Recently in Join a Class Action Category

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited (NYSE Amex: NEP) ("China North" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired China North securities between August 14, 2009 and May 26, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges China North and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. China North is an independent, non-state-owned oil production company that engages in oil drilling project management including the exploration and the extraction of crude oil in proven oilfields in Northern China.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:  (1) that a Company officer and a Company director engineered significant improper cash transfers between the Company's bank accounts and their personal accounts; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  

On May 27, 2010, China North issued a press release disclosing that in 2009, a Company officer and a Company director had engineered significant improper cash transfers between bank accounts of the Company and their personal accounts.  The Company also disclosed that its Chief Executive Officer was placed on administrative leave and that he had stepped down as Chairman of the Board, both pending the outcome of the Company's forensic audit.  In addition, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer and a director had resigned.  As a result of this event and a serious of other adverse events, China North's stock has been halted and investors have suffered significant losses.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than August 10, 2010, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. 

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 following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the 8.875% Trust Preferred Securities of Regions Financing Trust III (the "Securities") (NYSE: RF-PZ) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the April 2008 Offering (the "Offering").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Regions Financial Corporation ("Regions" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors, its auditor, and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Regions engages in consumer and commercial banking, trust, securities brokerage, mortgage and insurance products and services. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's Offering, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company improperly accounted for goodwill; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for impaired assets; (3) that the Company improperly recorded provisions for loan losses; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (5) that the Company was not as well capitalized as represented; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times.

On or about April 28, 2008, the Company conducted the Offering. In connection with the Offering, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The Offering was a financial success for the Company, as it was able to raise over $345 million by selling 13.8 million shares of the Securities to investors at a price of $25 per share. On January 20, 2009, Regions announced dismal financial results for the fourth quarter of 2008. Details included a $6 billion non-cash charge for impairment of goodwill, a $469 million loss resulting from non-performing assets, and an increase in the loan loss provision to $1.150 billion. Then, on February 2, 2009, it was reported that Moody's had downgraded the Company, largely due to its deteriorating loan portfolios in the troubled Florida market. As a result of these disclosures, the price of the Securities has declined significantly.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than June 1, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

SOURCE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) ("Insight" or the "Company") between April 22, 2004 and February 6, 2009 inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com" target=_new>info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Insight and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Insight provides brand-name information technology hardware, software, and services to large enterprises, small to medium-sized businesses, and public sector institutions in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company committed errors in the manner in which it accounted for certain aged trade credits; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 9, 2009 the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would be restating previously reported earnings because management had identified errors in the way it historically accounted for certain aged trade credits. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $2.85 per share, or 43.8 percent, to close on February 9, 2009 at $3.05 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit www.btkmc.com

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than May 26, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

SOURCE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

Lawsuit Alleges that Drywall Emits Toxins Harmful to Humans and Property.

Jason and Melissa Harrell recently filed a class action lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on behalf of themselves and other homeowners who purchased defective homes. The Harrells allege that drywall installed in their new home, and those of their neighbors, emits destructive and harmful toxins and renders the homes unsafe and uninhabitable. The defective drywall was installed in the Harrell's home by the builder, South Kendall Construction Corp., and supplied by Banner Supply Company.

In January 2008, Jason and Melissa Harrell purchased their newly constructed home in Palm Isle Estates, a single family home community in Homestead, Fla. Shortly after moving in, the Harrells noticed foul odors in the home, their children began experiencing significant respiratory problems and Jason began suffering headaches. The Harrells also experienced problems with their air conditioning system, appliances, internal wiring and other electrical systems rendering them, in some cases, inoperable. Black soot appeared on the copper wiring in the home and in other places.

The Harrells repeatedly asked their builder to fix the problems, but it failed to correct them. The Harrells were forced to move out of their home and into a rental. With no resolution in sight, the Harrells turned to legal counsel. "The Harrell's thought they were buying their dream home," said Joey Givner, attorney for the Harrells. "Instead, they stepped into a nightmare." Several of the approximate 100 homeowners in the Palm Isles Estates have already relocated for similar reasons.

The lawsuit, brought by the law firms of Higer Lichter & Givner, The Blumstein Law Firm and Podhurst Orseck, alleges that the defective drywall emits toxins, including carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide and hydrogen sulfide. "These toxins pose serious health threats, including headaches, respiratory ailments and other health problems. They also corrode various metals within the structure of the homes and disrupt with the operation of electronic equipment," said attorney Mark Blumstein. "People buy homes for shelter and protection; not homes that make them sick."

According to the lawsuit, South Kendall Construction Corp. purchased this defective Chinese drywall from suppliers including Banner, a Miami-based company who supplied the drywall for the construction of the homes. It is believed that the manufacturer of the drywall exported approximately 67.3 million pounds of Chinese-made drywall into the United States, which is enough to build up to 7,500 average-size single-family homes. "There are many others experiencing the same problems as the Harrells," said attorney David Lichter. "Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to get companies to do the right thing is to sue them. The Harrells want a safe house, not a sick house."

