Class-action lawsuit threatens Spinnaker Resorts on Hilton Head | Initiative Legal Group

An article by Dan Burley, originally posted on islandpacket.com. It reads...

Another Hilton Head Island timeshare company has come under fire.

Two North Carolina residents filed a federal class-action lawsuit Friday against Spinnaker Resorts.

The lawsuit alleges the company broke the law by not registering with the state to sell timeshares at Bluewater by Spinnaker -- its resort on Squire Pope Road -- until September 2014. Before that time, the company "knowingly sold unregistered timeshares to the general public," the suit says.

The company has not responded to the lawsuit. Attempts Tuesday to reach representatives from Spinnaker were unsuccessful.

Legal experts say the case could devastate the company since state law allows timeshare owners who bought from an unregistered company to cancel contracts, according to the lawsuit and the S.C. Timeshare Act.

"If owners can reverse most of the sales before that time, I'm sure this company would be seeking Chapter 11 relief," said Mike Finn, a Largo, Fla., attorney whose firm specializes in timeshare law.

It was not known Tuesday how many owners bought timeshares before Spinnaker registered Bluewater. The company started building the 86-unit complex on the banks of Skull Creek in 2005.

It registered Bluewater on Sept. 2, 2014, according to a copy of the registration included in the lawsuit. Spinnaker also runs Waterside, Southwind, Egret Point and Carolina Club on Hilton Head, as well as resorts in Florida and Missouri.

The lawsuit was filed by Mark and Paula Fullbright, who bought a $26,000 timeshare at Bluewater in June 2014, according to court records.

After buying, the Fullbrights found out the company was not registered to sell Bluewater timeshares.

"My clients filed a federal lawsuit ... To void the timeshare contract and obtain a full refund of all monies paid under the contract," Joseph DuBois, a Hilton Head attorney representing the couple, said in a statement. The lawsuit asks that other owners who bought before September 2014 have the option to receive the same refund.

DuBois and his law partner, Zach Naert, are known for their lawsuits against another island timeshare company, Coral Resorts.

The pair are locked in more than 60 state and federal lawsuits with the company on behalf of timeshare owners.

Last summer, a transcript of a hearing Coral Resorts had before the state Real Estate Commission was obtained by The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette.

The transcript shows Coral Resorts did not pay annual fees required by the state Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. The lapsed payments led to questions about whether registrations of the company's four timeshares remained intact during the years fees weren't paid, according to records. The commission eventually allowed the company to pay the missed payments.

The state requires timeshare companies to register with the Real Estate Commission in part to protect consumers, said Labor, Licensing and Regulation spokeswoman Lesia Kudelkacq. Some consumer-protection tools include a five-day right of cancellation and the right to basic information about the company, including the name of the developer, she said in an email.

Finn, the Florida timeshare attorney, said such registrations are "the only protection a consumer has."

"It gives the public of picture of what they want to sell you," he said.

For a company to go unregistered for nine years, "I don't see how you could do that."

"It could decimate the resort."

source: here

Read more here: http://www.islandpacket.com/2015/04/07/3686952_class-action-lawsuit-threatens.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

New class action suit filed against Lumber Liquidators | Initiative Legal Group

REPOST FROM: vagazette.com. It reads.... 

JAMES CITY —

A national consumer rights law firm has filed the fifth class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators over the safety of its Chinese-made laminate flooring.

Hagens Berman, which has nine offices nationwide, filed suit in San Francisco , alleging, among other items, that the home testing kits Lumber Liquidators offered customers who were worried about excess formaldehyde fumes from their flooring, were "bogus."

Our main focus is to represent plaintiffs/victims in securities and investment fraud, product liability, tort, antitrust, consumer fraud, employment, whistle blower, intellectual property, environmental, and employee pension protection cases," according the firm's website.

In a statement announcing its first quarter financial results Thursday, Lumber Liquidators reported that 10,000 customers had requested the test kits.

Hagens Berman's release accused Lumber Liquidators of conducting a "campaign of misinformation" and said the kits are not compliant with California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards.

According to the  lawsuit, the free home-testing kits Lumber Liquidators has offered to customers are “inherently unreliable” and “designed to under-report” levels of formaldehyde in the composite flooring.

The suit also charges that the third party providing the home testing kits is not independent, but is being paid by Lumber Liquidators.

Lumber Liquidators responded Thursday afternoon.

"Lumber Liquidators is committed to providing our customers with safe, high-quality products. To reassure our customers, we have implemented an air quality testing program that includes testing by a third-party laboratory at no cost to the customer. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the claims asserted in this suit," the company said in a statement released in response to a request for comment on the new suit.

The suit, filed March 31, in the Northern District of California, represents consumers from California, Florida and Michigan.

