According to the Complaint, Sony heavily promoted that purchasers could utilize the on the “Other OS” feature on the PS3 console to install a Linux operating system and then use the PS3 as a personal  computer in addition to a gaming console.  Sony also promoted that users would be able to upgrade the computer features through firmware updates during the expected ten-year life of the console.  In early 2010, however, Sony made a decision to remove the “Other OS” feature through a firmware update. Sony claimed that this was for “security” reasons.  The Complaint alleges, however, that Sony removed the feature because it was too expensive to maintain and researchers were buying the PS3 to use it solely as a computer, causing financial losses to Sony who hoped to make up the below cost  sales price of the PS3 on sales of games and other accessories. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Sony had no justification to remove an advertised and core feature of the PS3.  

The case, In re PS3 “Other OS” Litigation, has been pending in federal court in the Northern District of California in front of Judge Richard Seeborg since April 2010.  Judge Seeborg dismissed several of the claims in February 2011, finding that the initial Complaint had not alleged sufficient facts, but granted Plaintiffs’ leave to amend. Judge Seeborg did allow the Plaintiffs’ “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act” claim to go forward because Sony could not show that its use of the “Other OS” firmware update to remove the feature was authorized.  The new Complaint contains over 88 pages of detailed allegations contending that Sony promoted the computer features of the PS3 for the life of the product and had no permission to remove a core feature from the PS3 after consumers purchased it. 

“The millions of PS3 owners in this country deserved better from Sony. These loyal customers spent hundreds of dollars on a PS3 that was advertised as being able to function as a computer distinguishing it from its competitors. Sony took that feature away without justification and has essentially told consumers we can turn the PS3 into a $600 paper weight and you have no recourse,” said Rosemary Rivas of Finkelstein Thompson, one of the Lead Counsel in the case.  

Co-Lead counsel James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld added, “Sony’s actions are like a car manufacturer telling a buyer that it is going to remove the engine because it does not want to service the part anymore and then telling the consumer, ‘tough luck, we are not going to give you a refund.’ This type of activity is exactly what our country’s consumer protection laws were designed to protect against.” Co-Lead counsel Jim Quadra of Calvo Fisher & Jacob agreed. “Once you buy a product, the manufacturer is not entitled to remove parts of it. Courts have repeatedly found that consumers are entitled to the benefits of their bargains.”

~END~

For more information or a copy of the Complaint, please contact James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld LLP,  202-540-7154/703-587-6474.

For more information, please visit: http://www.trex.com/legal/classactionsettlement.aspx

For additionaly information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

Over 15,000 students paid approximately $2,500 in tuition costs to attend one of Envision’s youth conferences in Washington, DC during the January 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama.  Due to the unprecedented nature of the inauguration itself and the numerous program attendees, many students alleged that they did not receive everything that Envision had promised, including exclusive access to witness the inauguration and inaugural parade or tickets to an inaugural ball.  Plaintiffs filed separate class action suits in Illinois and Washington, DC that were eventually consolidated in DC.  After an extensive mediation in front of the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (retired) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, the parties reached a settlement and sought approval from the court. 

The settlement provides any class members dissatisfied with the conferences - including those living in foreign countries - with two, fully transferable vouchers (worth $1,250) that can be redeemed towards any future Envision program.  The vouchers can be used for up to seven years.   Envision offers numerous educational programs for youth across the country and during the redemption period will host approximately 2,450 conferences for 340,000 students.  

In approving the settlement, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected the arguments of 22 state Attorney Generals who objected to the settlement as unfair holding that “the vouchers to be awarded under the settlement provide meaningful value to class members because of their high face value, their transferability, and their seven-year duration.”  She also found that the settlement provided a minimum payout which encompassed the profit that Envision had made on the conferences.

James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP and one of the Class Counsel, stated, “This is a significant settlement providing vouchers worth approximately 50% of each class members’ tuition costs.  While Envision did not have the resources available to provide direct refunds, we believe that this settlement puts significant value into the hands of consumers.” 

