenovo computer for repair of the wireless capability and who wish to have it repaired due to persistent Wi-Fi connectivity issues, can file claims to have their Lenovo repaired at no cost.  Lenovo settlement class members can also file claims to recover reimbursement of out of pocket expenses incurred to repair their Wi-Fi problems.  Lenovo settlement class members who file valid claims may also have the warranty on their Lenovo computer extended.

For more information about the Lenovo class action settlement, write the Lenovo class action settlement Administrator at Lenovo Laptop Wi-Fi Settlement c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014 Jericho, NY 11753-8914, call the Lenovo settlement administrator at (800) 605-2008, fax them at (516) 931-0810 or email the Lenovo settlement administrator at lenovosettlement@berdonclaims.com or visit the Lenovo settlement website at www.lenovolaptopwifisettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The Lenovo Settlement, Share Your Lenovo Ideapad Ultrabook Laptop Computer WiFi Connectivity Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If You Bought or Paid For Celexa Between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2013 or Lexapro Between August 1, 2002 and December 31, 2013, You May be Eligible for Payment in the Lexapro Class Action & Celexa Class Action Settlement.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Defendants”) have reportedly agreed to a settlement of a consumer class action lawsuit filed against them in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (styled as In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 09–MD–2067 (NMG). ) alleging, among other things, that Defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in connection with the marketing and sale of Celexa and Lexapro, prescription drugs used to treat depression, for use by minors, according to the Celexa class action and Lexapro class action settlement notice.

The Celexa class action and Lexapro class action settlement reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, those individuals who purchased or paid for branded Celexa® or Lexapro® for use by a Minor under the age of 18 between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2013, and if either (i) Celexa® or Lexapro® was prescribed to the Minor in Missouri; or (ii) the prescription was purchased in Missouri; or (iii) the individual or minor was a domiciliary citizen of Missouri at the time of the prescription or purchase.  The Lexapro and Celexa class action settlement also include those entities or third party payors who purchased, paid for, or made a reimbursement for branded Celexa® or Lexapro® for use by a Minor under the age of 18 between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2013, and if either (i) Celexa or Lexapro was prescribed to the Minor in Missouri or (ii) the Minor was a domiciliary citizen of Missouri at the time of the prescription or payment.

The Celexa Lexapro class action settlement reportedly provides that a settlement fund of between $7.65 million to $10.35 will be created to pay valid claims, attorney fees, incentive awards, costs, and expenses associated with administering the settlement.

Celexa and Lexapro class action participants who file valid claim forms may be entitled to recover a payment in connection with their purchase or reimbursement of a purchase of branded Celexa or Lexapro for use by a minor.

For more information about the Lexapro Celexa class action settlement, write the  Celexa Lexapro class action settlement Administrator at Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, P.O. Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110, call 1-877-772-6154 or visit the Celexa Lexapro class action settlement website at www.Pediatric-Antidepressant-MissouriSettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Lexapro Celexa Class Action Settlement, Share Your Celexa Lexapro Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you purchased a Motorola CLIQ XT mobile phone prior to February 2, 2011, you may be part of a class action settlement and entitled to receive a benefit under the Motorola CLIQ XT Mobile Phone Class Action Settlement.

Motorola Mobility, LLC (“Motorola” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a settlement of a telcom class action lawsuit filed against Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (styled as Haught v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-02515) alleging, among other things, that Motorola told consumers that it would upgrade CLIQ XT mobile device operating system, but then failed to update the CLIQ XT operating system, according to the Motorola CLIQ XT Mobile Phone class action settlement notice.

The Motorola CLIQ XT Phone settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased a Motorola CLIQ XT prior to February 2, 2011.

The Motorola CLIQ XT phone settlement reportedly provides that Motorola will provide a redemption code valued at twenty-five dollars $25 for the Motorola Online Store www.store.motorola.com to each Settlement Class Member who files an Approved Claim Form.  The settlement also calls for prospective relief in the form of certain disclaimers.

For more information about the CLIQ XT Phone settlement, including info about how to obtain and file a settlement claim form, write the settlement Administrator at CliqXT Settlement, PO Box 3058, Portland, OR 97208-3058, or call toll-free (877) 341-4585 or visit the settlement website at www.cliqxtsettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The Motorola CLIQ XT Mobile Phone Class Action Settlement, Share Your Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you are a California resident who purchased certain Kashi All Natural / Nothing Artificial Products between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014 and/ or Bear Naked 100% Pure & Natural / 100% Natural Products between September 21, 2007 and May 1, 2014 Your Rights May Be Affected by a Class Action Settlement and You May be Eligible for a Cash Refund.

