What You Should Know About a Google Class Action Lawsuit

The first thing you should know about a Google class action lawsuit is that you aren’t the only one affected. If you don’t comment or object, you’re not the target of a class action lawsuit. That doesn’t mean you’re not affected, but it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t participate in such a lawsuit. You need to decide if you’re the target of such a lawsuit – and then you can decide whether you want to join.

if you don’t comment

A judge has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Google. The plaintiffs, who include people who are fresh college graduates, have a legitimate claim against the company for failing to disclose certain processes to users. The plaintiffs were successful in proving that Google failed to disclose the bidding process to its users, and the judge has dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The women who filed the class-action lawsuit against Google say they were treated unfairly. They were paid less than men for the same jobs, and were assigned lower-level positions, where they couldn’t move up the corporate ladder. One employee even claimed that her male colleagues earned more money than she did. The woman believes she was fired because she didn’t comment on the company’s sexual harassment policy, and is now trying to get compensation for the discrimination she experienced at Google.

if you don’t object

If you’ve been denied a job at Google, you’ll soon receive a notice in the mail. This lawsuit is a collective action, and you must have opted in to receive a settlement. You must have been 40 years old at the time of your interview, have been denied employment since August 28, 2014, and have been out of work for at least six months. Google has agreed to pay $11,465 to all opt-in plaintiffs, and will also form a recruiting subcommittee to investigate age bias complaints and conduct exit surveys.

if you exclude yourself

If you exclude yourself from a Google class action lawsuit, you will not receive any payment from the Settlement. However, you will retain your legal rights to sue Google. The Class Notice (Long Form) defines the Released Parties. Generally, you must file your request for exclusion by August 10, 2022. If you exclude yourself, you will be bound by the court’s rulings and any releases it makes against Google.

You can only opt out of the Google class action lawsuit if you’ve had enough time to consider the terms. You can do so by emailing the Google Legal Department. You’ll need to provide a copy of your email or phone number. You’ll need to be sure that you’ve given permission for Google to collect this information. In some instances, the law allows companies to obtain this information without asking for permission. But what if you were wronged? If the Google Street View vehicles were intercepting your electronic communications between 2007 and May 15, 2010, you’ll likely lose your copyright rights.

if you comment

If you’ve ever posted a comment on Google, you may be aware of a class action lawsuit that’s pending. The lawsuit, filed in March 2016, alleged that Google violated the federal privacy laws governing facial geometry. It also failed to properly disclose the photos it took and set a public retention schedule. As a result, it puts people at risk of fraud. The settlement allows class members to receive cash payments and avoid a trial verdict that could be much higher.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/what-you-should-know-about-a-google-class-action-lawsuit/
via IFTTT

What is a Class Action Lawsuit?

If you have ever asked yourself, what is a class action lawsuit? A class action lawsuit is a civil lawsuit that involves a group of people that have suffered similar financial losses or injuries. Class action lawsuits can be filed against a single defendant or a group of defendants, and they require judicial approval to proceed. In this article, we’ll explain what they are and how they differ from ordinary lawsuits.

Class action lawsuits are a type of civil lawsuit

What are class action lawsuits? Class action lawsuits are civil suits that are filed by one person who suffered a particular type of injury or loss and are filed against another party or parties. A class action lawsuit involves a number of people with similar injuries or losses who file suit against a defendant on behalf of the group. For instance, one plaintiff could represent many car owners who have suffered from defective sunroofs.

Class action lawsuits can be brought by employees who have suffered discrimination or exploitation in the workplace. Other types of class actions include employee injury, hour and wage issues, and immigrant worker issues. Another type of class action is one brought by workers who have been injured on the job or because they have suffered injuries due to unsafe working conditions. In some instances, a class action may include a group of thousands or millions of people.

A class action lawsuit enables individuals to file suits against large companies for damages. While each individual case is unique and worth filing, the combined claims of a group of people make a collective claim with more potential value. Although the individual claims may not be worth pursuing, a class of people who have suffered the same type of injury or harm can be represented by the same attorney. If a class action lawsuit is successful, the overall recovery is divided among the plaintiffs.

In most cases, a class action lawsuit is filed by a plaintiff on behalf of a group. The plaintiff files a complaint, stating the specific allegations of the lawsuit, and then serves it on the defendant. The real procedural step is the certification of the class. The plaintiff and defendant must agree to the settlement, but the settlement will not necessarily be split equally among the plaintiffs and defendants.

They involve a group of people suffering similar injuries or financial losses

A class action lawsuit is a type of legal action in which a large number of individuals files a lawsuit against a company for their injuries or financial losses. These suits typically involve a lead attorney or lead lawyer who acts as the primary contact for class members. Class members are notified about the lawsuits by the attorney appointed by the court overseeing the lawsuit. They then have two options: opt out of the class or file their own individual claims.

A class action lawsuit involves a large group of plaintiffs and can take many years to conclude. The problem with class actions is that damages are not always large when divided between the many plaintiffs. Nevertheless, class actions can provide a platform for individuals to receive compensation even if they cannot afford an attorney. Unlike individual lawsuits, in a class action, the plaintiffs are guaranteed a fair compensation amount.

The compensation in a class action lawsuit can come in the form of monetary or non-monetary damages. For example, a settlement can specify an amount of cash that should be distributed among all eligible class members. Class action judgments, on the other hand, are often a lump sum of money divided among the class members, with the distribution being based on the amount of damages suffered by each plaintiff.

In a class action, the lead plaintiff waives all rights to file a lawsuit individually, and attorneys representing a class may file on behalf of the entire group. A class action lawsuit may involve as few as 40 people, depending on the number of plaintiffs. Most states use the same number for class-action lawsuits. If the plaintiffs are less than forty, it may be difficult for a judge to certify the suit. It is also difficult for a class-action lawsuit involving fewer than 20 individuals to be certified.

They can be filed against one or a few defendants

Unlike individual suits, which are filed against one defendant, class action lawsuits can be filed against multiple defendants who are responsible for the same actions or inactions. While damages from class action lawsuits are often minimal, attorneys representing the class may receive a higher percentage of the payment. Many insurance companies also object to class action litigation, arguing that it only benefits lawyers. While this may be true, many lawsuits would not be brought otherwise, as most lawyers wouldn’t take such cases.

If you are a member of a class action lawsuit, you may receive a notice stating the reasons why you’ve been affected by the actions of another person or entity. This notice should include specific details about the incident, such as whether you purchased from a particular company or organization. If you are unsure of whether you’re eligible for class action lawsuits, you should consult with a lawyer.

Another benefit of class action lawsuits is that they allow individuals to change a particular practice for the better. In the landmark case of Landeros v. Flood, in 1976, plaintiffs were able to pressure doctors to report suspected child abuse by threatening civil action if they failed to do so. Consequently, physicians and other professionals began to report child abuse. It changed the way they practice medicine and reported child abuse.

