Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Alabama Supreme Court Rejects Sealed Container Defense as to Reatilers in Breach of Warranty Claims

A recent Alabama Supreme Court decision answered a certified question from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the case of Sparks v. Total Body Essential Nutrition Inc., Wright Enrichment, Inc. & TexAmerican Food Blending, Inc.

After the District Court concluded that it was not clear under Alabama law whether claims alleging the breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are subject to the defense of the sealed-container doctrine, the Supreme Court held that they were not. See the opinion here.


The majority said:

"We answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that the sealed-container defense is not available to the retail seller of food products in claims asserting a breach of implied warranty under the UCC."


This case aligns Alabama law with the majority of states which have interpreted this issue, including Georgia and Florida, and is also significant in that it will prevent the continued removal of such cases (which involve in-state retailers) from being removed from state to federal court under a fraudulent joinder theory.

The sealed container defense previously allowed retailers who purchased their products from manufacturers in a pre-packaged, sealed container, to avoid liability for defects in products which the retailer did not contribute to or could not have reasonably discovered.


Chris Hellums is co-lead counsel of the Executive Committee to the Personal Injury Plaintiff's Steering Committee for the Total Body Multi-District Litigation.

See here: http://chrishellums.blogspot.com/2009/05/lawyer-chris-hellums-appointed-as-co.html



Pittman Dutton Kirby & Hellums is currently representing clients in various claims against Total Body.



Chris can be reached at Chrish@PDKHlaw.com or Pittman Dutton Kirby & Hellums at http://www.pdkhlaw.com/.


Total Body FDA Warnings & Articles:

Food & Drug Administration Warnings : http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm050806.htm

200 Injured by Total Body : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405361,00.html









Monday, July 27, 2009

Ironic Twist of Fate--Tort Reform Champion loses his own Medical Malpractice case

Elliott M. Kaplan is a prominent Kansas City attorney. For years, he railed against judges, juries, and trial attorneys, as he and his former firm, Daniels & Kaplan, got big bucks to represent big companies. He was well known as one of the founders of the modern tort reform movement in America. He was named "Legal Reform Champion" by the American Tort Reform Association.

In a cruel twist of fate, it appears he may have reaped what he sowed.

According to its website, The American Tort Reform Association was founded in 1986 by the American Council of Engineering Companies and shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association followed them. They have worked to enact tort reform legislation in 45 states. They have led grassroots efforts which have resulted (they claim) in 85% of Americans believing that frivolous lawsuits clog our courts.

Their efforts have paid off, perhaps to the detriment of one of their own. According to the National Practitioner Data Bank, the number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990.

WHAT HAPPENED TO LAWYER KAPLAN

Lawyer Kaplan was diagnosed in 2003 with pancreatic cancer by his doctor in Kansas City. Kaplan sought the best care money could buy. He went to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. There he was again diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

To save his life, he underwent a Whipple resection, a highly invasive surgery that can cause more harm than good. It was only after the surgery that the diagnosis was determined to be wrong, that he only suffered from pancreatitis, and that the Whipple resection made the condition worse, leaving him debilitated and a broken man.

Believing that the doctor had committed malpractice, Kaplan sued the pathologist alleging negligence in the diagnosis.

He assembled what appears to be an army of attorneys to represent him; his former law partner, James F.B. Daniels of McDowell Rice Smith & Buchanan, Thomas Ward of Ward & Ward, Mark Johnson of Greene Espel & Robert A. Stein (former Dean of Minnesota School of Law).

Unfortunately, the jury found against Kaplan and awarded him no damages. He has moved for a new trial. The motion is currently pending.




I certainly feel for Lawyer Kaplan. Unfortunately, he and the organization which he was a "Champion", foster the belief that all lawsuits are frivolous and that they compromise access to affordable health care, punish consumers by raising the cost of goods and services, chill innovation, and undermine the notion of personal responsibility.

I don't know if his lawsuit was meritorious or not. If it is, then I pray that justice will prevail. I do know that his organization, the American Tort Reform Association, has perpetuated the belief among many Americans that all lawsuits are frivolous. The beneficiaries of this belief are not injured or defrauded people, but the insurance companies and large corporations who fund these organizations.

One only need read jury verdict reporters to see that juries daily turn away victims just like attorney Kaplan.