A special phone line has been set up for those seeking information on the issue 305-356-7549.

SOURCE The Blumstein Law Firm

Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Rieke, et al. v. Monaco Coach Corporation, Civil Action No. 09-50444-KJC, on behalf of 2,600 employees who were laid off by Monaco Coach Corporation in December 2008 and thereafter without receiving any notice. Monaco Coach Corporation, the manufacturer of luxury recreational vehicles headquartered in Coburg, Oregon, and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol MNC until trading was suspended on March 3, 2009, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 5, 2009. The lawsuit claims that Monaco violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") which provides that employers must give sixty days notice to employers prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the notice.

The lead plaintiffs, Randy Rieke, Cary Rieke, Gary Betts, Joyce Betts, Michael Dager, Angel Dager, Diana Hensley, and Jenny Ossthun, were all employed by Monaco at its headquarters in Coburg, Oregon. However, the lead plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of all employees who were part of the layoffs, including those who worked at Monaco's facilities located in Milford, Indiana, Wakarusa, Indiana, and Warsaw, Indiana.

"The WARN Act provides for sixty days advance notice of plant closings and mass layoffs to affected employees, and Monaco Coach Corporation has admitted publicly that it did not give such notice," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We will vigorously seek just compensation for our clients and their co-workers and ask simply that the company comply with the federal laws passed by Congress to protect employees from being abruptly terminated without notice, which substantially impacts their ability to find substitute work and support their families." Mr. Carson also noted that some of the lead plaintiffs and other affected workers are doubly impacted because they are husband and wife.

Former employees of Monaco Coach Corporation who were part of these layoffs can obtain additional information by calling Shanon Carson at (215) 875-4656, or by email at scarson@bm.net" target=_new>scarson@bm.net. This lawsuit is being prosecuted by the Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. (www.bergermontague.com), which consists of over 60 attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex litigation. The firm's Employment Law Group has extensive experience in representing employees in class and collective action litigation, and the firm has played lead roles in major cases for almost 40 years resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes they represent.

SOURCE Berger & Montague, P.C.

 
The lawfirm Glancy Binkow, Goldberg LLP is filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who had purchased or acquired the securites of Rackable Systems, Inc. Class plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired securities from the above mentioned firm, from between October 30, 2006 and April 4, 2007, known as the class period, are included in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit charges Rackable and some of the company's former executive officers with the violation of certain federal securities laws.
Rackable designs, manufactures and implements highly scalable computer servers and high-capacity storage systems.
The complaint against the company alleges that throughout the class period, the defendants disregarded the fact that most of the information they were presenting to the public, about the performance of their overall business, their operations and their future prospects, were materially false and misleading. The company could not continue like this for long. In January, 2007, Rackable shocked the market when it disclosed its report for the financial results for the fourth quarter of 2006. These results showed that the company had achieved a gross margin of only between 19.2% and 19.7 percent. After this news was disclosed, Rackable's share prices crashed by $12.44 per share. This trend continued in February when the company declared the results of its fourth quarter financial results and again in April when the company announced that their non-GAAP gross margins would be 30% lower than what they had expected owing to the intensity of competition in three of the company's largest accounts.   
To read the details of the case check out the complete article on msnbc.com here.

San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis and the city of San Jose, have been slapped with a federal class action lawsuit which contends that thousands of people from minority communities have been falsely and unconstitutionally charged with public drunkenness.
The lawsuit filed by two men, seeks damages on behalf of all victims which could put a heavy cost on the city's aggressive drive to charge people who display public drunkenness.
The two men are from Santa Cruz County and were arrested on June 2008 in downtown San Jose. San Jose attorney Jeff Kallis has filed the lawsuit on behalf of the two men.
The lawsuit comes amidst a public upheaval after Mercury News reported that the department had arrested and charged more people for public drunkenness in the past few years than any other department in the state.
To read more about the case click here.