Although class actions are rare, they can be filed against a single or a few defendants, the vast majority of them settle out of court. In such instances, the plaintiffs are awarded a percentage of the settlement, which can be a lump sum of money, a refund, or a service such as credit monitoring. Class actions can be filed in federal or state courts. Plaintiffs may prefer to file in a state court as it tends to be more favorable to plaintiffs than to defendants.

They require judicial approval

While class actions can be filed against a company, they are not permitted without judicial approval. The requirement for class action lawsuits is higher when the court requires a company to change the status quo. The case of the online wine company was rejected by a federal court because the proposed settlement included unapproved attorney fees and failed to adequately disclose the nature of the claim to absent class members. In addition, the lawsuit was not properly disclosed to class members and was subject to numerous objections.

To ensure that a class action lawsuit meets the standards established by courts of appeal, a committee known as the Coordinating Committee on Multiple Litigation (CCML) has been created to develop and promote methods for handling massive litigation. This committee also has issued rules that define the requirements for class litigation review. In subdivision (b)(3), the court must determine that a class action is superior to similar lawsuits. Otherwise, the plaintiff may be forced to file an individual claim, resulting in litigation costs that are significantly less than the total cost of the class action.

They can be settled before a jury

There are some advantages to class action lawsuits. The judge has the power to decide if a plaintiff can receive financial compensation for their case. The judge can determine the amount of compensation that the plaintiff is eligible to receive, and will decide whether the lawsuit will go to trial or be settled. The judge will submit the settlement funds to a lead plaintiff, who will then distribute them among the class members. If a settlement cannot be reached, the judge will come up with a plan to distribute the funds.

There are some advantages of settling a class action before the jury. Although the plaintiffs will receive a higher settlement, the defendant may have to pay a lower amount. A settlement can save the employer $15 million. While a lawsuit can go to trial, the attorneys representing the defendant will usually recommend a settlement before trial. They know that a settlement will have a higher chance of success if the case is settled before a jury.

Before a class action lawsuit can be filed, it must be certified by the court. To qualify for certification, the lead plaintiff must establish a valid claim against the defendant. They must also demonstrate that a group of other people have similar claims and that a class can be formed to represent them. A lead plaintiff must also retain legal counsel. Once a class is certified, the lead plaintiff must notify the class members. Class members are automatically included unless they opt-out. If plaintiffs wish to opt-out, they must follow a specified procedure.

In addition to these advantages, class action lawsuits can be settled before a trial. A lead plaintiff is the one who has filed the lawsuit. Once certified, they must notify the other victims of their case through an attorney or a third party. Then, they must agree on a settlement. If no settlement is reached, the lead plaintiff will receive compensation. There are no other disadvantages to settling before a jury, but most judges are not upfront about this.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/what-is-a-class-action-lawsuit/
via IFTTT

Can You File a Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple?

If you own an iPhone and are wondering whether you can file a class action lawsuit against Apple, there are many factors to consider. The company has been known for throttling older iPhones and charging developers a $99 annual fee for using its App Store. These and many other factors have led some to file a lawsuit against Apple. The proposed settlement seems fair. Jonathan Selbin, an attorney with the firm Kelley Drye LLP, believes the proposed settlement is fair and the company has not shared information about how to file a claim.

Apple’s fees for the App Store are “the behavior of a monopolist”

A legal case against Apple is being filed by Epic Games Inc., which alleges that Apple’s fees for the App Store are “anti-competitive.” The lawsuit was filed last year, after Apple changed the commission rate for developers from 30 percent to 15 percent for those who make over $1 million in revenue. The suit does not specifically mention this change, but it is worth noting because it is not entirely clear whether this is the case.

The fees for the App Store are the subject of a class-action lawsuit in the UK, where a group led by King’s College London digital-economy lecturer Dr. Rachael Kent is pursuing this case on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The group argues that Apple charges unreasonable entry fees to developers and monopolistically guards its apps.

While the lawsuit is a far cry from the monopolistic nature of the App Store, it highlights the commission rate in the App Store. Eighty-four percent of apps on the App Store are free, meaning developers don’t pay Apple a cent. The 15% rate was introduced last year as part of the App Store Small Business Program. This rate will remain unchanged until the App Store becomes free for everyone.

In addition to Epic Games’ recent lawsuit against Apple, the European Commission also recently charged Apple with a case of monopolistic practices in the music streaming industry. The European Commission has ruled that Apple’s fees for the App Store violate EU competition law. This case is ongoing. A final ruling is expected this fall. If the case is settled, it will likely result in a ban on Apple’s fees for the App Store.

While this lawsuit does not involve any actual anti-competitive practices, the lawsuit does highlight a common issue: the way Apple charges developers. For developers with less than $1 million in annual revenue, the company’s fees were reduced to 15 percent. Developers who make over $1 million in revenue do pay 30% of the fees. And if the lawsuit is successful, it could also set precedents for future fees.

According to Dr. Rachel Kent, a lecturer in the digital economy at King’s College London, Apple overcharges nearly 20 million users in the U.K. by 30%. And this is not only unjust, but also unfair. The company faces a court case over the matter, and the judge could award the users more than 1.5 billion pounds. She is requesting the compensation, which could be worth more than $2 billion.

Apple’s requirement that developers pay a $99 annual fee

The lawsuit, filed in the UK, was prompted by a group led by Dr. Rachael Kent, who alleges that Apple’s fee structure is unfair and inhibits competition. She is seeking $2 billion in damages and claims that Apple is a jealous gatekeeper of apps and services. While it has not commented on the lawsuit’s merits, Apple’s requirement to pay an annual fee has been the basis of other disputes.

The class action lawsuit was filed after Apple began imposing fees on developers who want to release apps on the App Store. The fee applies only to purchases made through the App Store. Developers also have to pay a $99 annual fee to receive access to the iOS app store. The lawsuit seeks to block Apple’s policies and the $99 annual developer fee.

The plaintiffs argue that the 30% commission Apple charges developers is excessive and violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. But Apple counters that the fee is reasonable and the developers should have been able to avoid it. Ultimately, the court found that the company violated the terms of its license agreement with developers by adopting a closed distribution system. The company is facing a pending trial on this issue, which could be resolved by a class-action settlement.

A class action lawsuit can be based on the monopoly location of Apple’s software in cyberspace. This means that Apple cannot set prices for third-party apps, so developers must sell their apps through the App Store. The company also has a monopoly on location in cyberspace. By charging developers an annual fee, Apple ensures that developers only sell apps through the App Store, thereby ensuring that Apple’s price-fixing practices are illegal.

Developers have long been unhappy with the fees Apple charges for app creation. As an example, developers have increased their prices to compensate for Apple’s commission. For example, 1,000 V-bucks costs $9.99 when purchased through the Apple IAP system, but just $7.99 if it’s not. The company’s fee-increasing model has led to two states to consider legislation to prevent in-app purchases altogether.