“We are pleased that the court has approved this settlement and we encourage all class members to make claims.  Even if class members do not want to use the vouchers themselves, they can be sold to any of the thousands of students who will attend a future program during the redemption period.”

Class members can obtain more information at: http://www.dc2009-settlement.com/.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law.  In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London.  For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

Over 15,000 students paid approximately $2,500 in tuition costs to attend one of Envision’s youth conferences in Washington, DC during the January 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama.  Due to the unprecedented nature of the inauguration itself and the numerous program attendees, many students alleged that they did not receive everything that Envision had promised, including exclusive access to witness the inauguration and inaugural parade or tickets to an inaugural ball. 

In May 2009, Hausfeld LLP, along with DiMuroGinsberg PC, jointly filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the students who had paid to attend the conferences. A separate class action against Envision, filed in Illinois, was eventually consolidated with the Hausfeld suit in Washington. After an extensive mediation in front of the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (retired) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, the parties reached a settlement and sought approval from the court. 

The settlement provides any class members dissatisfied with the conferences - including those living in foreign countries - with two, fully transferable vouchers (worth $1,250) that can be redeemed towards any future Envision program.  The vouchers can be used for up to seven years.   Envision offers numerous educational programs for youth across the country and during the redemption period will host approximately 2,450 conferences for 340,000 students.  

In approving the settlement, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected the arguments of 22 state Attorney Generals who objected to the settlement as unfair holding that “the vouchers to be awarded under the settlement provide meaningful value to class members because of their high face value, their transferability, and their seven-year duration.”  She also found that the settlement provided a minimum payout which encompassed the profit that Envision had made on the conferences.

James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP and one of the Class Counsel, stated, “This is a significant settlement providing vouchers worth approximately 50% of each class members’ tuition costs.  While Envision did not have the resources available to provide direct refunds, we believe that this settlement puts significant value into the hands of consumers.” 

“We are pleased that the court has approved this settlement and we encourage all class members to make claims.  Even if class members do not want to use the vouchers themselves, they can be sold to any of the thousands of students who will attend a future program during the redemption period.”

Class members can obtain more information at: www.dc2009-settlement.com/.

In a preliminary hearing U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon ruled that a plan by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. to use the air conditioners was not reliable and that expert testimony about their use would not be considered in the main hearing set to begin on February 19, 2010.

Richard Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP, handled the oral argument on this issue.

February 17, 2010 - Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP and other attorneys on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the Chinese Manufactured Drywall MDL successfully argued a Daubert motion which lead to the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon striking significant parts of the remediation plan proposed by Knauf.  Click here for Judge Fallon's Order.

First Chinese Drywall Class Actions Filed in Virginia and North Carolina
Service on International Defendants Proceeds

Washington, DC – May 21, 2009 – Hausfeld LLP, Levin Fishbein and Colson Hicks – the three firms that filed the first major Chinese drywall class action (Vickers v. Knauf Gips, et al.,) in the Southern District of Florida – announced that they have expanded the scope of litigation and filed the first statewide defective drywall class actions on behalf of Virginia and North Carolina residents negatively impacted by defective drywall in their homes.

It has been estimated that 550 million pounds of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States from 2004 to 2006 to address a domestic shortage caused by a peaking housing boom, as well as hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In addition to creating noxious, “rotten egg-like” odors, gases from the defective drywall cause the accelerated corrosion of air conditioner and refrigerator coils, kitchen appliances and utensils, electrical wiring, electronic or computer devices, and other metal surfaces and household items. Long-term exposure to low-levels of sulfides has also been associated with several health conditions including fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, dizziness, and ear, nose and throat irritation.

About the Virginia and North Carolina Complaints
The Virginia and North Carolina statewide class action complaints target a Chinese drywall manufacturer (Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.), as well as a U.S. supplier (Venture Supply, Inc.) and drywall installation contractor (The Porter-Blaine Corp.). The group filed the Germano action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009, and the Hinkley action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 15, 2009.

