A scathing 60 Minutes report in March 2015 revealed that Lumber Liquidators was working with Chinese mills that didn’t comply with the California Air Resources Board’s regulations on formaldehyde emissions, and shareholders filed a securities fraud suit against the company’s board. Three officers have since left, including the CEO and CFO and another was fired. This fast exit may work in shareholders’ favor and bolster a negligence claim.
John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, said that “If they’re getting fired because they knew the company was importing noncompliant products - products that didn’t comply with California law - that would be a case in which you can say ‘Gee, that shows it was negligent’... The case against those fired officers would be somewhat stronger,” according to Law360.
Lumber Liquidators got caught when its record-high margins came under suspicion. They explained the profits were based on creative “sourcing initiatives,” when in fact they came from illegal wood harvesting in Russia, and they partnered with Chinese mills that made flooring products with dangerous levels of formaldehyde. The securities class action filed by the shareholders also claims that Lumber Liquidators and its executives “misled investors in financial reports and conference calls by attributing its increasing gross margins to improvements in its business partnerships.”
READ MORE LUMBER LIQUIDATORS LEGAL NEWS
Meanwhile, Sharon decided to file a Lumber Liquidators complaint with an attorney and is hopeful there will be some compensation forthcoming, at least to cover costs for a new floor.
There are currently more than 100 consumer class actions against Lumber Liquidators coordinated before U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia. The shareholder lawsuits are separate from the consumer class actions. Since the securities class action was filed in November 2013, Lumber Liquidators fell to less than $20 a share, from a peak of $119.
READER COMMENTS
Dave C
on
This test wad done by someone they paid for an independent test-How independent can that be? Why would they do that if there wasn't something there to follow-up on?
Seems like a delay and diversion tactic...as we had to keep calling to find out about the follow up test...I think something is up and perhaps they are going to do something as a company to cover it up of file for some type of protection). It was then reported(by some slick spokesperson) that the test was now "fine" but Mgmnt had to review it"...seems like another stall (and no written report?)-They are clearly trying to manage the results and the customers-I want to lawyer up-I want the flooring out...
My sense it that unless they make the news or get the proper "emotionally corrective expericence" by a Lawyer with the necessary gravitas which I am now compiling documentation for....I will get the runaround.
How did it go from totally unsafe from 2 rooms of testing to now "safe"? I am questioning their testing method and how they measure it-from our rudimentary air test(which showed very unsafe in 2 rooms to the lab test and it goes down? I think not!- Otherwise our rooms are all dangerous to our health w/out the floors(if they are saying the floors are safe but the tests are reporting unsafe levels in both rooms).
If any attorney wants to join forces with me to bring them to a place of accountability in Washington state then please e-mail me...I really just want my floors out and replaced and my day in court if needed...
Im considering small claims...bring the fight right to them-now its personal. I need some advisement here-I'm up for a fight with these people-As they have ripped us off and are treating us like fools hoping we go away-Ethics!
D
Duane Kotara
on
Matt B.
on
Grace Vega
on
We don't know about that. We are still concerned with so many issues being caused by the negligence of these CEO's who are millionaires at the expense of the consumers who are suffering.
Should we trust that all the problems have been resolved?
Grace Vega
Darlene White
on
Patricia Berg
on
My husband and I have sinus problems since and doctoring. Our overnight visitors have gottten sick.
bari Klirsfeld
on
Michelle
on
Ward Owf
on
paul Inderwiesen
on
Both agency said that "The deconstructive method is not conclusive of non-compliance" Currently both agencies said that they are amending the laminate flooring section in a way that allows them to test without using the deconstructive method. The whole industry knows that the deconstructive method is so imperfect. The regulatory agency in CA that is in charge of enforcing CARB compliance) is very active. 5 or so enforcement actions per month, and they have yet to bring an enforcement action under CARB at all--not one. These are the facts directly from the horses mouth. Is this getting any press release, not at all. It a embarrassment to these agency that their test method were not accurate. However with all product sold everywhere there always that chance that the manufacture can over mixed a chemical allowing a lot to be shipped out to the retailer without anyone knowing. Reason being that the testing is done in samples. Any kind of lawsuit against LL especially with this conclusion will be very hard if not impossible to win.. If there is a real concern for the customer health LL said they would do further investigation and make it right for the customer. No problem
Fred Durst
on