Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Judge Approves $50M Milk Price-Fixing Settlement Following Multiple Rejections

milk On Monday, a federal judge in Vermont issued preliminary approval on a $50 million settlement that will resolve claims by farmers alleging that Dairy Farmers of America Inc. and Dairy Marketing Services LLC engaged in a milk price-fixing conspiracy.

U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss’ approval of the deal came after rejecting two prior versions of the preliminary settlement. The most recent settlement proposed in December 2015 was approved and represented a resolution of over six years of pending litigation.

The milk price-fixing class action settlement will address the claims of two subclasses of dairy farmers and will lead to an average settlement of $4,000 per dairy farm. This is the same monetary amount that Judge Reiss rejected previously, saying the dollar amount was “modest.”

However, Judge Reiss noted that in the new version of the Dairy Farmers class action lawsuit settlement, farmers would be allowed to exclude themselves from the deal so they could pursue individual claims for higher settlement compensation if they want.

In July 2014, the initial settlement was proposed and was given preliminary approval in November 2014. However, in March 2015 Judge Reiss refused to grant final approval of the settlement.

The farmers submitted a request to have the judge reconsider granting final approval of the settlement, but in September, Judge Reiss denied approval of the settlement once again, saying she hadn’t found the initial version to be fair and the revision did not include changes that were substantial enough to warrant her approval.

The initial milk price-fixing class action lawsuit settlement proposal was brought forth to end claims that DFA, DMS and Dean Foods Co. conspired with certain companies including Land O’Lakes Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. to control both the supply and purchase of Grade A raw milk.

Dean Foods Co. ended up settling on their own with the Class in May 2011 for $30 million, leaving DFA and DMS as the remaining defendants in the case.

The latest revision of the Dairy Farmers class action lawsuit settlement that was ultimately given preliminary approval included provisions to allow any farmer in opposition to the settlement to be able to opt-out and pursue litigation individually. Additionally, Judge Reiss said that injunctive relief in the latest settlement “is more extensive than the injunctive relief proposed in the parties’ 2014 Settlement.”

The approved milk class action settlement also includes increased limits and prohibitions imposed on the DFA and DMS, establishment of a Farmer Ombudsman position as well as an Advisory Council position, safeguards on milk testing and “certain required financial and management disclosures by DFA and DMS,” among others.

Judge Reiss required only a few modifications to the settlement but otherwise approved the conditions. The subclass members will be notified per the terms of the court order and a class action website for the lawsuit will be created by the Claims Administrator to further assist eligible Class Members in obtaining the necessary information to be included in the settlement.

A fairness hearing will be held to determine the final approval of the settlement on May 13, 2016.

More information about the Dairy Farmers class action lawsuit settlement was not immediately available. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates. You can also mark this article as a “Favorite” using your free Top Class Actions account to receive notifications when this article is updated.

The non-DFA/DMS subclass is represented by BakerHosteler, Langrock Sperry & Wool LLP and Hoff Curtis PC.

The DFA/DMS subclass is represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, the Law Offices of David A. Balto and Lynn Lynn Blackman & Manitsky PC.

The Dairy Farmers Milk Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit Settlement is Alice H. Allen, et al. v. Dairy Farmers of America Inc., et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-00230, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

jQuery(document).ready(function($){gformInitSpinner( 5, ‘http://11284-presscdn-0-40.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.gif’ );jQuery(‘#gform_ajax_frame_5’).load( function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘*’).html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf(‘GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’) >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_5’);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_5’).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_5’).html(form_content.html());setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_5’).offset().top); }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_5’).val();gformInitSpinner( 5, ‘http://11284-presscdn-0-40.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.gif’ );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [5, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_5’] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gforms_confirmation_message_5’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}setTimeout(function(){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_5’).replaceWith(” + confirmation_content + ”);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery(‘#gforms_confirmation_message_5’).offset().top);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [5]);window[‘gf_submitting_5’] = false;}, 50);}else{jQuery(‘#gform_5’).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [5, current_page]);} );} ); if(typeof gf_global == ‘undefined’) var gf_global = {“gf_currency_config”:{“name”:”U.S. Dollar”,”symbol_left”:”$”,”symbol_right”:””,”symbol_padding”:””,”thousand_separator”:”,”,”decimal_separator”:”.”,”decimals”:2},”base_url”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms”,”number_formats”:[],”spinnerUrl”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms\/images\/spinner.gif”};jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_render’, function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 5) {gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_5_2′,’No results matched’);} } );jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_conditional_logic’, function(event, formId, fields, isInit){gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_5_2′,’No results matched’);} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [5, 1]) } );