In its financial announcement, Lumber Liquidators reported first quarter financial results which were decent, despite the ongoing controversy over the safety of its flooring, put in the spotlight by a story on CBS's "60 Minutes" 'last month.

Net sales in the first quarter of 2015 were  $260.0 million, the company reported, an increase of 5.6% from the first quarter of 2014.

However, the "60 Minutes" piece had an impact,  net sales in the month of March were $89.4 million, a decrease of 12.8% in comparison to March 2014.

"Consistent with company's expectations as discussed in its March 12, 2015 business update, net sales in March 2015 were significantly weaker than trends in January and February, as net sales were negatively impacted by unfavorable allegations surrounding the product quality of the company's laminates sourced from China," the statement said.

Source: here

St. Louis County Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Anthem BCBS | Initiative Legal Group

Reposted from stlouis.cbslocal.com. It reads...

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A lawsuit seeking monetary damages has been filed against Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield because of a data breach in December.

More than 80 million Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield records were hacked, and some people are already reporting identity theft.

Information including medical records, names, birthdays, social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, employment information and income data were stolen from customers and employees.

Now comes a class action lawsuit seeking “monetary damages.”

Attorney Maureen Brady, with the Kansas City Law Firm McShane and Brady, told KMOX News the lawsuit was filed in St. Louis County because a substantial amount of the complaints occurred in St. Louis.

The lawsuit claims Anthem did not have adequate security to protect its customers.

KMOX attempted to contact Anthem’s nationaloffice. We were told to contact the main office in St. Louis.

At 4:30 Thursday afternoon, when we first received word of the lawsuit, a recorded voice said “you’ve reached us outside our normal hours of operation.”

Anthem has already provided credit monitoring for those affected.

Source: here

4 Common Small Business Mistakes That Lead to Employee Lawsuits | Marc Primo Pulisci

Below is a reposted article form huffingtonpost.com byMargaret Jacoby. It reads...

 Lawsuits are filed against small businesses far too often--many of which are due to easily avoidable human resources mistakes that aren't seen until it's too late. Many of these lawsuits involve current or past employees who believe they have some kind of "dirty laundry" on the business, or think they can turn a minor grievance into a major payday. In fact, almost 75 percent of all litigation against corporations today involves employment disputes. Over 40 percent of these lawsuits are filed against smaller employers (15 - 100 employees).

Employment-related lawsuits are often even more costly for small businesses than consumer lawsuits. The median compensatory award for employment practices liability insurance cases is $218,000. The precautions you take today can prevent a frivolous--and potentially bankrupting--court case tomorrow. Here are four mistakes that can get you into trouble.

1. Not Running Background Checks on Employees
A first impression is always important, but it's hardly the only thing on which a job candidate should be judged. Considering the cost of employment-related lawsuits, your small business should do a thorough background check on prospective hires. This includes criminal background checks, calling past employers, and checking references. Doing so can uncover potential employment issues down the road and help you avoid lawsuits.

2. Not Using Employment Agreements
Written employment agreements, as long as they're professionally drafted, can eliminate any doubts about what is expected in the employee/employer relationship. For example, prospective employees will have no misunderstandings about sick days, their working hours, and even personal use of office equipment since these items can be clearly spelled out in an agreement.

3. Inadequately Documenting Terminations
Employees will come and go even if you have excellent advancement opportunities and work hard to reduce employee turnover. Terminations are part of running a small business, so you must carefully plan for them. Failure to do so could open the door to potential lawsuits from past employees. Document every termination, including the process, reason, and events that led to it. Documenting the termination of an employee minimizes the risk of future claims brought against your business.

4. Ignoring Relevant Employment Laws
Failure to follow basic, relevant employment laws could be much worse than just a lawsuit. You could face fines and even lose your license. Federal and state employment laws are nothing to ignore; make sure you thoroughly understand and comply with all of them. This can include everything from overtime pay to working hours to vacation time and even discrimination. While a happy employee might not mind you breaking the rules, a terminated or disgruntled employee may report you and file his own lawsuit against you.

Protect Your Small Business
Improving human resources management in your small business is critical in many ways. Adhering to all necessary policies, procedures, and laws enables you to reduce your risk for lawsuits, whether coming from employees or other businesses. Even if a lawsuit occurs, following these steps can reduce their severity and hopefully build enough evidence to dismiss the lawsuit.

Source: here

UBS says was added to class action lawsuit related to silver price benchmark | Initiative Legal Group

Below is a reposted article from reuters.com. It reads...

(Reuters) - UBS was added in January to a class action lawsuit in the New York federal court related to the silver price benchmark known as the silver fix, the Swiss bank said in its annual report on Friday.

"In January 2015, UBS was added to an ongoing putative class action against other banks in federal court in New York on behalf of a putative class of persons that transacted in physical silver or a silver financial instrument priced, benchmarked, and/or settled to the London silver fix at any time from January 1, 1999 to an unspecified date," UBS said in the report.