Correction: Yesterdays initial post had information referring to Elliott S. Kaplan, one of the founders of the law firm of Robbins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi. The source of this information was the Alabama Jury Verdict Reporter and was assumed to be correct. We have notified the Jury Verdict Reporter of this potential error.


Elliot M. Kaplan Biography:



Chris Hellums can be reached at Chrish@pdkhlaw.com

Friday, July 24, 2009

Tsunami Continues in Arbitration War--Congressman Rails against Arbitration Abuses

Bloomberg News (7/22, Van Voris, Rosenkrantz) reported, "A congressional staff investigation into the biggest U.S. consumer debt-collection arbitrator found 'deeply disturbing' abuses, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich said" yesterday at a hearing before a House subcommittee he chairs. "A report on the investigation, released yesterday, claims that the National Arbitration Forum, a Minnesota company that handled most consumer debt-collection arbitrations in the U.S., misled consumers and hid ties to debt-collection firms." Said Kucinich, "The debt collection industry and the alternative legal system that has been created around it can no longer be ignored by the federal government."
The Minneapolis Star Tribune (7/22) reported, "Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson backed federal legislation Wednesday that would protect consumers from 'fine print' arbitration contracts that forfeit their legal rights against creditors. 'Millions of Americans are giving away that right without even knowing it,' Swanson told a panel of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee." Also appearing before the committee was Mike Kelly, CEO of Forthright, "which provides administrative services for the" NAF. Kelly "defended the company's work as a simple and cost-effective alternative to the courts, saying that without access to arbitration, consumers would be the losers."
The AP (7/22, Choi) reported that Kenneth Clayton of the American Bankers Association testified that "arbitration is a valuable way for consumers and businesses to resolve disputes in a very low cost and fair manner. Take it away and consumers will suffer." But "a study by Public Citizen found that credit card companies track arbitrators' rulings and do not enlist the arbitrators who rule against them."
Jones: "arbitration revolution" possible. In a blog at the Wall Street Journal (7/22), Ashby Jones wrote, "It's too soon to say, in all likelihood, but we could be in the early stages of an arbitration revolution."

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

ARBITRATION: DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

It was not too long ago that many of us could remember the Stop Binding Arbitration bumper stickers and billboards up and down the highways. Lawyers who represented consumers were dismayed by the proliferation of arbitration contracts in almost every consumer contract. Car dealers, credit card companies, even nursing homes added the provisions to their contracts.

There was no populist swell against arbitration. In retrospect, there a probably a number of reasons. First, many view attorneys with scepticism and a jaundice eye. Additionally, business groups portrayed arbitration as an efficient and cost effective way to resolve disputes. Besides, who could expect a jury of regular people to be able to understand and resolve such disputes---
I never really understood this argument since the jury system is the bedrock of our legal system and no one has ever argued or submitted that juries should not be allowed to determine whether someone is incarcerated or is sent to die in the electric chair.

Be that as it may, Big Business won and arbitration agreement proliferated contracts. Almost immediately, many consumer attorneys refused to take arbitration cases. The fees were high, the ability to prove cases through documents became limited, and most importantly, many argued that the arbitrators were biased in favor of business. Many argued that consumer attorneys were summarily rejected by arbitration companies.

In the end, consumers were placed on unequal footing and basically got screwed. I even hear story of a general counsel of a large company threatening an arbitration company if an unfavorable opinion came from one of that companies arbitrators.

Finally, the abuses went too far and the dam was broken.


Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson filed suit this week against the National Arbitration Forum of Minnesota, the nation's largest arbitration company for consumer credit disputes, accusing it of consumer fraud, false advertising and deceptive trade practices by "misrepresenting its independence" and hiding its "extensive ties" to the collection industry.The Attorney Generals lawsuit claims the National Arbitration Forum has ties to debt-collection law firms and works against consumers by virtue of having a mandatory arbitration clause set forth in a credit card, bank, or retail contracts.

Hundreds of thousands of consumer disputes are resolved each year not by a judge or jury, but by a private arbitration system. The Attorney General’s suit alleges that the National Arbitration Forum represented to consumers and the public that it is independent and neutral, operates like an impartial court system, and is not affiliated with and does not take sides between the parties. National Arbitration Forum, while holding itself out as impartial, works behind the scenes—alongside creditors and against the interests of ordinary consumers—to convince credit card companies and other creditors to insert arbitration provisions in their customer agreements and then appointing the Forum to decide the disputes. Forum pays commissions to executives whose job it is to convince creditors to put mandatory arbitration clauses in their customer agreements. Forum does this to generate arbitration filings in the Forum—and hence, revenue—for itself. The lawsuit alleges that, despite telling consumers and the public that it is not affiliated or aligned with the collection industry, the Forum in fact has financial ties to the collection industry.

