July 2009 Archives

United Business Media (UBM), organizers of the Game Developers Conference(R) (GDC), has filed a lawsuit against China GDC (CGDC) organizers China Game Publishers Association and Howell International Trade Fair Limited for unfair competition and false advertising. UBM has requested that CGDC organizers immediately cease its illegal acts, offer a public apology, lift their influence on the local industry, and compensate for all corresponding economic losses.

With more than 20 years of history, GDC is the most renowned professional conference under UBM and the world's largest conference for game industry professionals. Yearly events that target game developers in the online, console, and mobile sectors are held in cities across Europe, Asia, and the US. As of 2009, there are five events under the GDC brand, including: GDC, GDC Canada, GDC Europe, GDC Austin, and GDC China.

UBM is pursuing legal actions against CGDC for unlawful infringement of rights. CGDC has not only caused public misconception with false propaganda and commercial defamation of UBM and GDC China 2009, but the China Game Publishers Association has also issued letters to relevant industry enterprises and individuals preventing them from participating in GDC China 2009. These series of actions have negatively influenced the industry and led to serious repercussions.

UBM's decision to turn to legal actions is not only based on its determination to safeguard its rights, but also to raise public awareness, set a positive example for the industry, and promote fair business and equal competition.

For more information on the 2009 Game Developers Conference(R) China please visit www.gdcchina.com.

SOURCE Think Services

When a hot isostatic press (HIP) exploded at Bodycote IMT, Inc's Andover, Mass. facility in 1998, the force of the explosion propelled huge metal pieces of the HIP -- the largest in the world when it was built in 1986 -- more than a quarter of a mile from the plant. Without the 19-foot, 140 ton HIP -- a large steel pressure vessel used to make metal components less porous through the application of both extremely high temperatures and pressure -- the plant was unable to run at full capacity for nearly two years. During that time, a new HIP was custom designed, built, and installed.

Day Pitney filed a complaint on Bodycote's behalf in Massachusetts Superior Court in May 2000 against a number of defendants, including the designer and seller of the vessel, the manufacturer of the steel used in its fabrication, and the water treatment company that had prescribed and sold the corrosion inhibitor used in the water that cooled the outside of the vessel. After several years of protracted discovery, including dozens of depositions, Bodycote resolved its claims against all but the water treatment company.

At trial, the Superior Court split the liability and damages portions. During the liability phase, the parties called multiple scientific experts in a variety of disciplines, including metallurgy, corrosion engineering, fracture mechanics, materials science, and microbiology. Bodycote's experts testified persuasively that the defendant's product had caused the vessel to pit, leading to microscopic cracks in the vessel wall that in turn grew and caused a catastrophic rupture. The liability portion of the trial lasted several weeks, after which the jury found for Bodycote on multiple theories, including breach of implied warranty and breach of contract. In the damages phase of the trial, the jury awarded Bodycote more than $18 million.

The defendant appealed, challenging several of the trial judge's instructions to the jury as well as certain of her evidentiary rulings. Rejecting each of the defendant's claims of error, the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision last month. With interest, the total recovery exceeds $30 million.

Lawyers and support staff from Day Pitney's Boston and Hartford offices handled the case from beginning to end. Jim Rotondo and David Broughel tried the case. Jonathan Handler was heavily involved in discovery until the claims against the other defendants were resolved. Allan Taylor briefed and argued the appeal.

SOURCE Day Pitney LLP

When New York State and City agreed on July 20th to repay the federal government nearly $540 million to settle whistleblower-sparked Medicaid false claims allegations, it ended a lone whistleblower's long struggle to correct speech therapy billing problems in an upstate New York county and across the state. When improper billing wasn't corrected, the whistleblower sued on behalf of the federal government under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act ("FCA"), New York City qui tam whistleblower attorney David A. Koenigsberg of Menz Bonner & Komar LLP revealed.

"The information and cooperation that my client provided led directly to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' audits that ultimately confirmed the state-wide billing problems that are the subject of this historic settlement," Koenigsberg said.

"As a result, New York State and City agreed to pay the seventh largest whistleblower settlement in the largest government False Claims Act Medicaid case in United States history," Koenigsberg added. "The value of whistleblower law in repatriating federal dollars back to United States taxpayers should be crystal clear."