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

The post Judge Approves $50M Milk Price-Fixing Settlement Following Multiple Rejections appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/327811-judge-approves-50m-milk-price-fixing-settlement-following-multiple-rejections/

Happy Birthday Song Class Action Lawsuit Settles for $14 Million

Defendant Warner/Chappel Music Inc., and others, have settled a class action lawsuit over royalties paid to use the song “Happy Birthday to You” for $14 million, and has agreed to give up all claims that the song is copyrighted.

“After nearly three years of intensive litigation, the Parties have reached an agreement to settle this class action against Defendants over the disputed copyright to Happy Birthday to You, the world’s most popular song,” the class plaintiffs told the court in their filing. “If approved,” the plaintiffs added, “the Settlement will end more than 80 years of uncertainty regarding the disputed copyright.”

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in June of 2013, and alleged that the copyright to the Happy Birthday song was invalid. Lead plaintiff Good Morning to You Productions Corp. claimed that it had “irrefutable documentary evidence” that the Happy Birthday song dates back to 1893, and any copyright to it must have expired in 1921. The Happy Birthday song class action lawsuit alleges that Warner/Chappel made $2 million per year in royalties and licensing fees on the song, and the plaintiffs filed the complaint seeking restitution for everyone who paid to use the song.

The plaintiffs initially claimed that the defendants also violated California unfair business practice laws, but in October of 2013 the defendants successfully argued that only the federal copyright claim applied. On the issue of the copyright, defendant Warner/Chappel argued that the Happy Birthday song came from a song called “Good Morning to All” written by the Hill sisters. The Hill sisters sold the rights to that song, and 70 others, to music publisher Summy Co. in 1893. Summy Co. then published the song and filed for a copyright in 1935, and Warner/Chappel obtained the rights to the song from Summy Co., according to Warner/Chappel.

However, in September of 2015 the court disagreed ruling that the melody to the Happy Birthday came from the Hill sister’s “Good Morning to All,” but not the lyrics. The original copyright in 1935 had no lyrics, and claimed the song was an “arrangement as easy piano solo, with text.” “Obviously, pianos don’t sing,” the court declared, and found that the 1935 copyright was invalid.

On Feb. 8, 2016, the parties asked the court for preliminary approval of their potential settlement of the Happy Birthday song class action lawsuit. If approved by the court, the defendants will pay $14 million into a settlement fund, which will be used to reimburse essentially anyone who paid for the right to use the Happy Birthday song at any time since 1949. In addition, the defendants will give up any claim to the Happy Birthday copyright, which otherwise would last until the year 2030.

Potential Class Members will have to file a claim form to receive any payment. Claims will be split into two classes: “Period One” will be those who paid to use the Happy Birthday song after June 13, 2009; and “Period Two” will be those who paid for the song between Sept. 3, 1949 and June 13, 2009. Up to $6,250,000 of the total settlement will be paid to “Period One” claimants, with the rest going to “Period Two” claimants, on a pro rata basis.

Details about when and how to file a claim for the Happy Birthday song class action lawsuit settlement were not immediately available, and will be updated if the court approves the potential settlement. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates. You can also mark this article as a “Favorite” using your free Top Class Actions account to receive notifications when this article is updated.