While class actions are permitted in all areas of the law, the rules are not always clear. The process requires that a plaintiff’s claim be representative of a class of similarly-situated persons. The plaintiff must prove a case in a court of law and satisfy certain procedural requirements. But if it’s successful, it can lead to a massive settlement for the developers.

Apple’s throttling of older iPhones

An agreement has been reached between Apple and the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging that it slowed down older iPhones without permission. The settlement is worth up to $500 million, with each affected iPhone owner receiving a settlement of $25. The settlement amount is preliminary and could change based on legal fees and the number of eligible iPhones. Reuters reports that the total amount will be between $310 million and $500 million.

The issue began a year after Apple first introduced the throttling. Apple admitted that it slowed down older iPhones in order to compensate for battery degradation, but did not disclose the performance throttling software. The company subsequently instituted a battery replacement program for $29, but did not disclose the performance-throttling software. Additionally, the company has given iPhone owners the option to turn off “throttling” in a future software update. Apple said the performance management system was necessary to keep iPhones running longer.

The UK-based class action claims that Apple intentionally throttled older iPhone models. The lawsuit was filed in the UK by Justin Gutmann, who alleges that Apple was misleading users and hid the power management tool in its software updates. The software update slowed down the handsets’ performance so that older devices wouldn’t shut down suddenly. Gutmann’s lawsuit seeks damages of approximately PS768 million for up to 25 million UK iPhone owners.

The case claims that Apple is guilty of misleading consumers by throttling performance of older iPhone models, which were sold in the UK. It also accuses Apple of artificially inserting pain points by reducing the performance of the phones, and for failing to inform consumers of the new throttling policy. The lawsuit could end up requiring Apple to compensate consumers. For its part, the plaintiffs hope that the settlement will make Apple compensate all affected iPhone owners.

The settlement was a win-win situation for consumers in the US and Italy. Apple has paid out a total of $500 million in compensation, and is now willing to settle more lawsuits over the issue. If Apple settles in the US, it could be a significant win for consumers in this category. If it settles in Italy, it may end up costing the company $113 million.

Although Apple has claimed that a new software update caused the issue, it did not disclose the reason behind it, so owners could not make informed decisions. The problem is not limited to Apple customers; the company has been criticized for not disclosing its decision. However, the UK tribunal is likely to award the affected consumers compensation based on US precedent. The compensation amount might not be as high as the plaintiffs would claim, but Apple will probably accept the ruling regardless.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/can-you-file-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-apple/
via IFTTT

Juul Appeal Stops FDA Ban

Juul Labs filed a temporary stop to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision not to sell electronic cigarettes in the United States. A federal court granted Juul Labs’ request.

Electronic cigarettes manufacturer had asked for a stay of FDA’s “extraordinary and illegal action”, which would require it to cease operations immediately, from the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Circuit. Circuit.

The FDA ruled that Juul must cease selling its vaping kits and cartridges containing tobacco and menthol flavors. This action was taken by the FDA in an attempt to scientifically examine the multibillion-dollar vaping industry after years of delays.

Companies must prove the public health benefits to keep their e-cigarettes on the market. It is a way of proving that adults who smoke e-cigarettes will likely quit, and minors won’t become addicted.

FDA stated that Juul’s application raised serious concerns among regulators. It also lacked enough details to evaluate any health risks. Juul claimed it had sufficient information and data to address all issues raised. According to Juul, in order to avoid major disruption of its business, FDA denied its request to delay the order.

Youth vaping is on the rise

E-cigarettes are being marketed as a way for smokers to quit smoking. Some adults have found that they can help them quit. The items have also contributed to the spread of a vaping epidemic among youth.

According to the Associated Press, FDA attempts to rule on vaping products and their claims were often thwarted by corporate lobbying and other political interests. There have been mixed results in studies on whether vaping helps smokers quit.

High-nicotine, fruity-flavored Juul Cartridges became a global craze among high school and middle-school students in 2018. This gave vaping a renewed sense of urgency. Starting in 2020, the FDA restricted vaping to tobacco and menthol flavors. Separately, Congress raised the legal age for vaping and smoking to 21.

While Juul remains a top-selling brand, the market share for e-cigarettes has dropped to about 50% in the US. A new federal poll shows that fewer teens are vaping and they’re using other brands than Juul.

The devices’ vaporized nicotine can be inhaled, which prevents the release of many harmful compounds that are produced by smoking tobacco.

FDA approved additional e-cigarettes.

The Friday court document stated that the company had submitted a 125,000-page FDA application over two years ago. The application was based on various research that assessed the health risks associated with Juul users.

Juul claimed that the FDA can’t claim that it was in the public’s “critical and urgent interest” to take its products off the marketplace right now, given that the FDA allowed sales while it investigated.

The company pointed out that FDA rejected their application, but approved applications from competitors with similar items. While it rejected many other applications, FDA approved e-cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds, Logic and other companies.

Juul felt pressured to remove dessert and fruit flavors from its products after they started to become popular among middle- and high school students in 2019. In the next year, only tobacco and menthol were allowed in small vaping devices.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/juul-appeal-stops-fda-ban/
via IFTTT

Texas Grand Jury Clears Marine of Assault Charges

Ceja Law Firm PLLC reported today that a Houston grand jury declined to indict our client on aggravated assault. The defendant was a former Marine who had served two tours in Afghanistan and received many commendations. A friend from high school sent a text message to him on the day of her attack, and he learned that her spouse had attacked and struck her. She provided a photo of her injuries which showed a large welt on her face due to a close-fisted attack.

Our client came to her defense as her husband was about to leave. She only intervened when her spouse began acting violently towards her again. Our client was holding a knife to scare the husband who intervened to save her. The victim’s spouse was accused of third-degree felony assault against a pregnant woman.

It is unbelievable that our client was charged with Second-Degree Felony Aggravated Intimidation with a Deadly Weapon. Texas law allows the use of deadly force if the defendant believes that it will not prevent the use by a third person (Tex. Penal Code 9.32. Texas Penal Code Section 9.33 also states that a defendant may defend a third person if the circumstances are as the defendant reasonably believes them to be.

We petitioned Grand Jury and provided more favorable evidence and letters of recommendation. The Grand Jury “no-billed” the case on June 8, 2022, after concluding that there was no probable cause.

This case shows our commitment to vigorously defending anyone charged in Texas with a crime. We at the Ceja Law firm take pride in upholding the highest ethical standards and providing our clients with tenacious defense when needed.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/texas-grand-jury-clears-marine-of-assault-charges/
via IFTTT

Investors File GWG Holdings Lawsuits and Litigation

There are currently several Class Action lawsuits and FINRA claims against GWG Holdings, as well as against Beneficent Fiduciary Financial LLC, Emerson Equity, and multiple broker-dealers. These lawsuits are related to the company’s problems with liquidity and sales suitability to investors. With nearly 17000 investors, we expect GWG holdings lawsuits to surge in the coming months. Listed below are some of the issues involved. Before filing your lawsuit, read about these common problems to help determine if you should file. If you haven’t already, you should.