An April 2000 report by the former U.S. General Accounting Office, now called the Government Accountability Office, stated that Illinois, Michigan, and New York accounted for more than 60 percent of total school-based medical claims, while New York accounted for 44 percent of that total. When the Inspector General's audits were released New York officials loudly criticized the agency's methodology and conclusions. With today's settlement the city and state did not admit liability, nor did the federal government concede that its claims were not well founded.

Under the agreement settling allegations of improperly billed pre-school and older students' speech, physical and occupational therapy, psychological counseling and transportation over a seven-year period, New York State will pay approximately $331,879,000 and allow the federal government to retain approximately $108,000,000 of nearly $303,000,000 it withheld for questionable billing during a seven-year period ending in December 2008. New York City will pay $100,000,000.

Additionally, New York State agreed to enter into a "Program Compliance Agreement" with the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") governing the manner in which the state Department of Education offers future School and Preschool Supportive Health Services Programs. This agreement is believed to be the first of its kind between the federal government and a state or local government. It is similar to Corporate Integrity Agreements reached with private entities settling Medicaid fraud allegations.

"Billions and billions of stimulus, bailout, TARP and related recovery dollars are being pumped into the economy now by the federal government. In the years to come, the money-saving value of the False Claims Act and concerned-citizen qui tam whistleblowers who step forward to do the right thing will be proven again and again," John Menz, name partner of Koenigsberg's firm predicted.

Federal lawsuits unsealed in the United States District for the Northern District of New York with the settlement:

98-CV-1929 (TJM) (DEP), U.S. ex rel. Cirrincione v. Larry D. Tingley, et al.; and 99 CV 2082 (TJM) (DEP), U.S. ex rel.. Cirrincione v. Thomas Hamel, et al.

The complete Menz Bonner & Komar LLP news release will be posted athttp://www.PRforLAW.com and on a new Menz Bonner & Komar LLP Web site to be launched in the near future.

SOURCE Menz Bonner & Komar LLP

The notice process has begun in a pending class action against MetLife. The class action involves MetLife's April 2000 conversion from a mutual insurance company to a stock company. The nationwide class action certified by the Federal Court in New York includes more than 8.6 million current and former MetLife policyholders.

The notice of the class action will be mailed to more than 5 million current and former policyholders. The notice will also be published in two national newspapers. A more detailed notice is available at www.insuranceclassaction.net. Additional information is also at 800-961-8147.

The text of the mailed notice is set out below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    United States District Court
    Eastern District of New York

    In Re MetLife Demutualization Litigation
    00cv2258 (TCP) (AKT)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ("MetLife Co.") POLICYHOLDERS WHO RECEIVED IN METLIFE CO.'S DEMUTUALIZATION AT LEAST (a) 11 TRUST INTERESTS OR (b) $156.75 IN CASH OR POLICY CREDITS.

YOU MAY BE A CLASS MEMBER IN THIS LAWSUIT AND YOUR RIGHTS COULD BE AFFECTED.

This notice describes (1) this class action lawsuit; (2) the class definition; (3) your right to share in any judgment or settlement, and the binding effect on you of any judgment or settlement if you do not exclude yourself from the class; (4) your right to be excluded from the class and how to exclude yourself; and (5) how to get more information.

This Lawsuit In April 2000, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife Co.") converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock company, called "demutualization." The suit is against MetLife Co. and MetLife, Inc. ("Defendants") by policyholders in the demutualization ("Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs allege Defendants sent policyholders an information package that omitted material facts and contained false statements, to win the policyholders' vote to demutualize. Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated certain federal securities laws and damaged class members. Defendants deny plaintiffs' claims and are contesting the suit. Defendants believe they did not omit material information or make false statements to policyholders, and that class members were not damaged.

Class Members You received this notice because you may be a class member. In a class action, claims common to a group, called class members, are litigated together. The results bind all class members. Class members' rights will be affected by this lawsuit.

You are a class member if you received in MetLife Co.'s demutualization (a) 11 or more trust interests in MetLife, Inc. stock or (b) cash payment or policy credits of $156.75 or more.

Remaining a class member If you are a class member and do not exclude yourself (as described below), you will remain a class member. You will be represented by Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, Jared Stamell, Esq. You will share in any judgment and be bound by the Court's decisions, whether favorable or unfavorable. You will not be personally liable for attorneys' fees or other expenses. You may not bring your own suit for the same claims. (If you wish, you may be represented in this class action by your attorney at your own expense.)