Kashi Company (“Kashi”) and Bear Naked, Inc. (“Bear Naked”) (collectively “Defendants”) have reportedly agreed to proposed settlements of class action lawsuits against them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (styled Astiana v. Kashi Company, No. 11 CV 1967-H (BGS) and Thurston v. Bear Naked, Inc., No. 11 CV 2890-H (BGS)) alleging, among other things, that Kashi and BearNaked misled consumers by marketing its products as either “All Natural” or “Nothing Artificial” or “100% Pure & Natural” or “100% Natural”  when the products allegedly contained synthetic or artificial ingredients, according to the Kashi & Bear Naked All Natural class action settlement notice.

The proposed Kashi & Bear Naked settlement classes reportedly include, unless otherwise excluded, the following:

Members ofthe Kashi All Natural / Nothing Artificial Food Products Class are those California residents who purchased between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014 the specified Kashi Products listed in section II, paragraph A.23 of the Kashi Stipulation of Settlement, available at www.NaturalClassSettlement.com

Members of the Bear Naked 100% Pure & Natural / 100% Natural Class are those California residents who purchased between September 21, 2007 and May 1, 2014 the specified Bear Naked Products listed in section II, paragraph A.23 of the Bear Naked Stipulation of Settlement, available at www.NaturalClassSettlement.com.

Kashi has agreed to create a cash Settlement Fund of $5 million, while Bear Naked has agreed to create a cash Settlement Fund of $325,000. Kashi Settlement class members reportedly will be eligible to receive (1) a cash payment up to a maximum of $25.00, without proof of purchase ($0.50 per qualifying Product purchased for a maximum of 50 Products), and (2) a cash payment of $0.50 for each package purchased with proof of purchase. Bear Naked Settlement class members reportedly will be eligible to receive a cash payment up to a maximum of $10.00, without proof of purchase ($0.50 per qualifying Product purchased for a maximum of 20 Products), and (2) a cash payment of $0.50 for each package purchased with proof of purchase.

For more information about the Kashi All Natural Class Action Settlement, visit www.NaturalClassSettlement.com, write to All Natural Class Actions Settlement Administrator, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10068, Dublin, OH 43017 or call 1-844-322-8154.

If You Have Thoughts On The Kashi All Natural Class Action Settlement, Share Your Kashi Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you were employed by USS-Posco Industries as a non-exempt production and maintenance employee in Pittsburg California, you may be entitled to benefits from the proposed USS-Posco class action settlement.

USS-Posco Industries (“USS-Posco” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of an employee wage and hour class action lawsuit against USS-Posco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (captioned as Cordy v. USS-Posco Industries, Lawsuit Case No. 12-cv-00553-JST) alleging, among other things, that Posco failed to pay  its hourly production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees and workers for all time worked (e.g., for time workers spent donning protective gear, clocking in before shifts, and walking to and from work stations), denied employees’ meal and rest periods, failed to provide itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages upon termination or resignation, according to the court’s order preliminarily approving the USS-Posco class action settlement agreement.

The USS Posco class action settlement reportedly includes the following subclasses of persons, unless otherwise excluded:

Unpaid Time Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees by USS-Posco at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California at any time from February 2, 2008 to January 17, 2014

Itemized Wage Statement Penalty Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees by Defendant at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California who performed services for which they received a paycheck for USS-Posco at any time from February 2, 2011 through April 30, 2013, the date Defendant started to provide wage statements that comply with California Labor Code Section 226.

Continual Presence Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees that held a Continual Presence position at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California who performed services for USS-Posco at any time from February 2, 2008 through May 31, 2011 when Defendant instituted its missed meal period payment system 

Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees by USS-Posco at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California who left their employment with Defendant, either by termination or quit, at any time from February 2, 2009 to January 17, 2014.

The USS-Posco Settlement reportedly provides for a Gross Settlement fund of $3,500,000 to pay, among other things, settlement awards to the USS-Posco Class Members, claims-administration fees, enhanced payments to the Class Representatives, and attorney’s fees and costs.

If You Have Thoughts On The USS-Posco Production & Maintenance Employee Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement, Share Your USS-Posco Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you have owned or leased a Model Year 2003-2006 Porsche Cayenne vehicle with a V8 engine you could be affected by the Porsche Cayenne class action settlement.

Porsche Cars North America Inc. (“Porsche” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Porsche in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (captioned In Re: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation, Case No.: 2:11-MD-2233) alleging, among other things, that certain 2003 to 2006 model year Porsche Cayenne vehicles with V8 engines were equipped with plastic coolant pipes that could prematurely degrade or fracture, according to the Porsche Cayenne class action settlement notice.

Who Is Included In The Porsche Cayenne Class Action Settlement?

The proposed Porsche Cayenne plastic coolant pipe settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all persons in the United States who currently own or lease or previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle in the United States (i.e., model year 2003 to 2006 Porsche Cayenne vehicles with a V8 engines).

What Settlement Benefits Does The Proposed Porsche Cayenne Class Action Settlement Provide?