“Based on the calls we’ve been getting recently, it appears that some financial advisors who were marketing GWG-related investments (and GWG L-Bonds in particular) to client investors who were seeking safe, conservative, investments,” said Matthew Thibaut, Esq., a founding partner of Haselkorn & Thibaut (InvestmentFraudLawyers.com), a nationwide law firm that is representing numerous clients in pending claims.

A GWG investor hotline has been set up by Haselkorn & Thibaut, P.A. at 1-888-614-9356, where knowledgeable lawyers can respond to investors’ inquiries during a quick, free, and welcoming preliminary case evaluation call. Investors can then choose among their options for how to best address any losses they have incurred in their GWG investments.

Class action lawsuits against GWG Holdings

A national stockholders’ rights law firm filed a class action lawsuit against GWG Holdings, Inc. on behalf of all investors who purchased GWG L Bonds. The suit states that investors have until April 19th, 2022 to apply to be the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The suit alleges that GWGH executives stole millions of dollars from investors. Though PCA shareholders are quick to defend GWGH, other investors are not so eager. Many investors are now calling for the firing of GWGH’s CEO.

In the case of investors, the firm offers a number of different options to recover losses. The investor claims can be handled confidentially and efficiently, without the need for depositions or extensive discovery. In addition, investors can also opt to resolve their claims through FINRA arbitration, which is faster than a traditional lawsuit. However, investors should remember that filing a class action lawsuit against GWG Holdings may not be an option for all investors.

Class action lawsuits against Beneficent Fiduciary Financial LLC

A California court recently ruled that putative class action lawsuits against Beneficent Fiducial Financial LLC cannot proceed. The case involved a fiduciary duty claim filed under Missouri and California law. The Securities and Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) bars state-law class actions that claim misrepresentation or omission. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims under state law.

A recent case was filed against the company by the Firefighters’ Pension System of Kansas City, Missouri Trust. It challenged a merger between the company and an unaffiliated third party. Presidio’s CEO and financial adviser filed motions for dismissal, and the Court of Chancery denied those motions. The class action centered on the merger of a controlled company with an unaffiliated third party, which was not a good idea under the Revlon test.

Liquidity problems

GWG Holdings Inc. filed a lawsuit against its former shareholders over liquidity problems in early January of next year. A large shareholder, the Beneficient Company Group, held 366 million in L Bonds issued by the company. When the debt matures in April 2021, GWG encountered liquidity issues. Due to this issue, it pledged its entire portfolio of life insurance policies as collateral for its loans. The policies were worth approximately $790 million at that time.

The securities company issued illiquid life insurance bonds known as L Bonds. L Bonds were illiquid alternative investments that involved high risks. Brokerage firms were paid high commissions for each transaction. The money from the L Bonds was first invested in life insurance policies, but later stopped and invested in a company controlled by Heppner. This situation has forced the company to file for bankruptcy.

Lawsuit against Emerson Equity

The GWG Holdings lawsuit against Emerson is one of many related disputes. The broker-dealer, Emerson Equity, specializes in private placements, and was the managing broker-dealer for GWG Holdings. GWG, which holds life settlement assets, issued bonds backed by $1.6 billion of life settlement assets in January. However, GWG defaulted on the bonds, and has filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

According to the plaintiff’s attorney, Emerson failed to perform adequate due diligence on the GWG L Bonds. Emerson Equity’s broker-dealers have a fiduciary duty to disclose risks and perform due diligence on their investment products. Investors may file a lawsuit against Emerson Equity in FINRA Dispute Resolution, an alternative to filing a class action suit. The White Law Group, a national securities fraud law firm, will handle your case.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/investors-file-gwg-holdings-lawsuits-and-litigation/
via IFTTT

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Petland

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Florida on June 16 and states that Petland Inc. sent unsolicited text messages in violation of state and federal law.

Flavia Covino claimed that she received promotional text messages from Petland on June 9th and 11th, despite the fact her number is on the National Do-Not-Call Registry (since 2005). She claimed that she never gave Petland explicit written permission to send her commercial text messages.

According to Covino, Petland used an automated telephone calling system and a messaging platform for uninvited text messages.

Covino claims that Petland didn’t reveal the identity or name of the caller, nor the name or address of the entity to which the text messages were sent. This activity, according to the Petland class action suit, violated federal law that requires dealers and telemarketers to identify themselves.

The Petland class action lawsuit states that each class member could be entitled to more than $500 per unwanted text message.

Both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act are designed to protect customers against unwanted communications such as text messages and phone calls.

Companies cannot solicit consumers unless they have received written permission under the TCPA or FTSA. Companies are also forbidden from calling or texting numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry (TCPA).

Petland’s class action lawsuit claims that unsolicited SMS messages caused injury to class members, including “statutory right violations, statutory damages,” annoyance and nuisance, as well as invasion of privacy.

Petland’s class action lawsuit states that class members could be entitled to $500 in damages for every TCPA or FTSA violation.

Petland also reported that a former employee filed a lawsuit alleging that the company intentionally sold sickened puppies to put dogs and people at risk.

Are you getting SMS messages from Petland that you didn’t request? Please let us know in the comments below.

Covino is represented by Manuel S. Hiraldo, Hiraldo PA, and Jibrael S. Hindi at The Law Offices Jibrael S. Hindi.

Flavia Covino against Petland Inc. Case No. The Petland class action case, 1:22-cv-21852, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-petland/
via IFTTT

Covidien Mesh Lawsuits Consolidate

Covidien mesh lawsuits are being consolidated by the JPML into an MDL, as there are many of them pending throughout the country. After a hearing last month, a panel made up of federal judges found that the litigation’s scope and size have changed from a similar request two years ago.

According to a Medtronic spokesperson, at least 73 product liability lawsuits have been filed against Medtronic’s Covidien subsidiary in seven federal district courts. U.S. U.S.

The plaintiffs in each case against Covidien allege that the company sold a variety of polypropylene products in the recent past, including Covidien Parietex and Covidien Symbotex. These products have caused pain and debilitating issues for them. The litigation’s scope is expected to grow as hernia mesh lawyers continue investigating and filing claims.

The U.S. JPML rejected MDLs for Covidien Mesh because there were not enough cases in federal court at that time to support full pretrial proceedings. Thousands of people have agreed to defer suing the company during negotiations. Now, alarming numbers of complaints are being filed in federal and state courts across the country.

On May 26, 2022, a hearing was held to hear arguments from various plaintiffs and the manufacturer. All of them were in favor of consolidating the hernia-mesh cases at this point in order to reduce redundancy, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings and improve litigation efficiency.

According to a JPML order dated June 6, all Covidien hernia-mess litigation in federal court will be centralized in front of U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, District of Massachusetts.

We conclude that the MDL should exist in light of the new circumstances.