The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Randall S. Newman PC, Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah, Inc., Donahue Fitzgerald LLP, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

The Happy Birthday Song Class Action Lawsuit Settlement is Good Morning to You Productions Corp., et al. v. Warner/Chappell Music Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-04460, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

The post Happy Birthday Song Class Action Lawsuit Settles for $14 Million appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/327820-happy-birthday-class-action-lawsuit-settles-14-million/

Shaffer & Associates Wage Garnishment Class Action Settlement

Gavel and Money

GFS Inc. d/b/a Shaffer & Associates has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it improperly prepared, filed and handled garnishments and sequestrations in violation of Missouri law. Shaffer has agreed to pay a total of $190,000 to settle the wage garnishment class action lawsuit.

If you are a Missouri resident whose wages or accounts were garnished or sequestered by Shaffer between Oct. 20, 2009 and Oct. 20, 2014, you may be eligible for payment from this class action settlement.

This account garnishment settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleges Shaffer violated Missouri law by preparing, filing and handling garnishments and sequestrations and by taking a percentage of garnishments and sequestrations without using the services of a licensed Missouri attorney.

Shaffer denies the allegations and maintains that it did not violate Missouri law. However, it has agreed to settle the account garnishment class action lawsuit to avoid the expense and uncertainty associated with ongoing litigation.

Class Members who wish to object to or exclude themselves from the Shaffer class action settlement must do so no later than Feb. 22, 2016.

Who’s Eligible

Missouri residents whose accounts or wages were garnished or sequestered by GFS Inc. d/b/a Shaffer & Associates between Oct. 20, 2009 and Oct. 20, 2014 are Class Members of this account garnishment class action settlement.

Potential Award

Class Members who submit valid claims will be entitled to a pro rata share of the payout fund.

Proof of Purchase

Class Members must enter the eight-digit Claim Number printed on the notice they received in the mail.

Claim Form

CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »

Claim Form Deadline

03/07/2016

Case Name

Julie Kojdecki v. GFS Inc. d/b/a Shaffer and Associates, Case No. 1431-CC01340, in the Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri

Final Hearing

02/25/2016

Settlement Website

www.ShafferSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

Shaffer Settlement
c/o Dahl Administration
P.O. Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
1-866-888-9529
ShafferSettlement@DahlAdministration.com

Class Counsel

Gregory Aleshire
William R. Robb
ALESHIRE ROBB PC

Defense Counsel

James Powell
BROWN WILLBRAND PC

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

The post Shaffer & Associates Wage Garnishment Class Action Settlement appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/327794-shaffer-associates-wage-garnishment-class-action-settlement/

Regis Corp. Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement

Regis Salon class action settlement

Regis Corp. has reached a class action settlement over allegations it violated wage and hour laws by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, provide meal and rest breaks, and other wage and hour violations. If you were employed by Regis Corp. as a non-exempt employee in California between May 9, 2009 and Dec. 17, 2015, you may be entitled to payment from the class action settlement.

Melissa Fong, a former stylist at a Regis Salon, initially filed the Regis wage and hour class action lawsuit in August 2013, and Christina Salas was later added as a plaintiff in the litigation. Plaintiff Casey Brown also filed a similar wage and hour class action lawsuit against Regis in California state court in July 2014. The class action lawsuits allege that Regis failed to pay minimum wage for all hours they worked because Regis compensated stylists with commissions rather than hourly wages.

The Regis class action lawsuits further allege that Regis failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest breaks, lawfully deduct wages, pay all vacation wages, reimburse business expenses, keep accurate payroll records, and issue accurate wage statements.

Regis denies the allegations and maintains that it fully complied with the law. However, it has agreed to settle the wage and hour class action lawsuits to avoid the expense and risk associated with litigation. Regis will pay $5.75 million to settle the wage and hour lawsuit.

Class Members who wish to opt out of the Regis class action settlement must do so no later than March 9, 2016, and those who wish to object to the wage and hour settlement must do so no later than March 22, 2016.

Who’s Eligible

Under the terms of the Regis class action settlement, Class Members are defined as: “All persons who have been employed by Defendants in California as a non-exempt employee at any time from May 9, 2009 through December 17, 2015.”