Excluding yourself You can exclude yourself from the class. If you exclude yourself, you will not share in any judgment in the case or be bound by the Court's decisions, and may pursue your own claim against Defendants individually, at your own expense.

TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF, YOU MUST MAIL BY September 8, 2009 a signed, dated statement (with your name, the policy owner's name (if different from your name), policy number, your address and telephone number) saying you exclude yourself from the MetLife Demutualization Litigation to: MetLife Demutualization Litigation, Notice Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co LLC, P.O. Box 808054, Petaluma, CA 94975-8054

More Information This notice does not describe all the lawsuit's details. All papers filed in this case can be inspected at: Clerk, U.S. District Court, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722. Additional information, including a more detailed notice, is at: WWW.INSURANCECLASSACTION.NET

DO NOT ADDRESS QUESTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OR THE JUDGE.

DO NOT CALL METLIFE OR YOUR AGENT ABOUT THIS NOTICE OR THE CASE.

FOR QUESTIONS VISIT WWW.INSURANCECLASSACTION.NET OR CALL 800-961-8147.

SOURCE Law firm of Stamell & Schager, LLP

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) has just submitted an Amicus Brief in support of the lawsuit against Craigslist filed by Sheriff Dart of Cook County, Illinois seeking to hold them accountable for their role in facilitating sex trafficking. CATW's Amicus Brief contains an impressive list of 31 co-signers representing a wide range of domestic and international members of the anti-human trafficking movement.

The goal of the law suit is singular: close the 'adult services' section of Craigslist. "It is well known that Craigslist's 'adult services' section has become the technological red light district for pimps/traffickers and johns," says CATW's Co-Executive Director, Norma Ramos, Esq.

"Sheriff Dart's Craigslist lawsuit requests the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to compel Craigslist to no longer host these ads. In doing so an industry standard could be set which would help create a human trafficking-free Internet," says CATW's Founder, Dorchen Leidholdt, Esq.

"For far too long, Craigslist has been profiting from the facilitation of the prostitution and trafficking of women and minors in Cook County. It is time this website be held accountable for the harm that they continually enable," says Rachel Durchslag, Executive Director of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE).

"Craigslist continues to cynically profit from the rank exploitation of others by functioning as an online pimp," says Ms. Ramos. Our Amicus Brief, prepared by CATW's pro bono law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, demonstrates the widespread support for Sheriff Dart's bold legal efforts to hold Craigslist accountable.

To view CATW's Amicus Brief go to our website at

www.catwinternational.org

SOURCE The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)

PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO LLP, one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' litigation firms today obtained a monumental Sixty Million ($60,000,000) Dollar verdict in a medical malpractice action awarded to a Bronx woman, Allison Hugh against Ferdinand A. Ofodile, M.D., a Queens County Plastic Surgeon.

Alison Hugh went to Dr. Ofodile for a thigh lift procedure. As a result of the procedure, Ms. Hugh sustained significant injury and deformity to the labia of her vagina which is permanent and cannot be surgically corrected.

Dr. Ofodile failed to inform and provide Ms. Hugh with informed consent and failed to inform her of the risks involved in this type of procedure including the risk of vaginal opening and deformity. Dr. Ofodile failed to use proper surgical techniques by leaving too much tension in the skin of her groin area.

The Bronx jury found that Dr. Ofodile failed to appropriately advise Ms. Hugh about the risks of this type of procedure and that Dr. Ofodile deviated from good and accepted medical practices in his surgical technique.

The jury unanimously awarded Ms. Hugh Ten Million ($10,000,000) Dollars in past pain and suffering and Fifty Million ($50,000,000) Dollars in future pain and suffering.

The case was tried by Andres F. Alonso, a partner in the law firm of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP who has consistently obtained large verdicts and multi-million dollar settlements.

SOURCE Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

A Cleburne, Texas family has settled a wrongful death lawsuit arising out of an 18-wheel truck crash against Pioneer Drilling Co. (Amex: PDC), PDC MGMT Co., Pioneer Drilling Services, Ltd. and Daniel Armstrong. The family was represented by John David Hart of the Law Offices of John David Hart in Fort Worth, Texas and Dan Boulware and John MacLean of MacLean & Boulware in Cleburne, Texas.

