- Class Actions
- Commercial Litigation
- Defective Products
- Drug Injury
- Personal Injury
- Securities Fraud
- Toxic Exposure
- Whistleblower Claims
- Benicar Lawsuit
- Ocella, Yasmin, Yaz
- Sleeping Pills
- Xolair Lawsuit
- Aquafin Inc. Pool Solution
- Aveeno Lawsuit
- Atlas Roofing Lawsuit
- Avon/Clarins Products
- AZEK Decking
- BMW Alloy Wheels
- Carrier Air Conditioners
- Chinese Drywall
- Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing
- Electrolux Lawsuit
- Energy Drink Lawsuit
- Flushmate Systems
- Ford & Mercury Transmissions
- GAF Decking
- Goodman Air Conditioners
- GM Ignition Switch Defect
- Honda Cars & Takata Airbags
- Lennox Evaporator Coils
- LP/ABTCO TrimBoard
- Marvel Ice Machines
- Maytag Washing Machines
- Norcold Lawsuit
- Pella Designer & Architect Windows
- Pozzi and Jeld-Wen
- Premium Composites
- Rheem Evaporator Coils
- Seamless Steel Siding
- Takata Airbag Recall
- TimberTech Decking
- Triangle Tube Prestige Boiler
- Toyota Prius Tripling Windshield
- Yamaha Boating Motors
- York, Luxaire, Coleman AC
Archives : 2010 : July
Gawker has the lowdown on “AT&T’s iPad Cover Up.”
After security research group Goatse Security obtained network identification numbers and email addresses for at least 114,000 iPad customers, our colleagues at Gizmodo asked AT&T chief security officer Ed Amoroso just how many accounts were affected in total. After all, while Goatse Security provided Gawker with information on 114,000 customers, the group also shared its script with third parties prior to contacting AT&T, as we reported at the time, meaning every iPad 3G user may have been exposed. Amoroso told Gizmodo that AT&T was “doing the forensics as we speak” and until they were done, there’s “no way of validating the number of addresses.” Amoroso promised to “shed some more light” on the situation once AT&T’s investigation was complete.
Law360 covers a new development in the Madoff saga, which rocked Wall Street over a year ago.
Shareholders in a hedge fund that lost $32 million as a result of Bernard L. Madoff’s notorious Ponzi scheme have filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the fund against its investment manager and executives, saying they should have known investing with Madoff was risky.
The plaintiffs, employee benefit funds for New Jersey carpenters, filed their suit Wednesday in the New York County Supreme Court against Meridian Diversified Fund Management LLC and 10 executives. The plaintiffs are shareholders in Meridian Diversified ERISA Fund Ltd.
The shareholders are being represented by Milberg LLP, Seeger Weiss LLP and Kroll Heineman LLC.
The New York Times reports that New York has increased it’s scrutiny of asbestos inspectors after the embarrassing revelation that former inspector Saverio F. Todaro had he “submitted clean asbestos and lead test results for at least a decade without performing any tests.”
The city environmental agency regulates private asbestos inspectors, who play an important role in what has long been viewed as one of the more corrupt sectors of the construction industry. The agency sets the procedures and establishes requirements for training and certification.
The inspectors, formally known as certified asbestos investigators, are hired by building owners and developers to assess apartments and buildings set to undergo renovation or demolition, because inhaling asbestos can cause lung disease and cancer. The assessments can have a major impact on the cost and duration of a project, since cleanup or abatement can be expensive and time consuming.
A surprising aspect of Mr. Todaro’s case was that his certification was suspended in 2004 by the environmental agency, which cited poor building surveys and improper record keeping.
But because of a lack of communication between city agencies, he was able to keep performing asbestos assessments and avoid scrutiny. He continued to file assessments with the city’s Buildings Department, enabling developers to obtain permits to demolish or renovate, because the Department of Environmental Protection had not notified the Buildings Department of his suspension.
Livingston County News quotes Marc Albert and Moshe Horn on the latest developments in the Wildcats case.
“We feel this is a very significant development and continue to be optimistic that New York law will be applied to the case,” said Marc Albert of the Buffalo firm Seeger Weiss LLP, which is representing 11 of the accident victims.
The issue is a critical one because the value of the vast majority of the victims’ claims far exceeds the Canadian cap on damages, Albert advised.
“We firmly believe that New York law – not Canadian – applies here,” Albert continued. “Not only did the accident take place in New York, but it involved commercial vehicles owned by defendant companies who were regularly using New York roadways for profit.”
“Application of a $326,000 Canadian cap to victims who sustained crippling orthopedic injuries, brain damage or death is incomprehensible,” stated Albert’s partner Moshe Horn. “This is especially so, given that the Court has already determined that New York law and un-capped damages will be applied to the claims of the truck driver, who has been held to be partially at fault for the accident. We’re very pleased that the Appellate Division has allowed us to appeal this issue to the Court of Appeals.”
The New York Times live blogged the FDA Panel on Avandia.
3:37 p.m. The Vote on Removing Avandia
Twelve members voted to withdraw Avandia from the market, while 10 voted that it should continue to be sold but with serious revisions to its label as well as possible restrictions on its sale. Seven voted to simply add further warnings to the drug’s label. Three voted to allow further sales without change.
The vote is an enormous blow to Avandia and GlaxoSmithKline. The vast majority of panel members voted either to withdraw the drug or to allow continued sales only if strict controls are added.
A final decision will be made by the F.D.A., of course, at a later date.
Watch the FDA Avandia hearing live on CNN, right now!
The Windsor Star quotes Marc Albert:
Lawyer Marc Albert said the case should be decided under New York law, which has no cap.
“When you start talking about limiting these people to $326,000 Canadian, obviously that is an enormous issue in this case,” Albert said.
“I think it’s terribly unfair.
“We believe that the lower court misapplied the prior case law.”
Seeger Weiss partner Marc Albert in the Rochester Business Journal: “We firmly believe that New York law, not Canadian (law), applies here.”