The court also certified the following subclasses:

Commission-Only Stylist Settlement Class. Includes anyone employed as a stylist at a Regis Salon and/or Carlton Hair Salon in California after May 9, 2009.
Non-Exempt Employee Settlement Class. Includes individuals employed by Regis as base hourly-paid, non-exempt employees in California after May 9, 2009 (and who are not members of the Commission-Only Stylist Settlement Class).
Waiting Time Penalties Subclass. Includes Members of the Commission-Only Stylist Settlement Class and the Non-Exempt Employee Settlement Class who stopped working for Regis anytime between May 9, 2010 through Dec. 17, 2015.

Potential Award

Varies.

The actual amount each participating Class Member will be eligible to receive depends on their total W-2 compensation during the Class Period, and how many eligible Class Members choose to participate in the Regis class action settlement.

If all eligible Class Members participate in the Regis settlement, it is estimated that the average payments will be as follows:

Commission-Only Stylist Settlement Class: $814
Non-Exempt Employee Settlement Class: $262
Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: $150

Proof of Purchase

Class Members must provide their CPT ID and Passcode, which can be found on the Claim Form that was mailed to them.

If you did not receive a Claim Form but you believe you are an eligible Class Member of the Regis settlement, contact the Settlement Administrator.

Claim Form

CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »

Claim Form Deadline

03/09/2016

Case Name

Melissa Fong, et al. v. Regis Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-cv-004497-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and Casey Brown v. Regis Corp., et al., Case No. BC552371, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court

Final Hearing

04/21/2016

Settlement Website

www.HairSalonClassActionSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

Fong v. Regis Settlement Administrator
c/o CPT Group Inc.
16630 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
1-877-378-5086

Class Counsel

Graham Hollis
Marta Manus
GRAHAM HOLLIS APC

Heather Davis
Amir Nayebdadash
PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP

Defense Counsel

Michael W. Kopp
Catherine M. Dacre
Ari Herhser
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

The post Regis Corp. Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/327790-regis-corp-wage-hour-class-action-settlement/

FDA Issues Warning For Invokana and Other Diabetes Medications

kidney disease The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released a Drug Safety Communication regarding Invokana side effects and Invokamet side effects.

Invokana and Invokamet are brand names for type-2 diabetes medications that contain the ingredient canagliflozin.

The revised FDA warning advises consumers about the risks of developing Invokana kidney failure and or Invokana ketoacidosis when taking the medications.

What is Type 2 Diabetes?

Type-2 diabetes is a dangerous condition in the body that causes blood glucose levels to rise to above normal levels. Type-2 diabetes is the most prevalent form of diabetes.

The disease is known as insulin resistance because it causes the body to not use insulin correctly. In the beginning stages of type-2 diabetes, a person’s pancreas works double time to produce extra insulin but eventually it cannot keep up to the increased demand.

If left untreated type-2 diabetes can be life threatening and result in blindness, heart disease, nerve, and kidney damage.

What is Canagliflozin?

Canagliflozin is a type of type of SGLT2 inhibitor used to treat patients suffering from type-2 diabetes. The medication is the active ingredient for several brand name variations including Invokana and Invokamet.

SGLT2 medications work to treat type-2 diabetes by inhibiting glucose reabsorption in the body’s renal tubules which helps to lower blood glucose.

Invokana Side Effects and Invokamet Side Effects

The FDA released a Drug Safety Communication regarding Invokana side effects back in May of 2015. The organization recently released a revised warning to include Invokamet side effects such as too much acid in the blood (also known as ketoacidosis) and serious urinary tract infections. Invokana ketoacidosis symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing.

According to the FDA, patients should stop taking their type-2 diabetes medication and seek immediate medical attention if they begin to experience symptoms of Invokana Ketoacidosis.

When the first canagliflozin Drug Safety Communication was released in 2015, the FDA had identified 73 cases of Invokana ketoacidosis. The FDA believes there could be many more cases that have gone unreported to the agency.