Porsche settlement class members who submit valid, timely (no later than December 12, 2014) , and approved claim forms may be entitled to reimbursement for a past coolant pipe repair, replacement with genuine Porsche aluminum coolant pipes or repair of damaged Porsche plastic coolant pipes.  Claim forms are available online at coolantpipesettlement.com/claim

Where Can You Obtain More Information About The Proposed Porsche Cayenne Plastic Coolant Pipe Class Action Settlement?

For more information about the Porsche Cayenne settlement, contact Settlement Administrator at In Re Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation c/o GCG PO Box 35081 Seattle, WA 98124-3508, call 1-877-940-0112, fax 614-553-1216, email submission@coolantpipesettlement.com or visit the Porsche settlement website at www.CoolantPipeSettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Porsche Cayenne Plastic Coolant Pipe Class Action Settlement, Share Your Porsche Cayenne Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 6 comments }

If You Receive Royalties from Warner Music Group for Mastertones and Digital Downloads of Recordings You Could Benefit from the Warner Music Group WMG Class Action Settlement.

A class action settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit brought against Warner Music Group (“WMG” or “Warner Music Group” or “Defendant”) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (styled In Re: Warner Music Group Corp. Digital Downloads Litigation, Case No. 12-CV-0559-RS) alleging that Warner Music Group failed to properly credit royalty payments for digital downloads and mastertones of recordings under certain contracts and claiming that digital downloads and mastertones should be treated as a “license” which typically provide a higher royalty rate rather than as a “sale” of a record, according to the Warner Music Group class action settlement notice.

The Warner Music Group class action settlement includes the following class members:

All persons and entities (and their successors-in-interest, assigns and heirs) that are parties to a Royalty Rate Contract, dated on or prior to December 31, 2001, with a WMG U.S. Label (a WMG U.S. Label means a wholly owned U.S. recorded music subsidiary of WMG; or s partially owned U.S. recorded music subsidiary of WMG for which WMG has the unilateral right to enter into litigation settlements; or any of either of their predecessors in interest).

WMG U.S. Labels  reportedly include Atlantic Recording Corporation, Bad Boy Records LLC, Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Fueled By Ramen LLC, Nonesuch Records Inc., Rhino Entertainment Company, Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and Word Entertainment LLC.

The WMG Warner Music Group class action settlement provides payments to eligible Class Members for past exploitations of downloads and mastertones from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012 (i.e., an $11.5 million Settlement Fund) and provides for an increase in the royalty rate for future exploitations.  In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must file claim forms.  A WMG claim form can downloaded online at the WMG Download Settlement Site.

For more information on the In Re: Warner Music Group Corp. Digital Downloads Litigation class action settlement, write to WMG Download Class Settlement, PO Box 8094, Faribault, MN 55021-9494, call the Settlement Administrator at 877-690-7098 or visit the settlement website at www.wmgdownloadsettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The WMG Warner Music Group Digital Download Royalty Class Action Lawsuit Settlement, Share Your WMG Warner Music Group Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 3 comments }

Sports Authority Class Action Settlement of Employee Wage and Hour Lawsuit Given Final Court Approval.

A federal judge has given final approval to the The Sports Authority class action settlement of the lawsuit filed against The Sports Authority in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California in Oakland (styled as Khanh Nielson v. The Sports Authority Case No. C 11-4724 SBA) alleging, among other things, that certain Sports Authority retail employees were subject to off-the-clock mandatory security checks of their personal belongings when they left the store, according to the Court’s order granting plaintiffs motion for final approval of the The Sports Authority class action settlement.

The Sports Authority class action settlement reportedly included all persons who are and/or were employeed as non-exempt retail employees by TSA Stores, Inc. d/b/a Sports Authority, in the State of California from August 22, 2007 through the present.  According to the final approval order, the Sports Authority class action settlement resolved plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims in the gross amount of $2,500,000.

The Court reportedly considered “the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement” and found that the Sports Authority settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

If You Have Thoughts on the the Sports Authority Employee Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement, Share Your Sports Authority Class Action Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you are a current or future adult immigration detainee who has or will have proceedings in immigration court in San Francisco, your rights may be affected by the Department of Homeland Security Immigration Detainee Class Action Settlement.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (“Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of an immigration detainee class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (captioned as Uelian De Abadia-Peixoto v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 3:11-cv-4001 RS) challenging as unconstitutional Defendants’ prior policy and practice of shackling all civil immigration detainees appearing in San Francisco immigration court at their wrists, waists, and ankles during their Master Calendar, Bond, and Merits Hearings without an individualized determination of the need for restraints, according to plaintiffs unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Department of Homeland Security class action settlement.

The proposed settlement class reportedly consists of all current and future adult immigration detainees who have or will have proceedings in immigration court in San Francisco during the period from December 23, 2011 to three years from the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement.

