New studies released earlier this month raise troubling questions about the effectiveness of two prescript medications used to control cholesterol. The generic products Ezetimibe--marketed under the registered trademark Zetia--and Ezetimibe/Simvastatin--marketed under the registered trademark Vytorin--apparently aren't effective, as represented by their manufacturers.
Disclosure: the author of this blog routinely handles consumer class actions and may become involved in this litigation in the future.
Consumers are lining up in various states to pursue claims for reimbursements and refunds for money spent on these drugs. According to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court of Kansas, the drugs are alleged to increase the formation of fatty plaques, which raises the risk of heart attack.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Finally-The Press Asks OHSU the Hard Questions
I have to say that Steve Duin's column in today's Oregonian (24 January 2008) is a breath of fresh air. Here is the url: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1201137918314500.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
The back story is that the Oregon Supreme Court ruled recently that Oregon Health Sciences cannot cap a child's damages at $200,000 when OHSU's negligent treatment causes profound brain damage.
Rather than take responsibility, OHSU started up the scare machine. We were treated to a parade of horribles. OHSU will be forced to limit or cut care, it will be closing clinics, and it will be laying off many people all because of--they claimed--Jordaan Clarke.
Steve Duin's column debunks the myth. I mean, for crying out loud, can you say, "Aerial tram"? And don't even get me started on the OHSU waterfront developments. Or how about the recent loss of the biotech research group to Florida? The reality is that OHSU hides from public scrutiny by claiming to be private and hides from market reality by claiming to be public.
The best part of Steve Duin's article is this quote from Sen. Walker (Eugene): "They've finally found a way for people to overlook years of financial mismanagement," state Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene said, "and it's Jordaan Michael Clarke. It's a great PR move, but it's ridiculous. And it's a snow job."
Couldn't agree with her more.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The back story is that the Oregon Supreme Court ruled recently that Oregon Health Sciences cannot cap a child's damages at $200,000 when OHSU's negligent treatment causes profound brain damage.
Rather than take responsibility, OHSU started up the scare machine. We were treated to a parade of horribles. OHSU will be forced to limit or cut care, it will be closing clinics, and it will be laying off many people all because of--they claimed--Jordaan Clarke.
Steve Duin's column debunks the myth. I mean, for crying out loud, can you say, "Aerial tram"? And don't even get me started on the OHSU waterfront developments. Or how about the recent loss of the biotech research group to Florida? The reality is that OHSU hides from public scrutiny by claiming to be private and hides from market reality by claiming to be public.
The best part of Steve Duin's article is this quote from Sen. Walker (Eugene): "They've finally found a way for people to overlook years of financial mismanagement," state Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene said, "and it's Jordaan Michael Clarke. It's a great PR move, but it's ridiculous. And it's a snow job."
Couldn't agree with her more.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Supreme Court Cases Focus on Whether Corporate Actors Must Answer to Juries
The Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear two cases that may impact consumers. Two cases address a troubling area--federal preemption. Both threaten to further restrict consumers' abilities to obtain compensation when wrongdoers cause harms and losses.
In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court will decide whether state law claims for injuries that seek payment for harms and losses caused by a dangerous drug are preempted, when federal law requires a warning on the drug. In the Levine case, Ms. Levine lost her arm as a result of complications from defendant's drug. The jury awarded money to make up for Ms. Levine's harms and losses. Now Wyeth argues that federal law protects it from answering for harms and losses caused by its misconduct.
In Altria v. Good, the Supreme Court will decide whether requirements that relate to the labels on cigarettes preempt consumers claims that they were deceived when Philip Morris sold Marlboro Lights. In the case--arising in Maine--consumers claim that Philip Morris failed to disclose that Marlboro "Lights" that were "lowered tar and nicotine" are only "light" when smoked by a machine. (Full disclosure: The author of this blog has been pursuing a similar claim on behalf of Oregon purchasers of Marlboro Lights.) In Altria, Philip Morris wants the Court to put a stop to these consumer cases because--Philip Morris claims--its labels were regulated by federal rules.
Nice try. Actually, nothing in any federal rule or law required Philip Morris to claim that its cigarettes were light or lowered tar and nicotine. They made that choice. And they also chose not to disclose that the "light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" labels apply to machines, not to people.
Still, this court seems to tilt in favor heavily in favor of corporate interests. As well, this court seems to distrust the jury's ability to hear and weigh the evidence and decide whether a consumer's harms and losses were caused by misconduct.