The FDA also advises patients to be alert of symptoms for urinary tract infections. Symptoms of urinary tract infections include a burning feeling when urinating or the need to urinate frequently. Symptoms can also present themselves as pain in the lower area of the pelvis, pain in the lower stomach, fever, or blood in the urine.

The FDA has received 19 reported cases of serious blood infections and Invokana kidney failure that began as urinary tract infections. All 19 of the patients were hospitalized and treated with dialysis in order to treat Invokana kidney failure.

Diabetes Medication Lawsuits

Type-2 diabetes patients who took Invokana or Invokamet to treat their condition and suffered from ketoacidosis or kidney failure may be able to bring a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Successful plaintiffs may receive compensation for their pain, suffering, and medical bills. Lawsuits against the pharmaceutical companies will likely allege that the companies violated consumer protection laws by failing to warn the medical community and the general public about dangerous side effects associated with the medications.

In general, diabetes medication lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.

Do YOU have a legal claim? Fill out the form on this page now for a free, immediate, and confidential case evaluation. The attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual lawsuit or class action lawsuit is best for you. Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.

Learn More

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

Get Help – It’s Free

Join a Free Diabetes Medication Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you or a loved one suffered ketoacidosis or kidney failure after taking Invokana, Invokamet, Farxiga, Xigduo XR, Jardiance or Glyxambi, you may have a legal claim. See if you qualify to pursue compensation and join a free diabetes medication class action lawsuit investigation by submitting your information for a free case evaluation.

An attorney will contact you if you qualify to discuss the details of your potential case.

First Name*
Last Name*
Street Address*
Apt. #
City*
State*
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific
Zip Code*
Phone*
Email*
Please select the diabetes medication(s) you have taken:*
- Invokana (canagliflozin)
- Invokamet (canagliflozin and metformin)
- Farxiga (dapagliflozin)
- Xigduo XR (dapagliflozin and metformin extended-release)
- Jardiance (empaglifloziin)
- Glyxambi (empagliflozin and linagliptin)
When did you take the diabetes medication(s)?*
Please select the symptoms you or your loved one were medically diagnosed with:*
- Ketoacidosis
- Kidney Failure
- Not Listed (please detail the symptoms in the comments section if this is selected)
- No diagnosis/injury
¿Necesita un orador español?
- Yes
- No
Please enter any additional details you would like the staff reviewing your submission to know.*
I understand and agree that submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship and that the information I submit is not confidential or privileged and may be shared.*
- Yes

if(typeof gf_global == ‘undefined’) var gf_global = {“gf_currency_config”:{“name”:”U.S. Dollar”,”symbol_left”:”$”,”symbol_right”:””,”symbol_padding”:””,”thousand_separator”:”,”,”decimal_separator”:”.”,”decimals”:2},”base_url”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms”,”number_formats”:[],”spinnerUrl”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms\/images\/spinner.gif”};jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_render’, function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 144) {gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_144_5′,’No results matched’);if(!/(android)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)){jQuery(‘#input_144_7’).mask(‘(999) 999-9999’).bind(‘keypress’, function(e){if(e.which == 13){jQuery(this).blur();} } );}} } );jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_conditional_logic’, function(event, formId, fields, isInit){gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_144_5′,’No results matched’);} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [144, 1]) } );

The post FDA Issues Warning For Invokana and Other Diabetes Medications appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/326950-fda-issues-warning-invokana-diabetes-medications/

Syngenta Hit With Lawsuit for Viptera GMO Corn Damages

Syngenta

In recent corn market news, Syngenta is facing a new corn farmer lawsuit from South Dakota alleging that the genetically modified (GMO) corn seed producer caused him major financial damages.

Like many farmers of the American agricultural industry, South Dakota plaintiff Harlan O.’s income depends heavily on the publicly-determined market price of his crop. For Harlan, the crop that makes his living is corn and the corn severely affected by the Syngenta corn seed scandal.