The Department of Homeland Security class action settlement reportedly provides, among other things, that the Department of Homeland Security will change its policy so that members of the Settlement Class will no longer be restrained during their Bond and Merits Hearings absent narrowly-defined emergency situations, and while Defendants may continue to restrain Settlement Class members during Master Calendar Hearings, Settlement Class members will be allowed under the settlement to request a modification of those restraints when a physical, psychological, or medical condition would prevent the application of restraints in a safe and humane manner. In addition, the settlement reportedly provides that The Department of Homeland Security will not chain detainees to one another under any circumstances.

If You Have Thoughts On The Department of Homeland Security Class Action Settlement, Share Your Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

Avis Class Action Lawsuit Over Shift Manager Pay Under Fair Labor Standards Act FLSA To Remain Certified As A Collective Action.

A federal court has reportedly refused to decertify the Avis class action lawsuit complaint brought against Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC (“Defendants” or “Avis”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (styled as Frederick Ruffin Jr. and Loretta Donatelli v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, No. 11-1069 (SDW) (MCA)), alleging that Avis misclassified certain employees (Shift Managers) as exempt from the FLSA and failed to pay them for all hours worked as well as overtime compensation even though they allegedly performed non-exempt duties such as cleaning cars, moving cars around the parking lot, checking inventory, renting cars, and/or installing child car seats, according to the Court’s Opinion denying Avis’s Motion for Decertification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.

The Avis Class Action Lawsuit reportedly consists of a nationwide class of Shift Managers (and other comparable positions) who “are or were formerly employed by Defendants . . . at any time since February 24, 2008 to the entry of judgment in the case.”

The Court reportedly found that the plaintiffs in the Avis Class Action Lawsuit satisfied their burden of demonstrating that they are similarly situated.

If you have thoughts on the Avis Shift Manager Wage & Hour and Overtime Pay Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Avis Class Action Comments below.

{ 1 comment }

Appeals Court in California Reverses District Court’s Order Dismissing Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit Brought Under FCRA Over Publishing Of Consumers’ Personal Information.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reportedly reversed the district court’s dismissal, based on lack of Article III standing, of a Spokeo class action lawsuit filed in the Central District of California (styled Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-05306-ODW-AGR, Appeal No. 11-56843) alleging that Spokeo operates a website, Spokeo.com, that provides users with information about other individuals, including contact data, marital status, age, occupation, economic health, and wealth level and that Spokeo willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq by publishing inaccurate personal information about consumers on its website, according to the appeals Court’s opinion in the Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit.

On appeal, Spokeo reportedly contended that plaintiff could not sue under the FCRA without showing actual harm.  In finding that the plaintiff in the Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit had Article III standing, the Court explained, among other things, that when “the statutory cause of action does not require proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages.”

We previously wrote about the Spokeo class action lawsuit complaint.

If you have thoughts on the 9th Circuit’s opinion in the Robins v. Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit regarding Article III Standing, Share Your Class Action Comments below.

{ 0 comments }

Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Power Supply Unit Defect & Random Freezing, Restarting and Shutting Down of Certain HP Computers.

A federal court has reportedly denied Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“Hewlett-Packard’s” “or HP’s” or “Defendant’s”) motion to dismiss a consumer class action complaint against Hewlett-Packard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled David Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. CV 12-CV-00421-LHK) alleging, among other things, that HP fraudulently sold computers equipped with Power Supply Units or PSUs that were incapable of providing adequate power to the included components (including an Advanced Micro Devices AMD graphics card), causing the HP computers to randomly freeze, restart, or shut down, and that HP failed to disclose this defect to purchasers, according to the court’s order denying motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended complaint in the Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit.

The Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act or CLRA, the California False Advertising Law or FAL, California’s Unfair Competition Law or UCL, fraud, breach of express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty under the Song–Beverly Act.

The Court reportedly held that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his third amended complaint to support a plausible inference that HP had knowledge of the alleged defective PSUs, and that Plaintiff adequately alleged active concealment and exclusive knowledge.

The plaintiff in the HP Class Action Lawsuit reportedly has sought to represent a nationwide class of persons who between December 7, 2007 and the present “purchased . . . a computer, directly from Defendant, with an included power supply unit having a rated capacity lower than (1) the total combined wattage of all internal PC components and peripherals or (2) the capacity recommended by the manufacturer of any included component or peripheral.”

If You Have Thoughts On The Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your HP Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 2 comments }

If You Purchased Banana Boat Continuous-Spray, Sun-Care Products, You May Be Entitled to Benefits from the Banana Boat Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

Banana Boat class actionEnergizer Personal Care, LLC (“Energizer” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Energizer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (captioned as In re UltraMist Sunscreen Litigation, Case No. 13-cv-131) alleging, among other things, that Energizer failed to adequately compensate consumers for the lost value of certain Banana Boat UltraMist Products that were subject to a voluntary Market Withdrawal due to a potential risk of igniting on the skin if contact was made with a source of ignition, according to the Banana Boat class action settlement notice.