Both complaints seek relief from Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese drywall manufacturer whose parent company is a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese government. The Germano clients through their Virginia counsel, Richard Serpe, of Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P.C., and the Hinkley clients through their North Carolina counsel, Michael Malone, of Hendren & Malone, PLLC, have suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of Florida as the venue best suited to handle the related litigation given the important sources of discovery and other cases pending there.

Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP stated: “It is clear now that the problems with defective Chinese drywall are not limited to Florida and Louisiana, but are national in scope. Our clients in Virginia and North Carolina are being impacted by the same problems with defective drywall that other homeowners across the country are experiencing. Similarly, the sulfur leaching issues are not limited to drywall that was manufactured in China. We are finding more and more homes containing drywall made by U.S. manufacturers showing the same corroded metal surfaces.”

Potential Issues with U.S.-Made Drywall
The Vickers counsel are also now studying problems reported with drywall manufactured in the United States. Presently under investigation are fairly new homes containing U.S.-made drywall that are producing effects similar to homes containing defective Chinese drywall; and the attorneys are carrying on extensive testing of both the U.S. drywall in these homes, as well as the corroded and blackened electrical and HVAC components.

Progress in Vickers Florida Class Action
The Vickers counsel have also made significant progress in serving their legal complaints on the Taiwanese and German defendants in the Vickers class action, filed in the Southern District of Florida. On May 13, 2009, Judge Moore of the Southern District of Florida issued an Order requesting the Judicial Authority of Taiwan to serve the Vickers complaint on Rothschilt International Limited, a Taiwanese entity, which was the primary distributor for Chinese drywall manufactured by Knauf, a product associated with widespread problems in Florida. Vickers counsel also obtained an Order from the Southern District of Florida authorizing Service of Process on other international defendants, such as Kanuf, under the Hague Convention. Vickers’ approved International Process Server, APS International Limited, has reported that the Vickers Complaint and Summons have been received by the Ministry of Justice of the Peoples’ Republic of China, thus accomplishing, an intermediate step in perfecting service on the Taiwanese defendant.

Copies of the drywall complaints will be available at www.chinesedrywallclaims.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or email James Pizzirusso or Richard Lewis.

Media Contact
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
 

It has been estimated that 550 million pounds of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States from 2004 to 2006 to address a domestic shortage caused by a peaking housing boom, as well as hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In addition to creating noxious, “rotten egg-like” odors, gases from the defective drywall cause the accelerated corrosion of air conditioner and refrigerator coils, kitchen appliances and utensils, electrical wiring, electronic or computer devices, and other metal surfaces and household items. Long-term exposure to low-levels of sulfides has also been associated with several health conditions including fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, dizziness, and ear, nose and throat irritation.

About the Virginia and North Carolina Complaints
The Virginia and North Carolina statewide class action complaints target a Chinese drywall manufacturer (Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.), as well as a U.S. supplier (Venture Supply, Inc.) and drywall installation contractor (The Porter-Blaine Corp.). The group filed the Germano action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009, and the Hinkley action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 15, 2009.

Both complaints seek relief from Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese drywall manufacturer whose parent company is a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese government. The Germano clients through their Virginia counsel, Richard Serpe, of Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P.C., and the Hinkley clients through their North Carolina counsel, Michael Malone, of Hendren & Malone, PLLC, have suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of Florida as the venue best suited to handle the related litigation given the important sources of discovery and other cases pending there.

Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP stated: “It is clear now that the problems with defective Chinese drywall are not limited to Florida and Louisiana, but are national in scope. Our clients in Virginia and North Carolina are being impacted by the same problems with defective drywall that other homeowners across the country are experiencing. Similarly, the sulfur leaching issues are not limited to drywall that was manufactured in China. We are finding more and more homes containing drywall made by U.S. manufacturers showing the same corroded metal surfaces.”

Potential Issues with U.S.-Made Drywall
The Vickers counsel are also now studying problems reported with drywall manufactured in the United States. Presently under investigation are fairly new homes containing U.S.-made drywall that are producing effects similar to homes containing defective Chinese drywall; and the attorneys are carrying on extensive testing of both the U.S. drywall in these homes, as well as the corroded and blackened electrical and HVAC components.