Complex product liability litigation is characterized by a high number of claims brought to the federal courts by people who have suffered similar injuries from the same or similar products. This centralization is common.

Judge Saris will likely establish a “bellwether” process as part of the coordinated administration of the litigation. Judge Saris will prepare a small number of representative cases for early trial dates in order to help the parties assess the relative strengths and limitations of their claims as well as encourage further settlement negotiations.

MDLs have been established for hernia mesh litigation involving polyethylene product sales by other companies. They cover more than 15,400 Bard hernia cases, 3,600 Ethicon-Physiomesh cases and 3,251 Atrium CQr cases in the Northern District of Georgia, and District of New Hampshire.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/covidien-mesh-lawsuits-consolidate/
via IFTTT

Cummings Foundation Awards $100K Grant to Massachusetts School of Law in Andover

The Cummings Foundation has awarded funding to 140 local NGOs for the $25 million programs. Its award ranges from $100,000 to $500,000. The Andover-based institution was selected from 580 applicants during a competitive evaluation process. The institution will receive half the funding immediately, and the rest next year.

The Massachusetts School of Law in Andover received a $100,000 grant. The Massachusetts School of Law’s mission is to provide a high-quality and affordable legal education that emphasizes advocacy, ethics, leadership, professionalism, and leadership. MSLAW provides affordable legal education for tomorrow’s business, law, and technology leaders.

The Cummings Foundation’s sponsorship of New England’s best-known and most affordable law school contributes to our goal to ensure that everyone has equal access to justice. Michael L. Coyne (Dean and Professor of Law, Massachusetts School of Law) stated that “we owe them our gratitude, respect and appreciation for their efforts in furthering the cause of social justice.”

The Massachusetts School of Law will use this funding to offer workshops, seminars, courses, and other educational activities that help people understand the effects of law on business decisions. The school will prepare and teach many topics, including basic contract and business formation, finance, and regulatory challenges. We believe grant funding will be a great way to meet the legal needs of businesses.

Cummings’ $25 million grant program assists Massachusetts-based organizations that primarily serve Essex, Middlesex, and Suffolk.

Through this project, Cummings Foundation aims to give back to communities in which it has commercial property. Cummings Properties, a Foundation subsidiary manages all facilities of the Foundation at no cost to the Foundation. The Woburn-based commercial realty corporation rents out and manages 11 million square footage of space that is debt-free. Most of the proceeds go to the Foundation.

Joyce Vyriotes (executive director of the Cummings Foundation) stated that it was a blessing to have such efficient organizations in Greater Boston and a vast number of skilled, dedicated professionals to manage them. We owe them a debt for the hard work they do every day to provide basic necessities, eliminate barriers to education, improve health care, and fight for a better society.

With the assistance of approximately 90 volunteers, 140 groups were initially selected by the Foundation to receive awards worth at least $100,000 each. The recipients included both first-time recipients and NGOs that have previously received Cummings Foundation funding. Forty of the repeat recipients were awarded 10-year grants ranging in value from $200,000 to $500,000.

Vyriotes said that volunteers bring a broad range of backgrounds and opinions to the grant selection process. This democratized charity method determines more than half the annual donations.

This year’s grant recipients include immigrant and refugee aid, food hunger, social justice, education, and mental health services. These NGOs can be found in 45 cities and towns across the United States.

The full list of 140 grant recipients and over 900 past grantees can be found at www.CummingsFoundation.org.

Greater Boston charities have received over $375 million from The Cummings Foundation.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/cummings-foundation-awards-100k-grant-to-massachusetts-school-of-law-in-andover/
via IFTTT

Florida Bar Certifies Andrew Nickolaou Certification in Marital and Family Law

Andrew Nicolaou, an attorney with the Orlando Family Team, has been awarded board certification in marital or family law by The Florida Bar. This honor is only given to 1% of Florida attorneys.

Board Certification was established by the Florida Supreme Court in 1982 to ensure the highest level of success for attorneys in the state. Only board-certified lawyers (B.C.S.) can use the terms “expert”, “specialist” and “Board Certified Specialist”. ).

Board certification requires that attorneys be rigorously assessed for their skill, character, and ethics. To be certified, a lawyer must practice marital and family law for at most 5 years. They also need to have been involved in at minimum 25 contested marital/family matters in the circuit courts. These are the basic requirements for becoming board certified in marital or family law.

Andrew was awarded the title of Legal Expert in Florida marriage and family law. He has also been recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers several times (2018-2022). These awards are a testament to Andrew’s dedication to law practice and providing professional service to his clients and the communities that he serves. Andrew’s outstanding achievements are a joy to be shared with us.

About the Business

Ophelia Bernal Mora and Andrew Nickolaou are great choices in family law. They have over 20 years of combined experience helping couples resolve their most pressing and sensitive issues. Contact Orlando Family Team today for a free evaluation of your family law case.

Contact:

630 N Wymore Road Maitland FL 32751 (407) 259-4766 Orlando Family Team

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/florida-bar-certifies-andrew-nickolaou-certification-in-marital-and-family-law/
via IFTTT

Healthcare Data Breaches Increases

Your personal data of healthcare data victims may have been compromised. This includes important insurance and medical data. It has happened on numerous occasions across the country. Each year, additional attacks occur.

Definition of data leak

A data breach is when a third-party gains unauthorized access to information. Data breaches can cause damage to any company, including merchants, credit card companies, healthcare systems, and many others.

Data breaches are usually caused by a breach in cybersecurity. These weaknesses could make it easier for hackers to access sensitive information like names, credit cards numbers, social security numbers and other personal data.

What is the trigger for a data breach within the healthcare industry?

Ransomware attacks are the most common cause of data breaches in healthcare. Hackers gain access to systems or databases through phishing scams or other methods. These hackers then “hostage” the databases until the healthcare system agrees to pay a ransom. Usually, this is in bitcoin.

Data breaches of this kind have become more common in recent years. However, there are still other ways sensitive healthcare data could be stolen. Two examples are traditional thievery or more simple hackers.

What are the implications of data breaches in the healthcare industry?

According to HIPAA Journal breach statistics, there were 3,054 data breaches in healthcare between 2009 and 2019. All of these incidents are believed to have resulted in the compromise of 230,954,151 healthcare records. This represents more than 69.78% of the US population.

Ransomware attacks and other breaches can impact healthcare providers’ day-to-day operations. Many hospitals shut down non-emergency services because they couldn’t access vital data. A ransomware attack can also cause cancellations or reschedules of appointments.

Data breaches can cause harm to healthcare victims. This includes the illegal release of patients’ financial information, insurance information, and social security numbers. It also puts them at risk of identity theft. These breaches could also expose other types of healthcare data such as test results and medical records as well as health history.

According to the Center for Internet Security (Circle for Internet Security), a data breach in healthcare costs an average of $355 per record. Many people believe payment information will be more expensive on the black market. However, credit card numbers can sell for as low as $1 or $2 while personal healthcare information can fetch as high as $363.