The proposed Banana Boat settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all residents of the United States or its territories who purchased one or more of the following Banana Boat UltraMist products (with the following UPCs) between January of 2010 and October of 2012:

  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 15 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965600979-8
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965600878-4
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965600955-2
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604626-7
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 30 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965600956-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Family Size Continuous Spray | 9.5oz 7965605167-4
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965600933-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 50 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604492-8
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 50 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604549-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Kids SPF 50 Clear Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604495-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604551-2
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50+ Continuous Spray | 9.5oz. 7965605110-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 85 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604654-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 85 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604665-6
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Kids SPF 85 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604916-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 85 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604677-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 85 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604679-3
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SFP30 Continuous Spray 2pk | 6oz 7965605374-6
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Continuous Spray 2pk | 6oz 7965605028-8
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray 2pk | 6oz w/Sport Lotion & Lip 7965605389-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 8oz w/Sport Lip Balm 7965607951-7
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 6oz w/$1 Instant Redeemable Coupon 7965607975-3
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Continuous Spray 3ct | 6oz 7965605464-4

The Banana Boat class action settlement reportedly provides that class members who file valid and timely claims (no later than June 30, 2014) can recover vouchers for replacement products, cash and/or coupons.  There are reportedly four categories of benefits, which depend on how many Banana Boat UltraMist products were purchased, whether they were used fully and whether such purchases can be substantiated.  Claim forms are available online at SunscreenClassAction.com

For additional information about the Banana Boat class action settlement you can write the UltraMist Settlement Administrator at Sunscreen Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 43240 Providence, RI 02940-3240, call 1-800-219-8798 or visit the UltraMist settlement website at SunscreenClassAction.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Banana Boat UltraMist Sunscreen Class Action Settlement, Share Your Banana Boat Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

Facebook Users File Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Facebook For Allegedly Intercepting and Scanning Private Facebook Messages.

Facebook class actionFacebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or “Defendant”), the largest online social network in the world, has reportedly been named as a defendant in a privacy class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc., Case No. CV 5:2013-cv-05996) alleging, among other things, that Facebook violated consumers’ privacy by reading its users’ personal, private Facebook messages without their consent, according to the Facebook class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed Facebook class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All natural person Facebook users located within the United States who have sent or received private messages where such message included URLs in the content, from within two years before the filing of this action up through and including the date of the judgment in this case.”

The Facebook class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq., California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 630, et seq., and California’s Unfair Competition Law California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the Facebook class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, an order certifying the case as a class action, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Facebook, an award of statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, for the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or $10,000, an award of statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 637.2, for the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs and Class Members, and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs.

If You Have Thoughts On The Facebook Private Message Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Facebook Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 5 comments }

If you initiated a Western Union money transfer in the U.S. and your money transfer was not redeemed within 60 days, You May Be Entitled to Benefits from the Western Union Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

Western Union class actionWestern Union Financial Services, Inc. and The Western Union Company (“Western Union” or “Defendants”) have reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Western Union in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (captioned as Tennille v. The Western Union Co., Case No. 09-cv-00938-JLK) alleging, among other things, that Western Union failed to timely notify its customers of unredeemed Western Union Transactions in the U.S. who used Western Union’s money transfer services, according to the Western Union money transfer class action settlement notice.

The proposed Western Union settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded,

All persons who initiated any Western Union Transaction (i.e., a consumer-to-consumer, consumer-to-business, or business-to-consumer money transfer transaction initiated using Western Union’s services, such as Dinero En Minutos, Envio Plus, Equity Accelerator, Mexico Giro Paisano, Money in Minutes, Money Transfer, Next Day, Quick Cash, Quick Collect, Quick Pay, Speedpay, and Swiftpay) in the U.S. on or after January 1, 2001 and on or before the date of Preliminary Approval, whose Western Union Transaction was not redeemed within 60 calendar days; and who either  have not claimed their money transfer funds (nor had that money claimed on their behalf) from Western Union; or were informed by written communication that their money was about to escheat to the state, district, territory, or United States jurisdiction in which their money transfer was initiated, and who sought and received a refund of their money but did not receive a payment for interest that Western Union earned on the money.

The Western Union class action settlement reportedly provides that Western Union will create a Class Settlement Fund reportedly estimated to be about $180 million from which class members can make claims.  The Western Union settlement also reportedly will create procedures to help class members recover money that was escheated as well as certain prospective relief regarding notices to customers of unredeemed funds.  Claim forms reportedly will be mailed to settlement class members after the settlement become effective and all appeals resolved and the deadline to file the claims will reportedly be 180 calendar days after the Settlement Effective Date.  The Western Union settlement has reportedly been approved by the district court, but appeals have been filed.