Beginning in 2006 and through 2007, Accretive—a family of New York private equity funds—engineered two transactions. In the first transaction, Accretive formed several equity funds under the name “Agora” (meaning “Forum” in Greek), which invested $42 million in the Forum.In the second transaction, three of the country’s largest debt collection law firms—Mann Bracken of Georgia, Wolpoff & Abramson of Maryland, and Eskanos & Adler of California—merged into one large national law firm called Mann Bracken. Accretive then acquired the majority interest in a debt collection agency called Axiant, which acquired the collections operations of Mann Bracken. Through these transactions, Accretive took control of one of the country’s largest debt collection enterprises and became affiliated with the Forum, the country’s largest consumer collection arbitration company. Accretive principals remain actively involved with the Forum. In 2006, the Forum processed just over 214,000 consumer collection arbitration claims, of which 125,000, or nearly 60 percent, were filed by the above law firms. Swanson said that the Forum was aware of the affiliation problem in 2006 when it negotiated its relationship with Accretive.

An email from an officer of the Forum to the hedge fund stating: “…we should certainly plan for unwinding any deal in the event shared ownership becomes an acute issue.”

We'll follow this interesting story.View the complaint here:http://capwiz.com/nacanet/attachments/MN_Complaint_Against_NAF.pdfSources:MN Attorney General Press Releasehttp://www.politicsinminnesota.com/2009/jul14/3464/swanson-files-suit-against-national-arbitration-companyBusiness Week
Labels: deceptive trade practices, fraud, Minnesota Attorney General, misrepresentation, National Arbitration Forum

AAA & NAF suspend arbitrations over consumer debt collections pending new guidelines

The Wall Street Journal (7/22, Sidel, Sharma) reports, "Two major arbitration firms are backing away from the business of resolving disputes between customers and their credit-card and cellphone companies, throwing into disarray a controversial system that prevents unhappy consumers from filing lawsuits. The American Arbitration Association said Tuesday it will stop participating in consumer-debt-collection disputes until new guidelines are established." The National Arbitration Forum, in a settlement with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, had earlier said "it would stop accepting new cases as of Friday. Their retreat has big implications for credit-card and cellphone companies, which generally require customers to agree to mandatory arbitration." Consumer advocates "have criticized the practice for years, saying consumers often don't realize they are waiving their right to sue when they sign contracts with the companies."

The Wall Street Journal (7/22, Kim) reports, "Consumer advocates say the development opens the door for customers to take their grievances to court instead of being forced to settle their disputes through the arbitration process. 'In the long run, I think this is the beginning of the end of forced arbitration in all consumer contracts, from credit cards, to nursing homes to cellphones,' said Ed Mierzwinski of U.S. PIRG, a consumer-advocacy group."

The San Francisco Chronicle (7/22, Abate) reports, "A congressional committee will hold hearings today at which NAF and its adversaries will argue about whether consumers are put at a disadvantage by the common practice of requiring that disputes be arbitrated rather than fought in court." Carol Kaplan, "a spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association, which represents many credit card issuers, said most consumer contracts are probably written in such a way that another arbitrator could be designated to replace National Arbitration Forum. But Paul Bland, a staff attorney with the advocacy group Public Justice, said NAF was the designated arbiter in so many consumer agreements, including cell phone contracts, that no other arbitration service is big enough to replace it."

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Update: Mistrial in Alabama Drug Pricing Case Against Watson Pharmaceuticals

Montgomery County Circuit Judge Charles Price declared a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a verdict in the trial of Alabama's prescription drug overpricing lawsuit against California-based Watson Pharmaceuticals.

Judge Price said this past Monday jurors appeared to be hopelessly deadlocked after more than seven hours of deliberations. He said he expects the case will be tried with a new jury in September.

Attorneys representing the state claimed Watson cheated the state's Medicaid program out of $23 million over about 14 years.

The trial lasted four weeks. Jurors had begun deliberations last week and continued Monday afternoon.

The case is State of Alabama v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., CV2005-219.76, Montgomery County, Alabama Circuit Court (Montgomery).