Progress in Vickers Florida Class Action
The Vickers counsel have also made significant progress in serving their legal complaints on the Taiwanese and German defendants in the Vickers class action, filed in the Southern District of Florida. On May 13, 2009, Judge Moore of the Southern District of Florida issued an Order requesting the Judicial Authority of Taiwan to serve the Vickers complaint on Rothschilt International Limited, a Taiwanese entity, which was the primary distributor for Chinese drywall manufactured by Knauf, a product associated with widespread problems in Florida. Vickers counsel also obtained an Order from the Southern District of Florida authorizing Service of Process on other international defendants, such as Kanuf, under the Hague Convention. Vickers’ approved International Process Server, APS International Limited, has reported that the Vickers Complaint and Summons have been received by the Ministry of Justice of the Peoples’ Republic of China, thus accomplishing, an intermediate step in perfecting service on the Taiwanese defendant.

Copies of the drywall complaints will be available at www.chinesedrywallclaims.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

Media Contact
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
 

It has been estimated that 550 million pounds of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States from 2004 to 2006 to address a domestic shortage caused by a peaking housing boom, as well as hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In addition to creating noxious, “rotten egg-like” odors, gases from the defective drywall cause the accelerated corrosion of air conditioner and refrigerator coils, kitchen appliances and utensils, electrical wiring, electronic or computer devices, and other metal surfaces and household items. Long-term exposure to low-levels of sulfides has also been associated with several health conditions including fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, dizziness, and ear, nose and throat irritation.

About the Virginia and North Carolina Complaints
The Virginia and North Carolina statewide class action complaints target a Chinese drywall manufacturer (Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.), as well as a U.S. supplier (Venture Supply, Inc.) and drywall installation contractor (The Porter-Blaine Corp.). The group filed the Germano action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009, and the Hinkley action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 15, 2009.

Both complaints seek relief from Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese drywall manufacturer whose parent company is a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese government. The Germano clients through their Virginia counsel, Richard Serpe, of Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P.C., and the Hinkley clients through their North Carolina counsel, Michael Malone, of Hendren & Malone, PLLC, have suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of Florida as the venue best suited to handle the related litigation given the important sources of discovery and other cases pending there.

Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP stated: “It is clear now that the problems with defective Chinese drywall are not limited to Florida and Louisiana, but are national in scope. Our clients in Virginia and North Carolina are being impacted by the same problems with defective drywall that other homeowners across the country are experiencing. Similarly, the sulfur leaching issues are not limited to drywall that was manufactured in China. We are finding more and more homes containing drywall made by U.S. manufacturers showing the same corroded metal surfaces.”

Potential Issues with U.S.-Made Drywall
The Vickers counsel are also now studying problems reported with drywall manufactured in the United States. Presently under investigation are fairly new homes containing U.S.-made drywall that are producing effects similar to homes containing defective Chinese drywall; and the attorneys are carrying on extensive testing of both the U.S. drywall in these homes, as well as the corroded and blackened electrical and HVAC components.

Progress in Vickers Florida Class Action
The Vickers counsel have also made significant progress in serving their legal complaints on the Taiwanese and German defendants in the Vickers class action, filed in the Southern District of Florida. On May 13, 2009, Judge Moore of the Southern District of Florida issued an Order requesting the Judicial Authority of Taiwan to serve the Vickers complaint on Rothschilt International Limited, a Taiwanese entity, which was the primary distributor for Chinese drywall manufactured by Knauf, a product associated with widespread problems in Florida. Vickers counsel also obtained an Order from the Southern District of Florida authorizing Service of Process on other international defendants, such as Kanuf, under the Hague Convention. Vickers’ approved International Process Server, APS International Limited, has reported that the Vickers Complaint and Summons have been received by the Ministry of Justice of the Peoples’ Republic of China, thus accomplishing, an intermediate step in perfecting service on the Taiwanese defendant.