Data breach incidents in healthcare

Health Share of Oregon revealed in February 2020 that it was the victim of data theft in healthcare. During the November 2019 theft of a GridWorks office laptop containing customer data, it was allegedly taken.

According to reports, the laptop contained personal information for up to 654,362 individuals. This breach is much smaller than other breaches that have affected millions.

Health Share, a Medicaid coordinated healthcare group, may have exposed names, addresses, phone numbers and birth dates as well as Medicaid ID numbers.

The company does not know if member information was sold or discovered. However, it is reported that the system data was left unencrypted. This could mean that the data thief might have easy access and be able to sell the information.

“We take our members’ privacy & security very seriously,” stated Dr. Maggie Bennington Davis, interim CEO and Chief Med Officer at Health Share of Oregon. “We are making sure members, partners and regulators, as well as the general public, are aware of this issue.”

Bennington Davis promised that they would provide the best quality service for their members. This includes protecting their personal information.

A recent data breach affected Shields Health Care Group, Massachusetts. This hack affected 50 hospitals and affected more than 2 million people. The incident resulted in the theft of sensitive data including names, Social Security numbers, and addresses as well as insurance information, treatment information, and other information.

Other healthcare data breaches affected Scripps, Elekta and Ferguson Medical Group, Georgia’s healthcare network St. Joseph’s/Candler. Parker Hannifin, Partnership Health Plan of California. Norwood Clinic. Comprehensive Health Services/Acuity. Schneck Medical. ARcare.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/healthcare-data-breaches-increases/
via IFTTT

GWG Holdings Investors Loss Recovery

In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, GWG Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: GWGH), also known as GWG, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (case number 22-90032). The corporation’s total liabilities were estimated to be over $2.1 billion.

The recent drops in the value of various stock and bond investments issued, as well as the pending bankruptcy, could be devastating for GWG investors who sold (or may still be holding) various bonds, preferred stock, or common stock previously issued by GWG, as it could mean they have or will face investment losses as a result of the decline in the value of those securities.

While there had been some prior rumors and suspicions, one of the most concerning indicators to some investors came when GWG missed principal and interest payments of $3.25 million and $10.35 million on the L Bond issuance on January 15, 2022.

These late payments revealed a slew of other possible issues at GWG. Many GWG investors are currently considering filing lawsuits and filing FINRA arbitration claims as they weigh their alternatives for recouping their investment losses.

Matthew Thibaut, Esq., a founding partner of Haselkorn & Thibaut (InvestmentFraudLawyers.com), a nationwide law firm that is representing numerous clients in pending claims and investigating these potential claims on behalf of numerous other investors, commented: “Based on the calls we’ve been getting recently, it appears that some financial advisors who were marketing GWG-related products may have been committing securities fraud.”

Haselkorn & Thibaut has set up a GWG investor hotline at 1-888-614-9356, where experienced attorneys can answer investor questions during a fast, free, and friendly preliminary case evaluation call, and investors can then choose between their options for dealing with any losses they have incurred in their GWG investments.

Many financial advisors were naturally swamped with client calls expressing concerns and seeking answers following the early 2022 missing payments. Unfortunately, rather than accurately describing the current situation, many financial advisors initially attempted to downplay the problems at GWG, with some attempting to characterize the missed bond payment as an isolated one-off situation affecting only L Bond holders and pointing out that there was a purported grace period of 30 days for payment after it became due, and that while the missed payment was considered a default, investors should not be concerned. On multiple levels, this information turned out to be incorrect.

With the passage of time and the expiration of the grace period, fresh unfavorable news and, most recently, GWG’s bankruptcy declaration, investor concerns were fulfilled. The impact of GWG’s bankruptcy filing on investors is still unknown, and will likely stay so for some time.

On the surface, GWG L bond (as well as stock) investors appear to be in for some significant financial losses. Furthermore, GWG common and preferred stockholders should be concerned, as they are on the lowest rung of the bankruptcy ladder than bondholders.

GWG’s bankruptcy petition confirmed what had been rumored (up to that time) that the company was facing cash flow and other financial problems. Surprisingly, GWG appears to have argued that some of the responsibility for the company’s problems leading up to bankruptcy could be connected to expenses related to recent SEC examinations of its sales tactics for various securities.

Alternatively, if GWG was in fact breaking the applicable laws, rules, and regulations, their argument could imply that they believe GWG should be allowed to keep breaking them? While the solution is still uncertain, most investors appear to be more concerned with minimizing their financial losses than with trying to decipher GWG’s answers or figuring out the blame game.

A decrease in the number of sales of GWG’s L Bonds resulted in a capital deficiency, resulting in a liquidity shortage, according to GWG’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on January 18th. GWG Holdings Inc. also indicated at the time that the timely filing of the Annual Return of Form 10-K is in peril since the accounting firm tasked with the task has chosen not to offer such services anymore.

These elements did not appear to indicate a circumstance where a 30-day grace period would suffice, calling into question the integrity and depth of study undertaken by any financial advisor who was downplaying such events at the time. Even with the limited evidence available at the time, the totality of the circumstances does not appear to warrant such a finding.

As a result of the bankruptcy filing and accompanying financial troubles inside GWG, many investors are now facing the financial burden of not only missing interest payments but also the possibility of losing their investment principle. Some investors have already taken action, and are learning that filing a securities arbitration claim against the financial advisor and/or firm that sold them the products appears to be one option for recouping investment losses.

In many cases, the method looks to be the simplest, least expensive, most efficient, most straight path to take. These types of disputes are handled by the Financial Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) Office of Dispute Resolution. While it is not the only option available, for some investors it may make sense.

The FINRA arbitration process restricts discovery to document exchanges and rarely includes witness depositions. As a result, investors frequently seek the advice of experienced attorneys who have handled similar cases in the past, as knowing what documents are required to effectively demonstrate both culpability and damages in these claims is critical for investors.

A review of appropriate documents, with the assistance of experienced counsel, could also assist investors in such claims to the extent investments were recommended to investors based on a negligent due diligence effort, negligent supervisory effort, or other various sales practice concerns connected to the manner in which the investment was sold by the firm and pitched to the investor by the financial advisor.

Please call Haselkorn & Thibaut, P.A. at 1-888-614-9356 or visit their website at www.InvestmentFraudLawyers.com if you have any information about GWG assets that were advised by brokers or financial advisors. If you have any doubts regarding your legal rights, or if you have purchased or acquired GWG shares or bonds and have issues, please contact now for a free consultation.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/gwg-holdings-investors-loss-recovery/
via IFTTT

McDonald Class Action Lawsuit Filed for PFAS

A new class action lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s failed to inform its customers that some of its food products, such as the Big Mac burger and Big Mac burger, contain per- and/or polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS).

Larry Clark, the plaintiff, claims that McDonald’s misleads customers into thinking that their food is safe. McDonald’s fails to disclose that PFAS is present in its food. He says it is dangerous to the environment and humans.