For additional information about the Western Union class action settlement you can write the Tennille v. Western Union Settlement Administrator at PO Box 3058, Portland, OR 97208-3058, send an email to info@MoneyTransferSettlement.com, call 1-877-316-3151 or visit the Western Union class action settlement website at moneytransfersettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The Western Union Money Transfer Class Action Settlement, Share Your Western Union Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 3 comments }

1-800 Contacts Class Action Settlement Given Final Approval By District Court Judge

A federal judge has given final approval to the 1-800 Contacts class action settlement of the lawsuit filed against 1-800 Contacts, Inc. in the U.S. District for the Southern District of California (styled as Robert Reed v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02359 JM (BGS)) alleging, among other things, that 1-800 Contacts violated California Penal Code Section 630 by recording confidential telephonic communications with class members without obtaining their consent, according to the Court’s order granting final approval of the 1-800 Contacts class action settlement and motion for attorneys fees, litigation expenses and plaintiff enhancement award.

The 1-800 Contacts settlement class included “[a]ll natural persons who, while present in California, participated in at least one recorded telephone call with 1-800 Contacts, Inc. between August 15, 2011 and September 10, 2012.”

The court reportedly concluded that the proposed 1-800 Contacts settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate and approved it.  The settlement reportedly provided for 1-800 Contacts to pay $11,700,000 for claims of Class Members who returned valid and timely Claim Forms, for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses of the class action attorneys who represented the class, and a service payment or incentive award to the Plaintiff for representing the class, and the costs of settlement claims administration.

For more information or questions, you can email info@1800ContactsSettlement.com, mail Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3041 Faribault, MN 55021-2641, call 888-261-9752, fax 855-263-3449 or visit the 1-800 Contacts settlement website at 1800ContactsSettlement.com.

Settlement update: According to the settlement website, distributions were made on January 16.

If you have thoughts on the 1-800 Contacts call recording class action settlement, share your 1-800 Contacts class action comments below.

{ 1 comment }

LinkedIn Customer Files Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against LinkedIn For Allegedly Sending Endorsement Emails.

LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn” or “Defendant”) has reportedly been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled Perkins et al v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. CV 5:2013-cv-04303) alleging, among other things, that LinkedIn appropriated the names, photographs, likenesses, and identities of Plaintiffs to advertise its products and services for a commercial purpose without Plaintiffs’ consent by sending endorsement emails, according to the LinkedIn class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed LinkedIn class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All natural persons in the United States who had an account registered on www.linkedin.com as of May 15, 2013, and had their names, photographs, likenesses, or identities associated with that
account used in an endorsement email sent to third parties by Linkedln.”

The LinkedIn class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violation of California’s Common Law Right of Publicity, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act, Cal. Penal Code 502 and the California Invasion Of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class in the LinkedIn class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, declaratory relief, disgorgement, restitution, damages, statutory damages, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees and pre and post judgment interest.

If You Have Thoughts On The LinkedIn Endorsement Email Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your LinkedIn Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

Apple Customer Files Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Apple For Allegedly Having Requested and Recorded ZIP Codes In Connection With Credit Card Transactions.

Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) has reportedly been named as a defendant in a privacy class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (styled Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell v. Apple, Inc., Case No. CV 1:14-cv-10100) alleging, among other things, that Apple violated Massachusetts law by requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to make a purchase, Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class members’ personal identification information, i.e., their ZIP codes, according to the Apple class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed Apple class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All persons from whom Apple requested and recorded personal identification information in conjunction with a credit card transaction occurring in Massachusetts.”

The Apple class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violations of Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class in the Apple class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, declaratory relief, statutory damages, doubling or treble damages, injunctive relief, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees and pre and post judgment interest.

If You Have Thoughts On The Apple Privacy Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Apple Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If You Bought Mario Badescu Healing Cream or Control Cream, You May Be Entitled Benefits from The Mario Badescu Class Action Settlement.

Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inn. (“Mario Badescu”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Mario Badescu Skin Care in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles (styled as Wankyu Choi, et al. v. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc., et al., Case No. BC501173) alleging, among other things, that Mario Badescu failed to disclose all of the ingredients used in the advertising, labeling, or marketing of its Mario Badescu Healing Cream and Control Cream products, purportedly in violation of certain state and federal laws and consumer protection statutes, according to the Mario Badescu Healing Cream & Control Cream class action settlement notice.

The Mario Badescu skin care settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all persons in the U.S. who purchased Mario Badescu Healing Cream or Control Cream since February 15, 2009.

The Mario Badescu class action settlement reportedly provides that class members who file valid claims (no later than April 7, 2014) will be sent one, or if applicable, two $45.00 Certificates (one is for Healing Cream purchases made and the other is for Control Cream purchases made) that can be used towards the purchase of any Mario Badescu product at www.mariobadescu.com or service or product at Mario Badescu’s New York spa. In addition the defendant has agreed to pay for costs associated with the notice and administration of the Settlement, attorneys’ fees and costs and a service payment to the Class Representatives.

