|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 3406 | Consumer Products | 12/29/2004
A class action has been filed against body armor manufacturer Armor Holdings, Inc., on behalf of all persons, agencies, or entities that purchased, owned, have been issued, or possess vests containing Zylon, manufactured by Armor Holdings between April 7, 1999, and April 7, 2004. The action alleges that Zylon, the protective fiber used in the vests, deteriorates when exposed to heat and other conditions over time so that the vests lose their protective qualities. The action seeks $77.5 million in compensatory damages.
The action was filed by the National Association of Police Organizations, which alleges that the vests containing a ballistic material that loses the ability to stop bullets over time. This is the second such lawsuit brought by NAPO against a bullet-resistant vest maker. In March 2004, attorneys for NAPO filed a similar complaint in Michigan against Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. That case is captioned National Association of Police Organizations v. Second Chance Body Armor Inc., Mich. Cir. Ct., No. 04-8018-NP. Both lawsuits also name as defendants Toyobo America, Inc., and its Japanese parent, Toyobo Company, Ltd. The complaints against Armor Holdings, Second Chance, and Toyobo each include one count of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of duty to warn. Together, Armor and Second Chance hold about 80% of the body armor market, having each sold 100,000 or more vests to police officers nationwide. NAPO's defective-product legal actions differ from one another in that the suit against Second Chance does not seek specific compensatory damages because the company has taken steps to restore the vests' protective qualities or provide new products. Armor Holdings has not yet made such an offer. Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch on April 13, 2004, joined other states when he filed a lawsuit in Minnesota District Court, Ramsey County, against Second Chance (Minnesota v. Second Chance Body Armor Inc., Minn. Dist. Ct., No. C5-04-003467, complaint filed 4/13/04). That action does not name Toyobo as a defendant. Among other things, the Minnesota attorney general's lawsuit alleges that Second Chance concealed from police officers and the public defects in its Zylon-made vests. Second Chance also allegedly violated Minnesota consumer protection laws and breached express and implied warranties by falsely representing and warranting that its "Ultima" and "Ultimax" models vests provided ballistic protection and met certified standards. The action also alleges that Second Chance continued to sell the vests after it learned of deterioration problems and that the company failed to warn existing customers about the defects. The Fairness Hearing for this case is on 9/30/04. The Claims Deadline for this case is 3/30/05. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Consumer Products Cases of Interest California's consumer protection laws go farther than those of most other states in granting security to its citizens. A class action has been certified against the Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. on behalf of all persons who, between April 2, 1997, and the date of any eventual judgment in this action, purchased for personal, family, or household purposes any Leatherman tool in California that was contained in packages on which an unqualified "Made in U.S.A." or "U.S.A." representation was made.
Yet another class action has been filed against pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer, Inc., and Warner-Lambert Company over its questionable, but highly lucrative marketing of the epilepsy drug Neurontin (gabapentin), for off-label uses. This latest action is brought by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Plan on behalf of all U.S. consumers who paid some or all of the cost of an off-label-use Neurontin prescription since 1994. The Union claims that its prescription drug coverage plan incurred substantial costs for Neurontin prescriptions, the vast majority of which were for conditions other than epilepsy, the official FDA use for the drug. Plaintiffs allege that Pfizer has harmed consumers by conspiring to circumvent drug approval regulations set up by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and promoting scientifically unproven "off-label" use of Neurontin, in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The action seeks unspecified compensatory and triple punitive damages. Several class actions have been filed against fast food giant McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between December 14, 2001, and January 22, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. A class action has been filed against clothing manufacturer Warnaco Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: WRNC) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between December 11, 1997, and July 20, 2000.
If you are looking for an electronic technology gadget, Best Buy probably has it. Several class actions have been filed against technology store operator Best Buy Company, Inc. (NYSE: BBY) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 9, 2002, and August 7, 2002. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Mergers often strengthen a corporation, but sometimes hurt stockholders and the public. The class has been certified in an action filed against the Minnesota Corn Processors (MCP) Board of Directors on behalf of all individuals holding MCP Class A shares prior to September 5, 2002, and the who had the right to vote in connection with the 2002 $400 million merger between MCP and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). The action alleges that the Board hid the fact that they were profiting from the merger illegally while shareholders would only make a fraction of what their shares were worth in the transaction. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