According to the lawsuit, “The use PFAS in McDonald’s Products is contrary to McDonald’s brand image, which promotes food safety.” McDonald’s Corporation reminds investors, consumers, and the public that the Products can be used in virtually every media.

Clark represents a national class of McDonald’s customers who purchased PFAS-contaminated McDonald’s food.

Clark claims that McDonald’s “repeatedly denied” the existence of PFAS in its food products. Clark said the company admitted this fact only last year.

Clark claimed that McDonald’s continues misrepresenting its food as safe, high-quality, and suitable to be eaten, despite their admission.

According to the class action lawsuit, “Defendant fails inform consumers that PFAS which can have adverse effects on people and bioaccumulate within their systems are present in high quantities in its Products.”

According to the lawsuit, PFAS can cause a number of adverse health effects, including cancer and liver damage.

The class action lawsuit asserts that PFAS can be dangerous even in very low doses, as they persist and build over time.

McDonald’s decided to use PFAS as a way to save money.

Clark claims that McDonald’s does not have the tools to ensure that PFAS are absent from its food products, but instead that McDonald’s uses them to save money.

According to the class action lawsuit, McDonald’s Corporation’s ‘profits above people’ approach allows it to save pennies per unit and instead passes these ‘costs’ onto generations of consumers who will have to live with the consequences of McDonald’s inclusion and concealment of dangerous PFAS in McDonald’s products.

Clark claims McDonald’s is guilty of unjust enrichment and violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. There are also a host of state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff seeks a jury trial as well injunctive, declaratory, and monetary damages for himself as well as all members of the class.

An additional class action lawsuit was filed against McDonald’s earlier in the month. It alleged that McDonald’s lied about McFlurry machine maintenance companies to maintain a “service-and-repair racket” relationship with Taylor.

Do you remember eating at McDonald’s before? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Steffan T. Keeton, The Keeton Firm LLC represents the plaintiff.

Clark v. McDonald’s Corporation. Case No. 3:22-cv-01628, is the McDonald’s Big Mac PFAS class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for Southern District of Illinois.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/mcdonald-class-action-lawsuit-files-for-pfas/
via IFTTT

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released draft guidelines for detecting cancer clusters

Multiple cases of cancer clusters in the United States have prompted federal disease experts to review the guidelines for investigating and detecting such instances.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), following reports of cancer clusters in New Jersey and Texas and even players from the Philadelphia Phillies, issued a draft guidance entitled “Guidelines for Examining Unique Patterns of Cancer and Other Environmental Concerns”.

This guideline was created to help state and community agencies identify similar patients with the same type of cancer living in the same area.

Cancer rates in cancer cluster patients are significantly higher than those in the general population. For example, brain cancer affects approximately three in every 100,000 people. Brain cancer is nearly four times more common in Phillies players than it is in the general population.

Cancer clusters are often linked to environmental factors like dirty drinking water and hazardous pollutants. It can be challenging to confirm that a cancer cluster is actually a connected collection of cases and not just a statistical anomaly.

The CDC states that the draft guidelines were created after a thorough review of the scientific literature. Officials stressed the importance of communicating and engaging with the community about the problem.

The CDC recommends that local health departments conduct proactive analyses of data from cancer registry data at regular intervals in order to look for unusual cancer trends before a cluster is discovered.

These guidelines are updated to replace the steps of the 2013 guidelines. They now include criteria that deal with environmental concerns such as chemical and pollutant exposures in a more general sense. In the past, statistical significance was used to determine whether or not an investigation should be pursued. The new recommendations aim to evaluate potential exposures and cancer rates, without regard to statistical significance.

The CDC is also developing templates and tools to assist public health partners in cluster investigation of cancer.

The Federal Register is open to public comments by the CDC on the draft guidance up until July 25, 2022. Comments can be made on Docket Number. CDC-2022-0070 comments can be submitted via Federal eRulemaking Portal, or by mail to:

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/the-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-cdc-has-released-draft-guidelines-for-detecting-cancer-clusters/
via IFTTT

Giorgio Armani Telemarketer Lawsuit Filed

A new class action complaint alleges that Giorgio Armani sent him unwelcome text messages and has now sued the man whose number is on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Derek Hasty filed a class-action lawsuit against Giorgio Armani Corporation at federal court in Florida, on May 31. He alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act(TCPA) as well as the Florida Telephone Solicitation Acts (FTSA).

Hasty claims Armani uses unsolicited SMS marketing to promote its products and services to all customers who have registered their numbers with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Hasty asserts that repeated sales texts, of which he included screenshots with his complaint, have caused him, as well as at least 50 other Class members, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy.

According to the lawsuit Armani used a Robo-dialer.

Armani claims that he continues to send sales text messages to his number.

Armani also violates the law by not providing opt-out information within its marketing materials. He claims that Armani’s use of a computer software program that automatically selects and rings potential clients’ phones is also a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

He is suing anyone who received more than one SMS message from the corporation within the past four years. His phone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry.

He would like the class action case to become certified.

Giorgio Armani Corporation was charged with illegally collecting biometric data through its website’s virtual “Try-it On” feature. This is according to a February class-action lawsuit.

Are you getting unsolicited texts from businesses? We’d love to hear your story in the comments!

Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A. The plaintiff is represented by Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A.

Derek Hasty and Giorgio Armani. Case No. The name of the Giorgio Armani lawsuit is 2:22-cv-01339 in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/giorgio-armani-telemarketer-lawsuit-filed/
via IFTTT

Wells Fargo and Zelle Class Action Lawsuit Filed

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Zelle and Wells Fargo failed to protect their clients from fraudsters who used Zelle’s mobile payments app to steal customers’ accounts.

Plaintiff Luke Hartsock filed a lawsuit against two financial giants in Washington federal court on June 1, alleging negligence and infringement of consumer protection law.

According to the lawsuit Hartsock was defrauded $7,500 by thieves using Zelle to target Wells Fargo customers.

Hartsock claims that a scammer impersonated Wells Fargo’s identity, and used the phone calls and messages the bank uses to contact customers regarding fraud cases on two occasions. Hartsock claims that the scammer even tried to imitate Wells Fargo’s customer service employees and asked him for money.

Hartsock challenged transactions with Wells Fargo. However, the bank initially refused to compensate Hartsock. Hartsock claims that he still owes $4,000.

Wells Fargo & Zelle know about rampant fraud according to class action lawsuits.

According to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo and Early Warning Services LLC (which manages Zelle) are accused of failing to take enough steps to protect their customers’ banking accounts.

He asserts that corporations know about the fraud, and Zelle is a target of con artists. However, they are not willing to invest in additional protection.

According to the class action lawsuit, “The convenience of Zelle’s services has made them a favorite among consumers but also made them a darling among thieves who can gain access to bank accounts.” Scammers can quickly siphon thousands of dollars from their victims by convincing them to pay money via Zelle.