For more information regarding the Mario Badescu class action lawsuit settlement, visit the Mario Badescu settlement website at www.healingandcontrolcreamsettlement.com, write to the settlement Administrator at Healing and Control Cream Settlement, PO Box 3078, Faribault, MN 55021-2678, call 1-866-329-4703, or email info@healingandcontrolcreamsettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The Mario Badescu Class Healing Cream & Control Cream Skin Care Action Settlement, Share Your Mario Badescu Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you bought a Lifetime Products, Inc. Basketball Product Labeled “Made in USA” your right may be affected by the Lifetime Products Basketball Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

Lifetime Products, Inc. and The Sports Authority, Inc. have reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of two class action lawsuits against Lifetime Products and The Sports Authority in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego (styled as Andrew Hecht-Nielsen v. Lifetime Products, Inc. and The Sports Authority, Inc. and Saman Afrouznia v. Lifetime Products, Inc. and The Sports Authority, Inc., Case Nos. 37-2011-00089380-CU-BT-CTL and 37-2012-00087934-CU-BT-CTL) alleging, among other things, that Lifetime misrepresented the country of origin of various Lifetime basketball products by claiming they were “Made in USA” when they allegedly contained certain Chinese made components, according to the Lifetime Products class action settlement notice.

The Lifetime Products settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all persons who purchased an eligible Lifetime basketball product with the unqualified designation “MADE IN USA” or “MADE IN THE USA” in California, from April 11, 2007 to December 31, 2012 for non-commercial use.

The Lifetime Products basketball Made in USA class action settlement reportedly provides that class members who file valid claims (no later than April 8, 2014)  can recover, for each eligible lifetime product purchased for $1 to $200, a gift card for $12.50 redeemable at lifetime.com, or an outdoor basketball model No. 1069263, and for each eligible lifetime product purchased for $201 or more, a gift card for $30.00 redeemable at lifetime.com, or a composite leather basketball model. No 1052936.  Lifetime Products class action claim forms are available online at thelifetimesettlement.com/claim-form.pdf.

For more information regarding the Lifetime Products class action lawsuit settlement, write to Lifetime Products, Inc. et al., Class Action c/o Tilghman & Co. Attn: Steve Tilghman P.O. Box 11487 Birmingham, AL 35202-1487, or visit the Lifetime Products settlement website at thelifetimesettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Lifetime Products Basketball “Made in USA” Class Action Settlement, Share Your Lifetime Products Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

Neiman Marcus Customer Files Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Neiman Over Data Theft Security Breach.

Neiman Marcus class actionThe Neiman Marcus Group, LLC (“Neiman Marcus” or “Neiman” or Defendant”), a luxury specialty department store, has reportedly been named as a defendant in a privacy class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (styled Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Case No. CV 14-0233) alleging, among other things, that Neiman Marcus was subject to a data breach or data theft that may have affected credit and debit cards swiped at Neiman Marcus stores between December 15, 2013 and January 1, 2014 and that customer names, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, PINs and embedded codes may have been stolen potentially exposing customers to identity theft, according to the Neiman Marcus Data Theft Security Breach & Privacy class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed Neiman Marcus class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All persons who used credit or debit cards at Neiman Marcus stores in the United States and shose personal and/or financial information was breached during the period from on or about December 15, 2013 to January 1, 2014.”

The Neiman Marcus Data Theft class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged negligence, invasion of privacy, bailment, conversion, and violation of New York General Business Law section 349.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class in the Neiman Marcus class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees an equitable relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of revenues and injunctive relief.

Recent privacy and data theft class action complaints have been filed against other major retailers, including Target.

If You Have Thoughts On The Neiman Marcus Data Theft Security Breach & Privacy Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Neiman Marcus Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

Barnes & Noble, Inc. BKS Securities Purchasers File Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Barnes & Noble, Inc. BKS For Securities Fraud.

A securities fraud class action lawsuit complaint has reportedly been filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. a leading retailer of content, digital media and educational products and bookstore operator (“Barnes & Noble”) and others (collectively “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (styled Anthony Taylor v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al) alleging, among other things, that Barnes & Noble violated the federal securities laws by issuing misleading statements and omissions relating to Barnes & Noble’s Nook e-book reader sales and operations, according to the Barnes & Noble BKS securities fraud class action lawsuit complaint.

The Barnes & Noble BKS securities fraud class action complaint reportedly is brought on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the securities of Barnes & Noble between February 25, 2013 and December 5, 2013.

The Barnes & Noble BKS class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts claims for alleged violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The Barnes & Noble BKS securities fraud class action lawsuit complaint reportedly seeks to recover compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable or injunctive relief, interest, and an award of attorneys fees and costs.

If You Have Thoughts On The Barnes & Noble BKS Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Complaint, Share Your Barnes & Noble Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

Stewart’s Shops Employee Files Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Against Stewart’s Shops.