Copies of the drywall complaints will be available at www.chinesedrywallclaims.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

Media Contact
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
 

The complaint charges that defendants Congressional Youth Leadership Council (CYLC) and Envision EMI, LLC solicited students all over the country to attend “educational inaugural conferences” and promised exclusive access and tickets to witness the Presidential Inauguration on the Mall, view the Presidential Inaugural Parade, attend an official Black Tie Gala Inaugural Ball, and visit with celebrities, politicians, and White House staff. Despite paying significant “tuition costs,” as well as travel and related expenses in reliance on these representations, the plaintiffs allege that the promised access to these events went unfulfilled. Once they were in Washington, DC, the defendants told students that they had no tickets or areas for viewing the inauguration or parade. Instead of the promised official inaugural ball, the students were taken to a “glorified prom.” Moreover, many of the promised speakers never appeared. Although the students spent several thousand dollars to attend the conference, all they got were a few meals and shared hotel rooms worth, at most, a couple of hundred dollars.

The complaint further alleges that even though Envision and CYLC advertised the “exclusive” and “limited” nature of the programs, they enrolled more than 15,000 students. Prior inaugural conferences sponsored by these groups had only 500-800 attendees. While Envision and CYLC eventually set aside $1 million to refund angry parents and students, that sum would provide approximately $65 per attendee.

James Pizzirusso, a partner with Hausfeld LLP, stated: “Our clients allege that CYLC and Envision were ill-prepared to deal with the number of students they accepted and the logistics of providing access to viewing the inauguration and parade or attending an inaugural ball. It was well-known months before the inauguration that very few tickets would be issued for these events. Instead of advising the students of these issues and allowing people to cancel or obtain refunds, the defendants retained these students’ payments and continued their misrepresentations.”

Bernard DiMuro of DiMuroGinsberg PC, stated: “If the companies sponsoring these events had disclosed the true nature of these ‘educational conferences,’ no one would have paid $3,000 to attend. These kids took odd jobs and raised funds from family, friends and strangers in order to participate in the defendants' inaugural youth conference to eyewitness a truly historical event. Instead all they saw was the inside of a bus or were dropped off near the Washington Monument to fend for themselves.”

Copies of the complaint will be available at www.hausfeldllp.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

DimuroGinsberg PC
DiMuroGinsberg is a boutique litigation firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. The firm's practice focuses primarily on general and complex civil litigation in the areas of corporate & commercial law, business torts, criminal law, employment & labor law, and professional liability & ethics. For additional information about DiMuroGinsberg PC and its services, please visit http://www.dimuro.com.
 

The complaint charges that defendants Congressional Youth Leadership Council (CYLC) and Envision EMI, LLC solicited students all over the country to attend “educational inaugural conferences” and promised exclusive access and tickets to witness the Presidential Inauguration on the Mall, view the Presidential Inaugural Parade, attend an official Black Tie Gala Inaugural Ball, and visit with celebrities, politicians, and White House staff. Despite paying significant “tuition costs,” as well as travel and related expenses in reliance on these representations, the plaintiffs allege that the promised access to these events went unfulfilled. Once they were in Washington, DC, the defendants told students that they had no tickets or areas for viewing the inauguration or parade. Instead of the promised official inaugural ball, the students were taken to a “glorified prom.” Moreover, many of the promised speakers never appeared. Although the students spent several thousand dollars to attend the conference, all they got were a few meals and shared hotel rooms worth, at most, a couple of hundred dollars.

The complaint further alleges that even though Envision and CYLC advertised the “exclusive” and “limited” nature of the programs, they enrolled more than 15,000 students. Prior inaugural conferences sponsored by these groups had only 500-800 attendees. While Envision and CYLC eventually set aside $1 million to refund angry parents and students, that sum would provide approximately $65 per attendee.

James Pizzirusso, a partner with Hausfeld LLP, stated: “Our clients allege that CYLC and Envision were ill-prepared to deal with the number of students they accepted and the logistics of providing access to viewing the inauguration and parade or attending an inaugural ball. It was well-known months before the inauguration that very few tickets would be issued for these events. Instead of advising the students of these issues and allowing people to cancel or obtain refunds, the defendants retained these students’ payments and continued their misrepresentations.”

