Vioxx...California courts assign Plaintiff liaison counsel for Vioxx victims!

A couple of weeks ago, I penned a post in which I referred to the Vioxx settlement agreement (pounded out last year) as a "fraud" upon the American people.

Post: 02/21/09

http://julian1st.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/vioxx-settlementa-fraud-perpetrated-on-the-american-people-by-merck-lawyers/



I was prompted to write the expose in view of the fact a number of victims involved in the Vioxx debacle have alleged in recent days that Merck (and their attorneys) have been giving them the run-around.



Although many litigants signed on for the settlement agreement in the spring of 2008, quite a large percentage of the victims haven't received one slim dime as of April, 2009.



In addition to the aforementioned scandalous conduct, Merck's attorneys have also engaged in deceitful bold-faced efforts to have lawsuits dismissed under a false premise.



For example, the claims office (and a handful of Vioxx plaintiff attorneys) have sent out notices to victims asserting that their failure to sign a "release" has placed their claim in jeopardy - and that until they sign on the dotted line - no payment will be forthcoming.



Upon close scrutiny, and after a bit of strenuous fact-checking, it is crystal clear that the "deficiency" that Merck refers to - that is alleging holding up claims - arises from a plaintiff's refusal to sign a release that will summarily "dismiss" the lawsuit against Merck with prejudice.



Disgruntled claimants have informed me they don't intend to sign any release for a dismissal of their lawsuits until the amount of their settlement has been determined and they are issued a draft for the total sum agreed upon.



Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?



Notwithstanding this glaring dishonesty on the part of Merck and all the attorneys involved in the Vioxx settlement "scam", there is another issue which has triggered some warning bells, too.



The claims office has been sending out notices to plaintiffs instructing them to sign a second legal document (lien notice) which guarantees that medical care facilities, doctors, insurance companies, and attorneys get their monies first by virtue of a lien.



Claimants worry that if they do sign off and permit a lien to placed on their "settlement" that they may not end up realizing the lump sum of money they were promised when they agreed to the landmark settlement offer hammered out with Merck attorneys last year.



For the aforementioned reasons, there has been a lot of confusion and ill-will running rampant across the Vioxx settlement landscape.



For this reason, the California Courts have assigned Plaintiff liaison counsel to assist the litigants in respect to their ongoing settlements disputes with Merck and their legal counsel.



Interested parties should contact the court of jurisdiction in California where their case against Merck is pending and secure the attorney information available with the aim of proceeding accordingly.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Mattel...settles toy lead poisoning lawsuit! Compensation for tainted items from China...

Last fall, just prior to commencement of the holiday season, I penned a post warning parents about potential hazards such as lead poisoning in toys crafted and imported from China.



A week or so ago, I obliged with a follow up feature on the issues, and provided links for web sites where parents could check for recalled toys and verify that other toys for tots were safe.



Post: 12/10/08



http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2008/12/toysat-x-mas-consumer-advociates-warn.html



On the heels of this post, Mattel announced it will pay $12 million to compensate 39 States for damages arising from tainted toys made in China and shipped to the U.S.



Last year, the Segundo-based manufacturer (along with the Fisher Price Division) recalled more than 21 million Chinese-made toys after fearing the items were tainted with lead paint and tiny magnets that children could accidentally swallow.



In order to shore up the agreement with Government Officials, Mattel agreed to lower the acceptable levels of lead in toys shipped to the U.S. to - 90 parts per million - which amounts to a hefty change from yesteryear's 600 parts per million (Federal Standard).



A Mattel spokesman noted that he was proud of the company for demonstrating its commitment to children's safety by pledging to meet standards more stringent than those currently required.



However, it should be noted for the record, the Federal Standard will follow the guidelines recently adopted by Mattel when new rules and regulations go into effect next year.



Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley applauded Mattel's lead which she asserted "will result in much safer standards" in the toy industry.



California negotiated a deal under the State's "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act" (under a separate agreement) wherein nine toy companies - including Mattel - will pay the state $1.8 million over lead-painted toys.



In spite of the fact Mattel's stock dipped 7 cents a share when the announcement was initially made public, an industry analyst pooh-poohed the notion that is was a bad sign from stockholders.



Anything that would put to rest the question of toy safety is a net positive, he concluded.



Amen!

Bank of America...U.S. District Court settlement!

Today, I received a rather official-looking legal document in the mail from the United States District Court.

In a prior post, I noted that the "Evil Empire" - the Bank of America - was being sued in a class-action suit for dinging credit card holders with questionable charges from 1996 until 2006, respectively...and that I was a plaintiff in the proceedings.

According to the notice, the U.S. District Court has arrived at a settlement agreement with the banking giant.

Plaintiffs in the proceeding may choose one of three settlement options.

In the first refund option, parties to the action may choose what is referred to as an "easy refund" or flat sum. This offer is suggested for individuals who travelled outside of the U.S. for less than one week, or had foreign transactions of less than $2,500.00, using eligible credit cards during the 1996 to 2006 period.

In the alternative, a plaintiff may choose a second option - a total estimation refund based on typical spending - supported by particulars in respect to travel outside of the U.S. The second offer is recommended for those who travelled abroad for more than one week or had foreign transactions of more than $2,500.00 using eligible cards during the same time span cited in Option No. 1 above.

The third settlement offer amounts to a refund based on information provided concerning annual estimated foreign transactions during 1996 thru 2006. This choice is recommended for those with extensive foreign travel or foreign transactions who are willing to submit year-by-year documented information in support of the claim. Refunds, in this instance, will be a maximum of 1% to 3% of foreign transactions.

Well, I'm settling for Option 1.

Heh, Christmas is coming up; the extra cash will come in handy!