Source: Bloomberg

Friday, July 10, 2009

Update: Alabama Drug Pricing Lawsuit Case in Juries Hands

Watson Pharmaceuticals, a manufacturer of generic and brand name prescription drugs, is one of the 70 pharmaceutical companies Alabama Attorney General Troy King sued over pricing allegations in 2005.


Watson is accused of inflating prices on lists used to determine how much the state should reimburse pharmacists for drugs provided to people on Medicaid Article Controls.


After more than two weeks of testimony in the complicated case, Montgomery County Circuit Judge Charles Price sent the case to jurors around 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday. They deliberated until about 4:30 p.m. when Judge Price called a recess until Monday morning and told the lawyers to keep working on a resolution.


Jere Beasley representing the state in closing argued that Watson cheated Alabama's Medicaid program out of $23 million from 1991 to 2005. "Nothing so far has gotten their attention," Beasley told the panel of nine women and three men. "I would suggest that you take the $23.8 million as a base and say three times or five times that amount as the punitive damage award."


Beasley also said the alleged "boardroom fraud" is common in the industry, and the country's neediest citizens have been ripped off for years. Change will only come through hitting drug makers in their pocketbooks, he said.


The state claimed it was led to believe it was paying below wholesale prices for medication, but the company said Medicaid officials should have known they were paying higher prices.

Watson attorney James Matthews countered that the state knew for more than a decade that it wasn't being charged the below-wholesale price.


He told jurors the state had plenty of clues, including those in its own documents, to see it wasn't paying the lowest price.


"These are the state's own documents," Matthews said. "Ask yourself -- should that have made them suspicious? Did they really rely on the belief that those were net prices in light of all of that?".


Beasley questioned why Watson didn't bring any of its CEOs or other top executives to testify about its pricing policy and why a liability expert who was present during the trial was never called to the stand.


Matthews said the company expert wasn't needed under oath, and dismissed a state expert as someone who did shoddy work going through files and employee depositions that Watson provided.


"The real truth here is that there is no fraud," he said. "The evidence doesn't support the claims."


Last month, Alabama announced it had settled drug pricing lawsuits against six pharmaceutical companies for $89 million. They included lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories of Chicago and Forest Laboratories, with corporate headquarters in New York City. Both were scheduled to be tried with the Watson case.


The state had previously settled with 10 companies for almost $35 million. Alabama's lawsuits against four companies have gone to trial, with the state winning judgments against each totaling $352.4 million. Those verdicts are being appealed.


Sources:


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/09/ap6635121.html

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D99ATL880.htm

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Financial Fraud Gives Former Healthsouth CFO 3 Months in Prison

On Tuesday, Tadd McVay, a former HealthSouth Corp. finance chief, was ordered to spend three months in federal prison for his role in the $2.6 billion financial fraud that nearly wrecked the company.

Although Scrushy was acquitted of criminal charges, last month a judge's ruling in a shareholder lawsuit held Scrushy liable for fraud which ordered him to pay $2.9 billion in damages. When the fraud was uncovered in 2003, HealthSouth was nearly forced into bankruptcy.

Despite McVay's pleas to stay out of prison, U.S. District Judge Inge Johnson ordered him to 3 months in prison after McVay had pleaded guilty in a scheme to inflate earnings six years ago and served five years on probation and six months of house arrest.

Since the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with prosecutors that the penalty was too lenient, Judge Johnson ordered McVay to prison.

McVay was among five finance chiefs who pleaded guilty to crimes while working under Richard Scrushy, the former HealthSouth CEO. The fraudulent reports, aimed at meeting Wall Street forecasts, were sent to federal regulators between 1996 and 2002.

McVay has said he was promoted to chief financial officer at HealthSouth in late 2002 and signed a phony earnings statement rather than lose his job, which paid him $400,000 a year.


Sources:

http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/lottery-5/124653284323960.xml&storylist=alabamanews

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Business/263341/


Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Katrina-FEMA Trailer Lawsuits Filed by Alabamians for Formaldehyde



Sixty-six people in Mobile County, Alabama filed federal lawsuits against the manufacturers of travel trailers accusing them of exposing them to dangerous levels of formaldehyde after Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs join about 23,000 others that have been filed in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. The Alabama suits name seven manufacturers, along with those who won no-bid contracts to install the trailers.


The civil complaints contend that the plaintiffs, who live mainly in south Mobile County, developed conditions such as asthma and are at increased risk of cancer.