Similar to many corn farmers, Harlan had bought and grown the infamous Viptera corn seed without any knowledge of China’s initial rejection of the GMO corn. While recent corn market news states that China finally did approve the Viptera corn a couple years after the initial release, the decision came too late to the corn farmers of America, according to the claim.

When the Viptera corn was first released, China rejected the corn seed for import. Unfortunately this information was not revealed to farmers until later, and afterwards the United States corn market dropped by 85% in 2014. Since this revelation, numerous corn market lawsuits have been filed against Syngenta seeking financial compensation.

Along with rejection of the company’s Viptera corn seed, China had reportedly blocked many of American corn shipments due to the Viptera corn strain cross pollinating with other corn seed.

The Viptera corn was developed with the MIR162 strain, which was meant to make corn genetically more resistant to pests such as black cutworms or corn earworms. Syngenta had started selling the Viptera corn seed to corn farmers in America in 2011, after it received approval in Brazil and Argentina in the same year.

The year previous, Syngenta had submitted the Syngenta corn seed for import approval to China’s authorities but had been rejected. China had come to this initial decision in order to take a tougher stance against GMO foods and to encourage healthy living in its citizens.

By late 2013, China had started turning away corn shipments from the United States indicated to contain the Viptera strain. As mentioned before, it was not until a couple years had passed that China approved the Viptera corn for import.

Overview of Syngenta Corn Seed Financial Damages

While this idea would ideally make pest control more convenient for farmers, those in the corn industry claim the Viptera corn seed induced severe financial stress and uncertainty for farmers.

Before the release of Viptera corn seed, China was the third largest importer of corn for the United States at 2.5 million tons per year. In 2014, Chinese imports of American corn shipments were down to 375,000 tons with the market reduction indicating bad news for corn farmers.

The result of the Viptera corn seed scandal has totaled $1-$3 billion in losses so far, with no end in sight. Syngenta is facing a growing number of corn farmer lawsuits, with the claimants alleging that Syngenta sold them the corn seed under false pretenses.

Essentially, the farmers claim that Syngenta had sold them the corn prematurely, before gaining or confirming approval from countries with major stakes in the United States corn market.

Corn market news indicates that it will take some time for the American corn market to recover, with many farmers opting to file legal action against Syngenta seeking financial compensation.

The Syngenta Corn Farmer Lawsuit is Case No. 1:16-cv-01006-CBK, in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota, Northern Division.

Join a Free Syngenta GMO Corn Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you, a family member, a partner, or an associate has been affected by Syngenta® GMO corn or declining corn prices, you may be eligible for compensation.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

The post Syngenta Hit With Lawsuit for Viptera GMO Corn Damages appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/324854-south-dakota-corn-farmer-sues-syngenta-for-viptera-corn-damages-2/

Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Replacement Leads to Complications, Study Finds

Patients who have the Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement face a number of risks, according to a new study.

The Stryker Rejuvenate problems have led to a hip replacement recall of the device, but the study shows that patients whose implants have been removed may still face complications.

The study, published in the Journal of Arthroplasty, found that 13 percent of those who underwent Stryker Rejuvenate hip revision surgery faced complications.

The Stryker Rejuvenate manufacturer acknowledged that the device caused more problems than expected in its patients and went through a hip implant recall in July 2012. Hip implant complications usually involved fretting or corrosion between the two metal pieces, which often meant that patients needed revision surgery to remove the hip implant device.

Because the hip implant’s metal parts rub against each other as the patient goes about his or her day to day life, the design allows microscopic metal debris to be release throughout the body. This also increases the device’s risk of loosening and failure.

Though the Stryker Rejuvenate underwent a hip implant recall in 2012, about 20,000 of these devices were implanted before that point. According to experts, many individuals with these devices may face device failure and need hip revision surgery.

The study found that 13 percent of patients who underwent hip replacement removal suffered from hip implant complications including trochanteric fractures, dislocations, aseptic loosening and infections.

Two thirds of patients who underwent hip implant revision surgery and suffered from complications were then required to go through additional surgery to repair the damage.