Bernard DiMuro of DiMuroGinsberg PC, stated: “If the companies sponsoring these events had disclosed the true nature of these ‘educational conferences,’ no one would have paid $3,000 to attend. These kids took odd jobs and raised funds from family, friends and strangers in order to participate in the defendants' inaugural youth conference to eyewitness a truly historical event. Instead all they saw was the inside of a bus or were dropped off near the Washington Monument to fend for themselves.”

Copies of the complaint will be available at www.hausfeldllp.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

DimuroGinsberg PC
DiMuroGinsberg is a boutique litigation firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. The firm's practice focuses primarily on general and complex civil litigation in the areas of corporate & commercial law, business torts, criminal law, employment & labor law, and professional liability & ethics. For additional information about DiMuroGinsberg PC and its services, please visit http://www.dimuro.com.
 

Dash Radosti, a student at Rachel Carson Middle School in Herndon, and Joshua Rottman, a college student in California, filed the suit in the District's federal court. Their attorneys are seeking class-action status for the 15,000 students who participated in the Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference, which was run by Envision EMI.

A spokesperson at Envision could not be reached for comment. Phones at the company went unanswered. The suit alleges that students paid up to $2,630 in tuition and lodging to attend the conference.

The company promised students they could attend the inauguration, educational seminars and a "Black Tie Gala Inaugural Ball," the suit alleges.

But once in Washington, the students learned they did not have inauguration tickets and would have to fend for themselves.

Rottman, 21, said in an interview that he watched the event on his hotel television.

Envision didn't deliver on other promises, the students' attorneys allege.

The company told students they would get to hear bicyclist Lance Armstrong speak, but he never showed up, said James J. Pizzirusso, one of the students' attorneys.

The black-tie galas were held in school gymnasiums or at a conference center. They did not require formal wear and were not affiliated with the inauguration, Pizzirusso said.

Students also couldn't get into packed rooms to hear promised speakers, Pizzirusso said.

According to press reports, the company reserved $1 million to pay restitution to the students. But Pizzirusso said that each student would only get to collect about $65 on average.

"That doesn't even pay for the tux rental," he said.

If you have experienced a problem with a product in your home and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

Europe has seen a rise in consumer and investor activism, and an increasing willingness by legislators to allow people to pursue mass grievances through the courts has opened the door to more legal claims.

“Are class actions coming to Europe? Under the name of ‘collective actions’ they’re here already,” Malcolm Carlisle, managing director of the European Justice Forum (EJF) says.

Several countries, including Sweden and the Netherlands, have provisions for class action-style litigation, while several others, including France and Italy, are mulling proposals for systems of their own.

The European Commission is also considering whether to recommend class actions for those affected by offences such as price-fixing.

Class actions uncontroversial

Class actions are, in themselves, uncontroversial. The ability to group together large numbers of claims relating to a single issue or company provides an efficient and cost-effective way of settling an issue that would otherwise threaten to clog up the courts for years.

They also provide an opportunity for redress for individuals who cannot afford to bring a claim themselves.

Class actions offer “an effective means of access to justice on behalf of the collective body of victims,” Michael Hausfeld, of leading US litigation law firm Hausfeld LLP says.

But in the United States, where they have been a feature of the legal landscape for decades, class actions have been hailed by some, but blamed by others for fuelling a multi-billion dollar litigation industry.

Critics have described the class action process in the United States as a ‘toxic cocktail’, in which several elements combine to make litigation risky to defend for companies. As a result, many choose to settle class actions, paying out millions of dollars, even if they have little merit, it is argued.

Litigation worry

“If US-style class actions came to Europe they could transform the litigation landscape,” Guy Pendell, a partner in the Dispute Resolution Group at law firm CMS Cameron McKenna says.