Litigation alleging that Deutsche Bank AG, Bank of Nova Scotia and HSBC Plc illegally fixed the price of silver was centralized in a Manhattan federal court late last year.

The silver fix, a London-based benchmark pricing method dating back to the Victorian era, ceased to operate last year after the banks administering it said they would no longer take part in the process.

It was replaced by a new London silver benchmark price operated by CME Group and Thomson Reuters. (Reporting by Jan Harvey, editing by William Hardy)

Source: here

Learn more about Initiative Legal Group. 

Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP Announces Proposed Class Action Settlement on Behalf of Purchasers of Arm & Hammer(R) Essentials(TM) Deodorant in the United States

Below is an article reposted from globenewswire.com. It reads...

TRENTON, N.J., March 6, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The parties in the action captioned Trewin et al. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01475, announce that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has preliminarily approved a class action settlement. The Class includes all people who purchased Arm & Hammer® Essentials™ deodorant with a label stating "Natural Deodorant".

The Plaintiffs, represented by Class Counsel, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, alleged that the labeling of the Essentials™ deodorant with the words "Natural Deodorant" ("Old Label") was false and misleading to consumers. Church & Dwight expressly denies Plaintiffs' allegations and claims and maintains that its Essentials™ deodorant with the Old Label is not in any way false or misleading. Nevertheless, the parties believe that resolving the claims would be desirable in order to end the expenses, burdens and uncertainties associated with continuing the litigation.

The settlement provides, among other things, that Church & Dwight will make a cash payment for the benefit of the class in exchange for certain releases and covenants by the Plaintiffs. The settlement was reached after almost two years of litigation and months of negotiation and is subject to approval by the District Court of New Jersey and to other conditions specified in the settlement documents.

Website: http://www.churchanddwightsettlement.com

Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP
James C. Shah

Source: here

Learn more about Initiative Legal Group

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Purina's Beneful: Plaintiffs Claim Dog Food Poisoned, Killed Thousands Of Dogs | Initiative Legal Group

The article below is  reposted from medicaldaily.com and is by Susan Scutti. It reads as follows...

Pets aren’t just animals, they’re friends and family as every dog, cat, and rabbit-lover knows. For this reason, Nestle Purina Petcare Company should not be surprised by the strong emotions underlying a recent lawsuit. The class action suit filed in California by plaintiff Frank Lucido on Feb. 5 alleges Purina's Beneful is responsible for making thousands of dogs either seriously ill or causing them to die, according to Top Class Actions. Specifically, the suit concerns "kibble," which includes the popular Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Healthy Weight, and Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, among many other sub-brands.

While the lawsuit is new, the actual complaint is rather old. In fact, on Consumer Affairs, dog owners have been saying for some time that Beneful has hurt and in some cases killed their beloved dogs. One owner of a “perfectly healthy” mixed terrier wrote, “She went from happy to sickly upon eating Beneful. ... I stop the food and bam, she was back to normal.” Another owner, after switching her dog to Beneful, wrote, “She seemed fine at first, but then I started noticing incontinence problems. A few weeks later she started becoming lethargic, then she started vomiting. … My dog so far has not died, but she is also still not healthy.”

Another dog owner fed his dog a single serving of Beneful with this result: “He was vomiting, diarrhea, lethargic, wheezing, and couldn't walk or eat. We rushed him to the vet where he was put on steroids, IV to re-hydrate, and antibiotics. He almost died. He was there for four days.”

In fact, more than 3,000 complaints have been posted online according to Frank Lucido v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company. The lawsuit further alleges the dogs “show consistent symptoms, including stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating, and kidney failure.” Importantly, the suit asserts, “on information and belief,” that these illnesses and deaths were caused by toxic substances found in Beneful, including propylene glycol, an automotive antifreeze component, and mycotoxins, a group of toxins produced by fungus.

Don’t Mess With My Pet!

How could mere dog chow inspire such anger and passion? For owners, pets are not just play-dates, but true unfailing social support. One study from the American Psychological Association found pet owners fare better on tests of well-being when compared to people without pets. The research also demonstrated ways in which pets were able to stave off negativity caused by rejection from people. Clearly, pets can be relied upon at times when mere humans fail us.

“Pet owners had greater self-esteem, were more physically fit, tended to be less lonely, were more conscientious, were more extraverted, tended to be less fearful, and tended to be less preoccupied than non-owners,” said lead researcher of the 2011 study, Dr. Allen R. McConnell of Miami University in Ohio.

While it’s been clear for years that pets can be helpful to people facing a grave health crisis — think of caredogs helping hospital patients or guide dogs for the blind — this study proves that everyday pet owners reap many health rewards from their favorite “buddies.” As for Purina, well, these few words should suffice: Prepare yourself, this will be painful.

Source: here

Learn more about Initiative Legal Group here