Since the hip replacement recall of the Stryker Rejuvenate device, more than 5,000 patients who have experienced hip implant complications have filed hip recall lawsuits. Most of these hip recall lawsuits have been settled.

Last year, a global Stryker Rejuvenate hip recall lawsuit settlement was successfully reached. In the settlement, the manufacturer resolved all cases for plaintiffs who underwent hip revision surgery on or before November 2, 2014.

Individuals who qualified under the settlement would receive a base payment of $300,000 from the hip recall lawsuit. Several factors may reduce that award, including the plaintiff’s age and prior surgeries. However, plaintiffs whose complications were more severe could also choose to pursue further compensation above the base pay.

Many patients who have been implanted with the Stryker Rejuvenate may be expected to experience hip implant complications in the future, even years after the initial hip replacement recall. Hip replacement lawyers are continuously reviewing and filing hip recall lawsuits for individuals who may be qualified for these kinds of settlements.

If you or someone you know has experienced hip replacement surgery complications due to a Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant recall or another metal hip implant device that has since been recalled, you may be able to file a hip recall lawsuit.

Do YOU have a legal claim? Fill out the form on this page now for a free, immediate, and confidential case evaluation. The hip implant attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual lawsuit or class action lawsuit is best for you. [In general, metal hip implant lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.] Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.

Learn More

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Email*
State*
selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific

Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association

american-bar-association

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Top Class Actions Legal Statement

Various Trademarks held by their respective owners

Get Help – It’s Free

Join a Free Metal Hip Replacement Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you or a loved one had a metal-on-metal hip implant that failed or caused serious complications, you may be entitled to compensation. Hip replacement lawsuits are being filed now against multiple companies, including Stryker, Biomet, DePuy, Zimmer, and Wright. See if you qualify to take legal action by filling out the form below.

An attorney will contact you if you qualify to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you.

First Name*
Last Name*
Street Address*
Apt. #
City*
State*
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific
Zip Code*
Phone*
Email*
What year did you/your loved one receive a metal on metal hip implant?*
Was the original hip implant surgery after January 1, 2009?*
YesNo
Did you/your loved one need revision surgery?*
YesNo
If applicable, what year did you/your loved one have your original hip implant replaced?
Please select which symptoms you or your loved one were medically diagnosed with:*
- Failure of the metal on metal hip implant requiring early replacement.
- Dislocated Hip.
- Leaking of toxic substances in your bloodstream from your hip implant like chromium or cobalt.
- Cancer.
- Degenerative Heart Disease or Cardiomyopathy.
- Loss of bone strength or structure which can result in bone fractures.
- Tissue death for any tissue surrounding the implant.
- Non-cancerous tumors or pseudotumors around the hip implant.
- Cobalt poisoning.
- Metallosis or metal poisoning due to chromium or cobalt particles from the hip implant leaking into nearby tissue or the patient’s bloodstream.
- Not Listed (please detail the symptoms in the comments section if this is selected.)
¿Necesita un orador español?
- Yes
- No
Please enter any additional details you would like the staff reviewing your submission to know.*
I understand and agree that submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship and that the information I submit is not confidential or privileged and may be shared.*
- Yes

if(typeof gf_global == ‘undefined’) var gf_global = {“gf_currency_config”:{“name”:”U.S. Dollar”,”symbol_left”:”$”,”symbol_right”:””,”symbol_padding”:””,”thousand_separator”:”,”,”decimal_separator”:”.”,”decimals”:2},”base_url”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms”,”number_formats”:[],”spinnerUrl”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms\/images\/spinner.gif”};jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_render’, function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 21) {gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_21_5′,’No results matched’);if(!/(android)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)){jQuery(‘#input_21_7’).mask(‘(999) 999-9999’).bind(‘keypress’, function(e){if(e.which == 13){jQuery(this).blur();} } );}} } );jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_conditional_logic’, function(event, formId, fields, isInit){gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_21_5′,’No results matched’);} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [21, 1]) } );

The post Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Replacement Leads to Complications, Study Finds appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/323028-323028/