“The good news is that it isn’t looking very likely at the moment, because several of the elements that exist in the US to make class actions the ‘toxic cocktail’ simply don’t exist in the UK and Europe. There are not jury trials for that kind of action, there are not contingency fees, there are no punitive damages,” Pendell says.

But others fear that even if a European class action process were not a carbon copy of the costly American system, their introduction would inevitably lead to a rise in litigation.

“There are a lot of people in Europe who think that the American system is a ‘toxic cocktail’ of ingredients, all of which need to be present,” says the EJF’s Carlisle. “They pick off different ingredients of the US system and say we either don’t have that in Europe or we won’t introduce it.

“But you are left with the point that litigation is expensive – and class action litigation is particularly expensive. Who is going to provide that money?

“The only people likely to be willing to do so are law firms or litigation funding firms who will agree to fund the cost of litigation in return for a share of the damages,” Carlisle says. “That strong financial incentive to provide funding is the core of the US system.”

The rise of professional investors willing to bankroll court cases (see Third Party Litigation Funding, 29 Jan) eases the main risk faced by potential litigants in Europe – that they may lose and would be faced with a hefty bill for their opponent’s legal expenses. That is likely to encourage more court claims, argue opponents.

A different way

The EJF is lobbying governments for a civil justice system that seeks to avoid litigation.

Europe’s regulators, ombudsmen and other public authorities, who cover most areas of consumer commerce and whose task is to take action when there is a breach of regulation, have the opportunity to use their influence to encourage the wrongdoer to make voluntary restitution to third parties, it says.

If they do so, the company should earn a lighter sanction from the regulator.

But Hausfeld says none of the firms found guilty of cartel behaviour by the European Commission that he has dealt with have volunteered to compensate their victims. “Their response was that if you want me to pay then make me. That was supposedly the negotiating culture.”

Hausfeld also argues it is not a regulator’s role to wring cash from firms to repay those left out of pocket by price fixing or anticompetitive behaviour.

“If someone steals from you and you know who it was and how much was taken, you deserve to have it back. That is not a government’s function, it’s a function of civil law.”

Recession worries

The fact that a number of countries are considering introducing class actions at a time when a global economic recession is biting deep, poses an unwanted extra headache to business, Carlisle says.

“I’m worried by the relatively easy assumption within government that the US system is an option and they can control it. I simply don’t believe that will be the case,” Carlisle says.

But other companies are often victims of price-fixing as much as consumers, Hausfeld points out. Enabling them to bring collective claims for redress may offer them a lifeline in the bleak economic climate.

“Companies who were reluctant before to pursue claims through litigation probably now find that adding to their net profitability by recovering that which was unlawfully taken is not only a good but a necessary business decision,” Hausfeld says.

“Class actions are not necessarily appropriate for all circumstances. Nor should they be used to ‘extort’ money from companies that have not committed any wrongs. But they provide a legitimate means of providing mass access to justice where there has been a mass wrong,” Hausfeld says.

What Should Companies Do?

As the legal landscape across Europe changes, companies should take steps to protect themselves as part of their risk management strategies.

Businesses should consider the patchwork of legal procedures that are in place in different parts of Europe and their potential exposure in each nation in which they operate. A suit in Bulgaria, which has a full US-style class action system, would have different consequences than one in the Netherlands, for example.

“Companies who are potentially faced with these actions should think about what insurance cover they have in place in the event that, God forbid, the juggernaut heads their way,” Maxine Cupitt, a partner in Cameron McKenna’s Dispute Resolution Group says.

Firms should decide whether they have sufficient product liability insurance to cover claims from a number of countries, some of which could be eye-wateringly high.
They would also be wise to look again at the level of their D&O insurance, to ensure they have adequate cover for lengthy price-fixing investigations that could result in large fines and a resulting class action.

At a time when shell-shocked shareholders are looking for reasons for the steep losses in their portfolios, businesses should also look again at their investor relations.

“Companies should look very carefully at how they pass information to shareholders. In the US a lot of the cases arise from the allegation that information was not disclosed to shareholders soon enough,” John Batch, senior vice president in the FINPRO practice at Marsh says.