I long ago stopped making predictions about what any court will do. It's a waste of energy and time, and I imagine that I'm about as good at predicting as I am at calling heads or tails. Still, if these cases go the wrong way, consumers could find themselves with nowhere to turn when corporate misconduct causes serious harms and losses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court will decide whether state law claims for injuries that seek payment for harms and losses caused by a dangerous drug are preempted, when federal law requires a warning on the drug. In the Levine case, Ms. Levine lost her arm as a result of complications from defendant's drug. The jury awarded money to make up for Ms. Levine's harms and losses. Now Wyeth argues that federal law protects it from answering for harms and losses caused by its misconduct.
In Altria v. Good, the Supreme Court will decide whether requirements that relate to the labels on cigarettes preempt consumers claims that they were deceived when Philip Morris sold Marlboro Lights. In the case--arising in Maine--consumers claim that Philip Morris failed to disclose that Marlboro "Lights" that were "lowered tar and nicotine" are only "light" when smoked by a machine. (Full disclosure: The author of this blog has been pursuing a similar claim on behalf of Oregon purchasers of Marlboro Lights.) In Altria, Philip Morris wants the Court to put a stop to these consumer cases because--Philip Morris claims--its labels were regulated by federal rules.
Nice try. Actually, nothing in any federal rule or law required Philip Morris to claim that its cigarettes were light or lowered tar and nicotine. They made that choice. And they also chose not to disclose that the "light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" labels apply to machines, not to people.
Still, this court seems to tilt in favor heavily in favor of corporate interests. As well, this court seems to distrust the jury's ability to hear and weigh the evidence and decide whether a consumer's harms and losses were caused by misconduct.
I long ago stopped making predictions about what any court will do. It's a waste of energy and time, and I imagine that I'm about as good at predicting as I am at calling heads or tails. Still, if these cases go the wrong way, consumers could find themselves with nowhere to turn when corporate misconduct causes serious harms and losses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Initiative Signature Gathering Questioned
In today's Oregonian, there's a thoughtful letter to the editor under the heading, "Sizemore should be banned" from Mark Sturbois of Southeast Portland. Mr. Sturbois points out that Mr. Sizemore has been convicted of improprieties relating to the initiative process. But even so he's back again with more bad ballot measures.
Coincidentally, the back page of the same Metro section (Oregonian Jan. 10, 2008) reports on an important ruling by Marion County Circuit Judge Dennis Graves. In that case, a number of professional petitioners challenged new laws that regulate how signatures are gathered for initiative petitions.
The regulations allow the State to enforce existing rules that ban paying signature gatherers by the signature. The professional petitioners--the Sizemores of our lives--challenged the rules and asked the judge to enjoin enforcement. Judge Graves refused to do so.
I'm not privy to the particulars, and you always have to be a little careful about news reports of cases. Still, it seems reasonable to me that the State can enforce rules that regulate signature gathering for initiatives. After all, we want a transparent process that Oregonians can trust, not one that encourages or promotes signature fraud. It seems like Judge Graves' ruling goes the right way on this important issue.
So back to Mr. Sturbois. Seems like he's got a well-founded and well-articulated beef with the Sizemore efforts. Let's hope that the latest round of rules helps cure us of this ill. While the right to petition is an important one, we're all entitled to have the petitioning process remain open and honest. So maybe some fraud-proofing will stop the cascade of lousy ideas?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Coincidentally, the back page of the same Metro section (Oregonian Jan. 10, 2008) reports on an important ruling by Marion County Circuit Judge Dennis Graves. In that case, a number of professional petitioners challenged new laws that regulate how signatures are gathered for initiative petitions.
The regulations allow the State to enforce existing rules that ban paying signature gatherers by the signature. The professional petitioners--the Sizemores of our lives--challenged the rules and asked the judge to enjoin enforcement. Judge Graves refused to do so.
I'm not privy to the particulars, and you always have to be a little careful about news reports of cases. Still, it seems reasonable to me that the State can enforce rules that regulate signature gathering for initiatives. After all, we want a transparent process that Oregonians can trust, not one that encourages or promotes signature fraud. It seems like Judge Graves' ruling goes the right way on this important issue.
So back to Mr. Sturbois. Seems like he's got a well-founded and well-articulated beef with the Sizemore efforts. Let's hope that the latest round of rules helps cure us of this ill. While the right to petition is an important one, we're all entitled to have the petitioning process remain open and honest. So maybe some fraud-proofing will stop the cascade of lousy ideas?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Countrywide Makes it Up
Here's a fun one. According to a report in today's New York Times, Countrywide admitted that it fabricated--or in its lawyers words, "recreated"--documents in a bankruptcy case. Countrywide used three letters that it claimed to have sent to the borrower and used them as the basis for claiming that the borrower owed Countrywide $4,700.