The lawsuit alleges carelessness and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act as well as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Hartsock seeks class certification, damages and fees, as well as costs and costs. Hartsock also wants a jury trial. Hartsock wants to represent all Wells Fargo accounts holders who have challenged withdrawals from Zelle.

A customer filed a class-action lawsuit against Navy Federal Credit Union. He claimed that the credit union failed adequately to inform its account holders about any financial losses that Zelle fraud could cause.

Hartsock is represented by Nathan L. Nanfelt and Laura R. Gerber of Keller Rohrback LLP.

Luke Hartsock v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01759 is the Wells Fargo Zelle Class Action Lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for Washington.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/wells-fargo-and-zelle-class-action-lawsuit-filed/
via IFTTT

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) May Signal Long Term Issues

TBI is not an isolated event. Side effects include chronic cardiovascular, neurologic, and endocrine comorbidities. Comorbidity is a medical condition where two diseases or conditions coexist.

TBI is very common among veterans who served in the military. It won’t go away by itself. It doesn’t respect the rules, and it doesn’t make life easier for anyone. The most recent JAMA Network Open study was published online.

It was intended to compare healthy individuals with people who suffered mild or moderate-to-severe TBI. TBI patients were more likely to have comorbidities such as mental problems, endocrine abnormalities, and neurologic problems. TBI patients with mild or moderately severe symptoms were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, and transient ischemic strokes.

The study was conducted at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It examined the incidence of neurological and behavioral comorbidities among patients with mild TBI and moderate to severe TBI. The patients were matched up with people who had not suffered a head injury before. There were 4,351 mild TBI patients, 4,351 moderate-to-severe TBI patients, and 4,351 individuals who had never suffered a brain injury.

Three years after a traumatic head injury, comorbidities began to emerge. The risk of death increased for those with severe-to-moderate TBI than those without. An increased risk of early death was associated with post-injury hypertension and adrenal insufficiency.

The study recommends a cautious approach when screening patients for mild to severe brain injuries. Jim Fausone, a Michigan veteran’s lawyer and founder of Legal Help for Veterans PLLC said that screening could help with other health problems our TBI veterans face. “The veteran’s disability can have an impact on their benefits. That is why we are here to help them get the benefits they deserve.”

Fausone said that Legal Help For Veterans, PLLC, a statewide VA Disability law practice, can help veterans and their families to obtain veteran’s benefits.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/traumatic-brain-injury-tbi-may-signal-long-term-issues/
via IFTTT

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith $15.2 Million

FINRA today announced that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. has been ordered to pay $15.2 million in restitution to thousands of customers who purchased class C mutual fund shares, even though Class A shares were significantly cheaper.

Mutual fund issuers offer a variety of classes of mutual funds shares, including Class A shares and Class C shares. In general, Class A shares carry a front-end sales charge. Class C shares don’t usually have a front-end sales charge but may incur ongoing fees or expenses that are greater than Class A shares. If the purchase exceeds certain thresholds, many mutual fund issuers will allow customers to buy Class A shares without any front-end sales charges. Customers who are eligible to buy Class A shares will not be charged a sales tax.

Merrill Lynch had an automated system that would restrict customers from purchasing Class C shares when Class A shares were cheaper. However, the system often failed to identify and apply appropriate purchase limits for Class C shares. Merrill Lynch customers bought thousands of Class C shares and were charged fees and charges when they could have purchased Class A shares at a significantly lower price.

The firm’s system did not flag in November 2019 a customer’s purchase of Class C shares with an annualized expense of 1.76 percent. However, the customer could have bought Class A shares with lower annualized costs of 0.96 percent and no sales tax.

Jessica Hopper, Executive Vice-President and Head of FINRA’s Department of Enforcement, stated that member firms must have supervisory mechanisms reasonably designed to ensure customers are informed about and receive discounts when they purchase mutual funds and that they are not charged any fees or expenses. We want to remind and encourage companies to detect, fix, or remediate these types of supervisory issues to reap the rewards of extraordinary cooperation.

Merrill Lynch will convert Class C shares of certain customers to Class A shares if necessary, in addition to paying restitution for customers who were harmed. FINRA did NOT impose a penalty for the firm’s exceptional cooperation and substantial assistance during the investigation. Merrill Lynch conducted an internal review voluntarily and proactively, hired an outside consultant to identify and calculate remediation, and created a plan to repay customers, convert shares, and other relevant matters.

In Regulatory Notice 21-7, FINRA provided guidance for broker-dealers regarding common sales charges discounts and waivers of mutual funds. In 2015 and 2016,, FINRA identified sales charges discounts and waivers in the Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter.

Merrill Lynch agreed to this settlement without admitting or denying the findings of FINRA.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/finra-fines-merrill-lynch-pierce-fenner-smith-15-2-million/
via IFTTT

What are GWG L Bonds?

Before GWG Holdings Inc. defaulted on its L Bonds, the company encountered several financial issues. In October 2020, the Securities and Exchange Division of Enforcement sent it a subpoena. The company delayed its filing of a 10-K with the SEC and later stopped selling its L Bonds. In the meantime, the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant reviewed GWG’s financial statements and found numerous accounting problems. GWG subsequently admitted that its financial reports were unreliable.

The interest rate on GWG Holdings L Bonds remains fixed for the entire term of the bond, regardless of market interest rates. However, because the bonds are called, the issuer may recall them at any time without penalty. This means that investors can always sell them at a higher price, though they can only do so under certain circumstances. For example, if GWG is insolvent or suffers a disability, it may be able to buy back its bonds, but the penalty would be 6%.

L Bonds are a type of investment product that pools money from investors and uses the death benefits to pay investors. Although the company initially created the L Bond to make life insurance more affordable for investors, it subsequently changed its business model in 2018, investing much of the capital in riskier assets. As a result, many investors remained unaware of the material reorientation. The move also made GWG an even greater credit risk.

While the company is currently undergoing bankruptcy, the company issued L Bonds that matured for two to seven years and paid 5.50% to 8.50% per annum. The bonds were high-risk and illiquid, and should only be purchased by experienced investors with the right risk-reward profile. In addition, investors should seek legal help immediately if they purchased GWG L Bonds. If you are considering investing in GWG L Bonds, contact the Securities arbitration firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free consultation.

In addition to the failure of GWG L Bonds to meet their obligations, some investors also lost their entire initial investment. The problem stems from brokers’ misrepresenting the GWG L Bond as a relatively safe investment, while the risks were not fully understood. Because of this, investors may now file a claim against GWG Holdings. In addition, individual investors may also pursue claims against brokerage firms that failed to do adequate due diligence to protect investors.

Investors should consider filing a claim against GWG L Bonds if they were sold by GWG Holdings. The company’s bankruptcy filing is the latest example of a securities fraud. In April of 2022, GWG Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Since the company’s demise, KlaymanToskes is assisting clients in their claims against brokerage firms and full-service firms that made a mistake.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/what-are-gwg-l-bonds/
via IFTTT