Pioneer Drilling Co. settled the lawsuit on July 9, 2009, after three days of trial in Johnson County before the Honorable William Bosworth. Plaintiffs had not yet rested their case when the $16 million settlement was reached.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the husband, children and parents of Rhonda Henson. On September 11, 2008, oil field equipment fell off a tractor-trailer owned and operated by Pioneer Drilling Services, Ltd., a division of Pioneer Drilling Co., on FM 157 in North Texas, crushing Mrs. Henson's vehicle and causing her death.

According to the Venus Police Department's report, the driver of the semi-truck, 21-year old Daniel Armstrong, failed to control his speed and the truck's load was not properly secured. Plaintiffs' investigation and sworn testimony revealed that Armstrong was not legally qualified to drive the Pioneer Drilling Co. truck on the day of the accident and that documents in his driver qualification files were fabricated, falsified and backdated by Pioneer employees after the accident.

"We're pleased to be able to resolve this for Rhonda Henson's family," said John David Hart, attorney for the family of Mrs. Henson. "We believe it was a just outcome within our civil court system and a fair settlement given the facts of the case. It wasn't about money for the Henson family. This lawsuit was about accountability and responsibility."

"This is a terrible loss for the Henson family," said Hart. "Every week seems to bring news of another terrible truck crash. But we believe that this settlement will at least make companies more aware of the need for good safety and hiring practices and hopefully prevent another needless tragedy."

SOURCE The Law Offices of John David Hart

Nestle Waters North America Inc. is pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached with Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation that brings resolution to a lengthy Michigan legal case. The agreement preserves the Company's use of a spring water source that supports its Stanwood-based Ice Mountain(R) brand natural spring water bottling plant employing some 250 local people.

"Reaching this agreement is very important for Nestle Waters' employees and their families, the west Michigan community, and our company, in that it brings certainty for our operations, supports local jobs, and puts an issue behind us," said Nestle Waters North America Vice President Heidi Paul. "We are pleased that our west Michigan operations are thriving, providing valuable, good paying jobs for many local people, and contributing to area charitable causes. We look forward to continuing our investment in the area."

Under provisions of the agreement Nestle Waters will continue its sustainable use of natural spring water from four company-owned wells located in Mecosta County, Michigan. The Company will continue to withdraw an average of 218 gallons per minute of spring water (313,000 gallons per day), with rates varying depending on the time of the year and seasonal conditions at the site. The agreement makes the water withdrawal rates permanent.

Mecosta Circuit Court Judge Susan Grant approved the agreement on Monday (July 6), and entered a final order closing the case.

In developing the Sanctuary spring water source beginning in 2000, Nestle Waters conducted extensive hydrologic and ecologic assessments to assure the long-term sustainability of the source and surrounding environment. Moreover, Nestle Waters utilizes a network of environmental monitoring instruments at the site to ensure the area's abundant and renewable groundwater resources are carefully monitored for long-term sustainability.

Source: Nestle Waters North America Inc.

The mother of an autistic child joined Consumer Watchdog and its attorneys today to announce a lawsuit against the California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC"), the Schwarzenegger Administration agency responsible for regulating many of California's health insurers. The suit alleges that the DMHC has wrongfully allowed insurance companies to refuse to pay for autism treatments, resulting in the denial of critically needed, medically necessary treatment for autistic children.

The suit, filed by Consumer Watchdog and Strumwasser & Woocher LLP, alleges that the DMHC, and its Director Cindy Ehnes, recently changed the state agency's policy to permit insurers to deny coverage for Applied Behavioral Analysis ("ABA"), an essential treatment for autism, in plain violation of the California Mental Health Parity Act. That law requires health insurers to cover and pay for all medically necessary treatments for autism, including ABA. If successful, the suit would require the DMHC to bar insurers from refusing to cover medically necessary ABA treatments. The suit also seeks to compel the DMHC to turn over records that would expose the full extent of the DMHC's violations of the California Mental Health Parity Act and the Knox-Keene Act.

"Californians, including those stricken by autism, and their parents and caregivers, expect regulators to enforce the law, not to side with insurance companies seeking to boost their profits by denying patients the care they need," said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the non-profit advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and author of the landmark insurance reform initiative Proposition 103. "Governor Schwarzenegger, a longtime and vocal supporter of the Special Olympics and developmentally disabled children, will now have to explain in court why his administration is allowing health insurers to evade state mental health laws and shift health care costs to already beleaguered taxpayers."