Here's the url for reference. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Countrywide's claim that the borrower owed money is particularly problematic. According to the news report, the borrower had successfully completed her bankruptcy plan, a plan that Countrywide passed on without objection. After completion of the bankruptcy plan, Countrywide sent the borrower a notice of intention to foreclose based on the fabricated documents.
Countrywide sent the borrower's lawyer "copies" of three letters sent previously. Or so Countrywide claimed. Interestingly, the oldest of the three letters was addressed to an office address that the lawyer would move into well after the date of the first letter. Nice work at the documents department.
In the predatory lending crisis, there are those who want to put all of the blame on borrowers for failing to take responsibility. While there will be plenty of blame to go around before the whole story comes out, this story doesn't exactly bathe Countrywide in a righteous light. It will be interesting to see whether this type of conduct was widespread, or whether it was a rare instance of misconduct.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Here's the url for reference. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Countrywide's claim that the borrower owed money is particularly problematic. According to the news report, the borrower had successfully completed her bankruptcy plan, a plan that Countrywide passed on without objection. After completion of the bankruptcy plan, Countrywide sent the borrower a notice of intention to foreclose based on the fabricated documents.
Countrywide sent the borrower's lawyer "copies" of three letters sent previously. Or so Countrywide claimed. Interestingly, the oldest of the three letters was addressed to an office address that the lawyer would move into well after the date of the first letter. Nice work at the documents department.
In the predatory lending crisis, there are those who want to put all of the blame on borrowers for failing to take responsibility. While there will be plenty of blame to go around before the whole story comes out, this story doesn't exactly bathe Countrywide in a righteous light. It will be interesting to see whether this type of conduct was widespread, or whether it was a rare instance of misconduct.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, January 7, 2008
De Beers Class Action Settlement
One of the better class notices I've seen appeared in Parade Magazine on Sunday, January 6, 2008. It announced a $295 million settlement of a diamond market price fixing class action lawsuit against De Beers diamonds.
The notice provides a nice summary of the class settlement with plenty of information on how class members can learn more about the case. The settlement fund totals some $295 million. It covers diamond purchases from Januay 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. Additional information can be found at www.diamondclassaction.com.
Paul & Sugerman did not participate in this case and has no connection to the claim.
The size of the settlement fund suggests that class counsel did a great job in putting together what must have been a tough case. But more important, it's an impressive job of providing notice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The notice provides a nice summary of the class settlement with plenty of information on how class members can learn more about the case. The settlement fund totals some $295 million. It covers diamond purchases from Januay 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. Additional information can be found at www.diamondclassaction.com.
Paul & Sugerman did not participate in this case and has no connection to the claim.
The size of the settlement fund suggests that class counsel did a great job in putting together what must have been a tough case. But more important, it's an impressive job of providing notice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, January 4, 2008
FTC Wins Fraud Case Against Infomercial Marketer
In a decision released yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a multi-million dollar judgment against QT, Inc., the seller of the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet.
QT made millions selling the product to desperate consumers, claiming its "Q rays" were a miracle cure that relieved all sorts of chronic pain. Independent medical research found that it was about as effective as a placebo.
A federal judge heard the evidence and stuck the company with fines and ordered refunds, as well. The numbers run into the tens of millions.
News reports scattered around the internet today point out that the company filed bankruptcy, and yet it continues to sell the product using product testimonials.
The opinion--written by Judge Easterbrook--makes for amusing reading. He labels the company's claims about biofeedback, Q Waves and energy balancing as "blather." In affirming the trial court, the appeals court concluded that the judge hearing the case was in the best position to weigh the evidence.
I'm reminded of a film I saw quite by accident a few months ago. It was a Spanish film called Ladrones Robben Ladrones (Thieves Rob Thieves) in which the bogus marketing of a miracle cure is at the heart of a terrific heist film. It's one of those good guys win in the end films. Sort of like this case.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
QT made millions selling the product to desperate consumers, claiming its "Q rays" were a miracle cure that relieved all sorts of chronic pain. Independent medical research found that it was about as effective as a placebo.
A federal judge heard the evidence and stuck the company with fines and ordered refunds, as well. The numbers run into the tens of millions.
News reports scattered around the internet today point out that the company filed bankruptcy, and yet it continues to sell the product using product testimonials.
The opinion--written by Judge Easterbrook--makes for amusing reading. He labels the company's claims about biofeedback, Q Waves and energy balancing as "blather." In affirming the trial court, the appeals court concluded that the judge hearing the case was in the best position to weigh the evidence.
I'm reminded of a film I saw quite by accident a few months ago. It was a Spanish film called Ladrones Robben Ladrones (Thieves Rob Thieves) in which the bogus marketing of a miracle cure is at the heart of a terrific heist film. It's one of those good guys win in the end films. Sort of like this case.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