An employment class action lawsuit complaint has been reportedly filed against Stewart’s Shops Corp. (“Stewart’s Shops” or “Defendant”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (styled Holly Gregory v. Stewart’s Shops Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-00033-TJM-ATB) alleging, among other things, that Stewart’s Shops failed to pay its workforce for all hours worked, failed to provide certain meal breaks and failed to pay uniform maintenance pay, purportedly in violation of State and Federal law according to the Stewart’s Shops class action lawsuit complaint.

Plaintiff reportedly seeks to represent a Rule 23 Class against Stewart’s Shopswith respect to a claim under New York law, that is comprised of and defined as:

All persons who work or have worked as a non-exempt employee for defendant in one of its convenience stores located in the State of New York in the past six years.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a collective Class with respect to a claim under federal law (the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA) against Stewart’s Shops, that is comprised of and defined as:

All persons who work or have worked as a non-exempt employee for defendant in one of its convenience stores in the past three years (the FLSA Class).

The Stewart’s Shops e mployment class action complaint reportedly seeks damages for the difference between the full hourly wage as mandated by federal and state law and the hourly wages paid to the plaintiff Classes for the hours they worked, liquidated damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, uniform maintenance pay, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment  interest and an injunction.

If You Have Thoughts On The Stewart’s Shops Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Stewart’s Shops Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. CTB Common Stock Purchasers File Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. For Securities Fraud.

A securities fraud class action lawsuit complaint has reportedly been filed against leading tire manufacturer Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (“Cooper Tire & Rubber”) and others (collectively “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (styled OFI RISK ARBITRAGES, OFI RISK ARB ABSOLU and TIMBER HILL LLC, v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, et al) alleging, among other things, that Cooper Tire & Rubber violated the federal securities laws by issuing misleading statements and omissions in connection with the proposed acquisition of Cooper Tire & Rubber by Apollo, an Indian-based tire company, that was announced on June 12, 2013, according to the Cooper Tire & Rubber CTB securities fraud class action lawsuit complaint.

The Cooper Tire & Rubber CTB securities fraud class action complaint reportedly is brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cooper Tire & Rubber between June 12, 2013 and November 8, 2013, as well as Cooper stockholders of record as of the close of business August 30, 2013 who were entitled to vote on the Merger, and were damaged as a result.

The Cooper Tire & Rubber CTB class action lawsuit complaint reported asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9.

The Cooper Tire & Rubber CTB securities fraud class action lawsuit complaint reportedly seeks to recover compensatory damages, interest, equitable or injunctive relief and an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

If You Have Thoughts On The Cooper Tire & Rubber CTB Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Complaint, Share Your Cooper Tire & Rubber Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If You Purchased Popchips Snacks, You May Be Entitled to Benefits from the Kelly v. Popchips All Natural Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

popchips class action lawsuit settlement

Popchips, Inc. (“Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Popchips in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City (captioned as Tonya Kelly, et al. v. Popchips, Inc., Case No. 1316-CV11037) alleging, among other things, that Popchips marketed and labeled popchips snack products as an “all natural” and “healthier” food that contained “no preservatives” and “no artificial flavors or colors” which was allegedly misleading since popchips snacks purportedly contained artificial and synthetic ingredients, were highly processed and contained too much fat, according to the Popchips class action settlement notice.

The proposed Popchips settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all of those persons who reside in the U.S. and who purchased any of the following eligible popchips brand snacks in the U.S. between January 1, 2007 and November 14, 2013:

  • original
  • sour cream & onion
  • barbeque
  • sea salt & vinegar
  • sweet potato
  • parmesan & garlic
  • jalapeno
  • cheddar
  • salt & pepper
  • chili lime
  • thai sweet chili
  • brown sugar & spice
  • nacho cheese tortilla chips
  • ranch tortilla chips
  • salsa tortilla chips
  • chili limón tortilla chips
  • katy’s kettle corn
  • salted caramel corn
  • hint of butter corn chips
  • cheddar corn chips
  • sea salt corn chips
  • salsa corn chips
  • sea salt rice chips
  • wasabi rice chips
  • golden cheddar multi grain chips
  • salted multi grain chips
  • olive oil veggie chips
  • tuscan herb veggie chips
  • sea salt veggie chips

The Popchips class action settlement reportedly provides that the defendant will pay $2.4 million in cash and vouchers to Pop chips settlement class members who timely (by July 7, 2014) file valid claims. Settlement class members can choose between a cash option of $1 per bag bought (maximum of 10 bags per household) or a voucher to receive two $1 bags of Pop chips Snacks (up to a maximum of bag per household).  Pop chips has also reportedly agreed to change certain of its marketing and packaging relating Pop chips Snacks.  Claim forms are available online for download or for online submission on the settlement website.

For additional information about the Popchips class action settlement you can write the Settlement Administrator at Popchips Settlement, PO Box 3076, Faribault, MN 55021-2676, call 1-877-465-4896, or visit the settlement website at popchipssettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Popchips Snack All Natural Class Action Settlement, Share Your Popchips Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }