AG Edwards Settlement has Plaintiffs Ticked Off

March 29th, 2010. By AbiK

And I have to say, I’d be ticked too.

Plaintiffs got a little gift in their mailboxes last week: they received notice of the proposed settlement from the AG Edwards class action. Guess how much some plaintiffs are receiving? The initial report of the proposed settlement put the average payout at $20-25 customer. One commenter at LawyersAndSettlements.com quotes his notice as saying he’ll receive $20.42. You can read the notice yourself at agedwardsclassactionsettlement.com. (Note the name change of the website—prior to the proposed settlement, the site was agedwardsclassaction.com; the URL has been updated to reflect that the case now has a propsed settlement.)

Keep in mind, if you’ve read the comments that came flowing in from our post on where the AG Edwards class action suit was heading, many of the Class Members claim they lost their “life savings” compliments of AG Edwards. And remember, this was back during a class period of 2000 – 2005—not post-2008 when we all saw our savings take a dive.

The AG Edwards class action had been brought against the brokerage firm in 2005 claiming that AG Edwards breached its fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs (folks who owned AG Edwards accounts) and that AG Edwards was “unjustly enriched by receiving millions of dollars in improper payments from mutual fund companies whose funds were held by Plaintiffs“. The Class Period had covered five years—and getting to a proposed settlement then took five years.

That’s a long time to wait for some resolution and ideally, restitution.

Another aspect of the proposed settlement is what the lawyers’ take will be. Apparently it’s $21 million—plus $600,000 in expenses. That’s 35% of the total proposed settlement of $60 million—and Read the rest of this entry »

Asbestos News Roundup: 3.26.10

March 26th, 2010. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. 

Asbestos Lawsuits

St. Clair County, IL: Three more asbestos lawsuits were filed recently in this county. Among them is a suit filed by a couple who allege that the husband, James Keller, developed pleural plaques as a result of exposure to asbestos through his work. Mr. Keller worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA from 1969 until 1971; as an assistant team manager at Roadway Express until 1977; as an assistant terminal manager in 1978; as a laborer, estimator and vice president at James A. Keller Inc. from 1969 until 1994; and as the vice president and owner of Grayhawk from 1994 until now, and during his time at these various positions he was exposed to asbestos containing product. The asbestos-related suit names nine defendants. 

A second couple, the Brocks, filed an asbestos-related complaint naming 10 companies as defendants. Susan Brock developed lung cancer after her work as a kitchen server at Lutheran Hospital from 1966 until 1969, as a packer and assembler at General Electric Co. from 1969 until 1974, as a machine operator at Harvester from 1976 until 1981, as a painter at Rosener Decorating from 1983 until 1986, as a truck driver and loader at Purolator Courier from 1986 until 1989, as a package handler and courier at Fed Ex from 1989 until 1997, as a driver for Statewide Medical from 1998 until 1999 and as a truck driver from 1999 until 2007. Mrs. Brock is now disabled and disfigured as a result of her asbestos illness. 

Finally, Mr. Weir has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit after developing asbestos mesothelioma Read the rest of this entry »

Seagram’s Sisters Lawsuit Makes Start-up Funding Look Easy

March 26th, 2010. By AbiK

pssst…looking for some start-up funding? I may have your angel. The Seagram’s sisters—aka, Clare and Sara Bronfman. Yes, the daughters of mega mogul Edgar Bronfman, Sr. They’ve already plowed millions (we’re talking close to $100M) into an investment scheme of self-made self-help wannabe whiz, Keith Raniere—and lost them. Where was that psychic they were talking to? So maybe they’ll be looking for a new opp—esp. now that word on the street is that daddy Bronfman is a bit pissed.

Clare and Sara apparently got a bit “taken in” by Raniere and his NXIVM group-awareness seminar company. So much so that their daddy refers to it as a “cult”. Here’s what Clare Bronfman has to say about Raniere on her—rather low-budget-looking considering she could afford a web guy—website:

Keith Raniere – Keith is my teacher and my best friend. My life is so profoundly different from when I first met him words can’t describe my gratitude. The depth of his caring for the individual people, with whom he works, as well as humanity collectively, is remarkable to me. His dedication to helping people experience more joy in their lives through self discovery and understanding has been an incredible gift to so many of us. Through his ongoing commitment to live an ethical existence, dedicated to doing what is right for all of humanity, he continues to inspire me.

So what’s NXIVM? —if helps if you can first pronounce it, which the NY Post kindly shares as NEX-EEUM. NXIVM was founded by Nancy Salzman who seems to have a hefty CV though you’d be hard-pressed to actually find her credentials—i.e., the ones that include abbreviations like “B.A.”, “M.S.”, “PhD”, Read the rest of this entry »

Legal Challenges to Health Care Reform: Justice, or Just Us Pouting?

March 25th, 2010. By Hunter West

Some lawsuits are there to right a wrong. To seek justice, and elicit compensation. 

Others are simply put out there to make noise. For posturing. 

As part of the continued opposition to the Obama health care reform bill, 14 states launched legal challenges to the health care reform, claiming that requiring Americans to purchase health care coverage flies in the face of the Constitution. 

Okay. So 13, of the 14 attorneys general who have filed lawsuits are Republican. The GOP is known to be against the long-held Democratic dream. The White House has been told not to worry, that the legal challenges are not winnable by the plaintiffs. 

And never mind that Timothy Stolzfus Jost, a professor of law at the Washington and Lee University (disclaimer: he’s a Democrat), blogs on CNN that there is no legal merit to the challenges. “…These cases are going nowhere legally,” he says. 

But beyond all that let’s look at the fundamental claim that government has no right to tell me that I HAVE to buy health insurance. 

Fine. Then why must I buy automotive insurance? The last time I checked, auto insurance was a requirement. You’re not allowed to drive a car if you are uninsured. Get caught, and you face a hefty penalty. 

Now, I’m a careful driver. I don’t take chances. And I own my car outright. I can see if I was making payments to a bank, a manufacturer or a finance company, then I might be compelled to have insurance in order to protect their investment in the case of an accident. If I default on my payments the repo comes and gets the car, and the bank sells it for as much as it can get. 

However, you have to have a vehicle to do that. If the vehicle is totaled the driver has nothing Read the rest of this entry »

Medical Marijuana Catch-22: You’re Fired

March 24th, 2010. By AbiK

How in hell do the fourteen states where it’s legal—yes, LEGAL—to use marijuana for medical reasons have such a progressive law that, on the flip side, opens the door for employers to fire medical marijuana card-carrying employees who test positive for marijuana use?

According to a cnn.com article, Keith Stroup, who’s on the legal counsel team for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says he gets around “300 emails and phone calls a year from medical marijuana who have been fired or had job offers rescinded because of a failed drug test.” 

Stroup goes on to say, “Usually they talk about how they have lost their job and I tell them there’s not a thing they can do about it.”

True, in most at-will employment states an employee can be fired for any reason—except for those reasons that put the employee in a federally protected class—such as race, gender, and religion.

But medical marijuana-use employees are not a federally protected class. So employers pretty much Read the rest of this entry »