Attorney Ronnie Penton, who represents the Plaintiffs, said he will add the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a defendant but cannot do so under federal law until after a 180-day waiting period.

The current suit and the additional 40 civil complaints Mr. Penton plans to file by August 1, will be transferred to a federal judge in New Orleans, who has been appointed to oversee all of the travel trailer litigation along the Gulf Coast.

Attorneys believes this is the first group of Alabamians to file suit over the formaldehyde issue.

"It's the first breakthrough we've had in a long, long time to get some relief for these people," said Tyson, the father of Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr. and a former Bayou La Batre city attorney and judge. "We found them in incredible bad condition, and no one was working on their behalf."

The lawsuits accuse the companies of resorting to substandard materials in order to expedite the manufacture of the housing units and failing to warn the government. Allegations also say poor trailer installation methods by contractors caused stress and flexing on their frames, increasing moisture and formaldehyde exposure.

The suit also says internal FEMA e-mails uncovered by a Congressional investigation showed that government officials were more concerned with potential lawsuits than in ensuring the health and safety of some 150,000 families that needed temporary housing after Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

Penton said the evidence is clear that government officials knew about the formaldehyde risks, "and they failed to tell the public about it." Penton went on to say he believes "in fact, it was a cover-up."

The first of the FEMA trailer lawsuits is scheduled to go to trial in New Orleans in September.

U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt in New Orleans will handle all pretrial matters in the Alabama cases before sending them back to Mobile for trial.

The plaintiffs seek compensation for past and future injuries, as well as punitive damages against the manufacturers and contractors.


Source: Press Register

Government Study relates Formaldehyde to increased deadly cancer risks:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_84179.html


$10.4 Million Jury Verdict returned in Breach of Contract & Fraud case

A jury ordered Cello Energy to pay $10.4 million over allegations the firm fraudulently claimed it could produce cheap fuel from hay, waste wood and other material.


Cello Energy is based out of Bay Minette and owned by the former head of the Alabama Ethics Commission, Jack Boykin.


The federal lawsuit was filed by Cello Energy bio fuel investors, Parsons & Wittemore Enterprises; a New York based paper company which also owns a pair of pulp mills in southwest Alabama.

Although Cello Energy built and staffed a plant, Parsons & Wittemore insisted the plant never accomplished what Boykin had long promised—deriving motor fuel from wood chips, crop residue and other biomass.

The jury ruled Monday that Cello Energy and Boykin Trust, the partnership that owned it, were liable for $2.8 million for breach of contract with Parsons & Whittemore. The jurors also decided that the companies, along with Jack Boykin and his son Allen Boykin, were personally liable for another $104,537 for fraud and awarded $7.5 million in punitive damages against all the defendants.

Boykin vowed to move forward with his process for producing fuel. His attorney, Forrest Latta, said Boykin's method has the potential to transform the world.

Parsons & Whittemore invested $2.5 million in Cello Energy and had another $10 million option for a one-third ownership share. Unknown to Parsons & Whittemore, however, Boykin struck a deal with a California firm, Khosla Ventures, which invested $10 million in the construction of a plant in Bay Minette to turn wood chips, hay and other cellulosic material into diesel fuel.

Parsons & Whittemore claimed the deal diluted the value of its investment. And George Landegger, CEO of Parsons & Wittemore, described Boykin's promises about the fuel plant as being lies.

"The jury has spoken clearly in condemning the Boykins' fraud against Parsons & Whittemore. I am gratified that the jury has put a stop to the Boykins' deceit," he said.

Parsons & Whittemore also sued Khosla, accusing the company of interfering in its business relationship with Cello Energy; however, the jury found in favor the Silicon Valley company, Khosla.

Source: Mercury News

Hale County Attorney and Friend Jimmy Seale Passes Away

As many know by now, my friend and Hale County attorney Jimmy Seale passed away on June 21st. It is a great loss to the legal profession and the citizens of Hale County. I don't remember any occasion when I was with Jimmy that he was not laughing---and you could not help but laugh as well. We laughed with Jimmy. We laughed at Jimmy. But, he always made you laugh. Just thinking about Jimmy makes me laugh.

While visiting my parents in Tuscaloosa last weekend, I came across an article in the Tuscaloosa News written by Robert Dewitt. I don't think anyone could describe Jimmy any better than he does in this article.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090628/NEWS/906279930


Our hearts and prayers go out to his family and law partners.