One of America's leading health-care multinationals, Baxter Healthcare Corp., now faces a class action lawsuit over the effects of its blood thinning drug, Heparin. The lawsuit alleges that the multinational substituted safer, natural ingredients with cheaper chemical ingredients that were not approved by the United Stated FDA.
Joyce Ann Osteen, a class plaintiff, is suing Baxter over Heparin in St. Clair County Circuit Court. Her claim is that, the company began substituting organically prepared Heparin with a more dangerous ingredient in order to make greater profits.
Originally the drug is made from pork intestines that have been cooked and dried. The lawsuit states that, the intestines of about 3,500 pigs are required to produce a mere 2.2 pounds of raw Heparin. This crude Heparin is then processed to remove impurities and results in the production of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) such as Heparin Sodium or Heparin Lithium.
The suit further states that the company found a much cheaper way to make their products. They identified a molecule similar to Heparin in Heparin Sodium. Around March 19, 2008, the Heparin-like molecule was identified as over-sulphated chondroitin sulphate (OSCS).
The cheaper alternative is not natural and is not approved by the United States.
Soon after Baxter discovered this new substitute, there was an abnormal increase in the number of patients who were adversely reacting to Heparin. During this time, around January 17, 2008, Baxter issued several press releases recalling nine lots of Heparin Sodium injection multiple dose vials. On February 28, 2008 they expanded their recall to include all lots and sizes of their Heparin products.
Osteen states that, the FDA announced their discovery of the mysterious contaminant on March 19, 2008.
The lawsuit alleges that, as of April 8, 2008, there have been 103 reported deaths in connection with the administration of Heparin to patients since January 1, 2007. Of those deaths, 91 were reported to have occurred after January 1, 2008.
To read more about the case click here.

Target Corporation has become engaged in a class action lawsuit filed in St. Claire County, Madison, Illinois, over the marketing of its 'Immunity Supplement' product. The lawsuit alleges that Target mislead the public when marketing its product.
Brian Buehlhorn, a resident of St Claire and one of the class plaintiffs alleges that the retailer misled the public into believing that the immunity supplement product, protected users from airborne viruses, is a form of immune system defense and that it decreased a person's likelihood of getting sick. He further claims that Target's 'unfair and deceptive' tactics caused substantial damage to the class and him.
To read more about the case click here.

The state of Michigan may end up paying millions of dollars in damages to inmates of its correctional facilities, for the sexual abuse they faced while serving their prison terms.
The current scenario comes as no surprise to human rights groups who have been crying themselves hoarse for several years now, over the condition of female inmates in prison. They have alleged that prison guard were routinely groping, molesting and raping female inmates.
The class-action lawsuit was first filed in 1996. It may now end up costing the state hundreds of millions of taxpayer's dollars in damages. So far, 18 women have testified against the Michigan Department of Corrections. They have received $50 million in damages. Several more are yet to testify. The class-action lawsuit now has more than 500 inmates participating in it.
In its defense, the state has claimed that it did not take any action earlier because none of the inmates reported the alleged assaults. They also said that in any case, they found it hard to give credibility to the testimony of convicted criminals.
To read more about the case click here.

Thousands of hurricane victims, who had filed a lawsuit seeking damages for their alleged exposure to a toxic chemical while living in emergency housing provided by the federal government, have been denied class action status by a federal judge.
The emergency housing began to be provided to victims after violent Gulf Coast storms in 2005.
Victims of Katrina and Rida, from Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas have filed hundreds of lawsuits over the past three years against the federal government and several manufacturers of these housing trailers.
Allegedly, the trailers contain an excessive amount of formaldehyde that has caused its residents to fall sick. The chemical is permitted by law in limited quantities as a preservatice on plywood and other building materials. However, the victims allege that the levels of formaldehyde used for the mobile homes were unhealthy.
The federal court attempted to consolidate the cases in one court last year.This was the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This was done since several of the cases had common issues.
In October, attorneyss representing the plaintiffs filed motions seeking class action status. That would have resulted in a single trial to settle all the cases. However, in Monday's judgement, Judge Kurt Englehardt refused to allow class action status since the number of plaintiffs and multiple defendants as well as the varying state laws made the cases impossible to consolidate.
To read more about the case click here.

 

A Navy Lt. who was a part of the war in Iraq in 2007, returned home to his condo complex in Virginia Springs, to find that his car had been towed and auctioned off by the Norfolk Towing Company.

The U.S. Justice department has filed a lawsuit against the towing company on behalf of the officer.

Navy Lt. Yahya Jaboori is protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act which protects active-duty personnel from civil court actions including the enforcement of liens, judgements and evictions.

Justice department officials are considering converting the lawsuit into a joint class action lawsuit as they suspect that the company preys on military members by enforcing storage liens without a court order.

To read more click here.

KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton and military contractor to the U.S., is facing a number of lawsuits over its activities in Iraq and other conflict areas. The largest contractor for the U.S. Army, KBR is ranked amongst the top ten contractors for the U.S Department of Defence.
The class action suit against the contractor alleges that they knowingly and intentionally supplied sub standard food to the U.S. forces that at times was even contaminated with shrapnel and other materials.
Joshua Eller, who worked for the U.S. Air Force in 2006 at the Balad air force base northeast of Baghdad is part of one of the several class action lawsuits against the contractor. In his suit he alleges that KBR intentionally or knowingly supplied spoiled, expired, rotten and contaminated food to the forces stationed at the base.
He further alleged that they provided U.S. forces with ice that had been transported in trucks that had been used to carry human remains and that the ice often contained traces of body fluids and putrefied remains.
The lawsuit against the contractor also states that instead of properly disposing bodies of deceased individuals they burned their bodies on an open air pit. Wild dogs raided the pit and were often seen roaming around the base with body parts in their mouths.
Eller alleged in the suit that he has developed lesions on his skin, blisters on his feet and gastrointestinal problems as a result of the contractor's cost cutting measures.
This class action lawsuit was filed in a Texas Court in the beginning of last month.
Meanwhile, sixteen members of the Indiana National Guard have filed a suit against KBR for allegedly exposing them to a toxic substance while they were guarding an Iraqi water treatment facility in 2003.
Their suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Evansville, Indiana, and alleges that KBR allowed them to be exposed to sodium dichromate, a chemical used as an anti- corrosive but which is also known to contain hexavalent chromium which is a known carcinogen. According to the lawsuit the exposure occurred when the guards were providing security for KBR workers at their Qarmat Ali water plant in southern Iraq. KBR was restoring the facility so that it could be used to increase production from Iraqi oil wells.
The guardsmen allege that KBR officials repeatedly told them that there wasn't any danger in working at the facility even though civilians working there recorded high levels of chromium in their blood.
To read the whole article including the other cases against KBR click here.
     
 

Three drycleaners based in Atlanta are filing a federal lawsuit seeking class action status on behalf of more than 600 Korean-American and other drycleaners alleging that they had been defrauded by gas provider, Infinite Energy. The lawsuit alleges that the energy providers continued to charge exorbitant prices as per a three year contract they had signed with the drycleaners signed right after Hurricane Katrina.
Byung Ho Cheoun, Shiraz Kurani and Hae Sook Chung filed the lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The three drycleaners are seeking to achieve joint class action status for the lawsuit which they are filing on behalf of the Korean Cleaners' Association of Atlanta (KCAA), among others. All drycleaners in Atlanta are dependant on natural gas to run their business.
The plaintiffs allege that Infinite Energy forced them into signing long term contracts that immediately after the hurricane which had resulted in a hike in gas prices as drilling, refining and transportation activities had been disrupted. The company was still trying to bind them to their contract even after gas prices had stabilized.
David Pardue of the firm Hartman, Simons, Spielman & Wood LLP based in Atlanta, is representing the drycleaners. Pardue who normally defends class action suits took up this case as he wanted to help the community recover their losses.
Despite formal attempts by members of the association to renegotiate the contract the company continued to hold all of them to the higher rate even though several members of the KCAA refused to agree to the new rate.
The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages as well as punitive damages and a permanent injunction.

A group of investors who purchased property in the Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas are filing a lawsuit against the company to get their money back. The group of hotel- condo buyers have alleged that Trump Ruffin Tower I LLC, a company that lists billionaire Donald Trump as its managing member, defrauded them by selling them condos that were promised to them at a different size but were as much as 100 square feet short of the original dimensions.
The eight investors are seeking class action status for their lawsuit which was filed in a District Court and will soon be heard by a federal judge.
The investors also allege that they were lured into buying the units based on securities violations, a lack of disclosure and fraud.
Enticed by talk of high-yield returns on the rental units that would cover mortgage payments and other costs associated with buying the property, the group was sold the property on its rental-income potential, stated Ricardo Ehmann, attorney representing the plaintiffs. In addition to this the investors were not informed of the risks involved in purchasing the property as required by federal law.
To learn more about the case read Valerie Miller's article on www.lvbusinessexpress.com

A 20 month long stalemate between former NFL players and the NFL Players Association finally ended this week with their case being heard at a federal district court in San Francisco. NFL retirees had filed a class action suit against the players association based on the allegation that that the union and its for-profit Players Inc. marketing arm were failing to share millions of dollars in revenue from various commercial ventures such as the sale of collectibles, trading cards and electronic games.
According to Manatt Phelps, the law firm representing the retired players, the lost income for more than 2000 class members was estimated to be around $106.9 million. This figure could triple if the retirees won their case and if jurors awarded them maximum punitive damages.

Pic courtesy David Farrell from flickr.com

Farmers in five states sued Bayer a German producer of genetically altered seeds after the U.S.government in 2006 said trace amounts of modified rice being grown experimentally by the company in Louisiana were found in rice raised for consumption. About 1200  rice farmers of the U.S.had filed a class suit against the company for the contamination of crop, but they lost the bid for this group act. District Judge Catherine Perry in St. Louisin refused to allow the claims to be combined in class-action suits, one per state.

Though the farmers lost group leverage for forcing settlements because of the ruling, they may regain it if Bayer lose early trials. Read more here