Governor Schwarzenegger, who appointed the current Director of the DMHC, has received $711,200 in campaign contributions from Blue Cross, Kaiser and Blue Shield -- three health insurers regulated by the DMHC that commonly deny coverage for autism treatments.

The DMHC's actions upholding heath insurance denials for medically necessary autism treatment puts children at risk by forcing parents to seek treatment through over-stretched taxpayer-funded programs, or to forgo treatment altogether.

"HMOs and health insurers are denying autistic children the most effective medical treatment that is available, with severe consequences for them, their families, and the state's taxpayers," said Fredric D. Woocher, lead counsel in the suit. "Insurance companies are blatantly violating California law. Yet the Department of Managed Health Care is not only standing by and doing nothing to prevent these violations; it is actually supporting the insurers as they abandon autistic children and their families."

Insurer's New Tactic in the Battle to Avoid Paying for Autism

ABA is a form of behavioral therapy that has been scientifically proven to improve brain function in autistic children. For years, insurance companies refused to pay for ABA on the grounds that it was "experimental" and that there was insufficient medical evidence to show that it was an effective treatment for autism. But the evidence supporting the efficacy of ABA is now overwhelming. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the United States Surgeon General all agree that behavioral interventions, such as ABA, are a critical component of any comprehensive autism treatment program.

According to the lawsuit, until March of this year, health care consumers were able to appeal an insurer's denial of ABA through the DMHC's Independent Medical Review ("IMR") system, in which a treatment denial is reviewed by a team of doctors that is unaffiliated with the insurance company that denied the treatment and independent of the DMHC.

The suit alleges that as the IMR doctors increasingly overturned insurer treatment denials, compelling the insurers to pay for ABA, insurers privately urged the DMHC to change its procedures and process the treatment denials through the DMHC's own internal grievance review system. Unlike the IMR system, in which independent doctors evaluate whether a treatment should be provided on the basis of whether it is medically necessary and effective, the grievance system is conducted by DMHC staff, who are not doctors and who simply defer to the insurers' determination of whether the claim is even covered by their health care policies.

"Health insurers want to re-write the law to benefit their bottom line and the regulators are holding the pen," said Pam Pressley, Consumer Watchdog's Litigation Director. "California's mental health laws are clear: doctors get to decide whether care is needed, not insurance company bureaucrats or government lawyers."

Consumer Watchdog has learned that the health insurance industry mounted a lobbying campaign to convince the Schwarzenegger Administration that ABA is an "educational" program not covered by health insurance policies. On March 9, 2009, the DMHC issued a memo indicating that the agency would review ABA and other autism treatment denials through the DMHC's internal grievance system as urged by insurers.

Consumer Watchdog has evidence that the DMHC has in fact upheld the insurers' denials of ABA on coverage grounds in violation of the Mental Health Parity Act. That law requires insurers to pay for any "medically necessary" and effective autism treatment -- a decision that must be made by independent doctors, not by insurance company bureaucrats or government lawyers.

Kristie Sepulveda Burchit, mother of Aidan who suffers from autism, joined the group to announce the lawsuit. Kristie's insurer, Blue Cross, first refused to provide ABA in 2008 on the ground that it was not medically effective as a treatment for autism. Kristie requested an IMR and the independent physicians who reviewed her appeal overturned the Blue Cross denial. Then, in 2009, shortly after the DMHC issued its March 9 memo, Blue Cross again refused to pay for Burchit's continued ABA autism treatment, this time on the basis that it supposedly was "not covered" by Kristie's health insurance policy because ABA is an "educational service." Burchit has now appealed the denial to the DMHC through the grievance system and is awaiting a decision from the regulator. Consumer Watchdog said that if it wins the lawsuit, the DMHC would have to order Blue Cross to provide ABA treatment for Aidan.

The suit also alleges that the DMHC and its Director Cindy Ehnes:

• Illegally instituted a policy of denying ABA treatment on the ground that providers were inadequately licensed, despite the fact that the law clearly requires health insurers to cover all medically necessary treatments for autism, including ABA, whenever such services are either provided or supervised by a licensed or certified professional.
• Illegally withheld public documents properly requested under the California Public Records Act, which would expose how the DMHC conducts its "grievance system" and would reveal the full extent of the DMHC's violations of the mental health parity law.

Nearly 1 out of every 150 children born in the United States is diagnosed with autism. As of December 2007, the California Department of Developmental Services provided care to nearly 37,000 Californians with autism.

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog