If you purchased a Honda Civic Hybrid model auto between the years of 2003 through 2009 you might be eligible for a cash pay out up to $200 or a rebate worth up to $1,000 on the purchase or lease of a new Honda or Acura under the terms of the Honda Civic Hybrid Lawsuit.  The lawsuit revolves around claims that the 2003 to 2009 Honda Civic Hybrids did not deliver on the MPG as advertised.  These autos claimed they would get 50 MPG when in all actuality it barely got 30 mpg overtime according to the lawsuit complaint.  Class members claim that if the truth was known about the true MPG of the Civic Hybrid they would have never purchased this car.

On September 30, 2011, in the San Diego County Superior the Honorable Court Judge Timothy B. Taylor preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the Honda Civic Hybrid Lawsuit.

If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must mail an Opt-Out request to the Settlement Administrator, postage prepaid, postmarked no later than February 11, 2012.  All claim forms are due no later than October 15, 2012.  A settlement fairness hearing will take place on March 16, 2012, at 10:00 a.m to decide if the settlement is fair and reasonable.  The hearing will take place at the San Diego County Superior Court, Hall of Justice, 330 West Broadway, Department 72, San Diego, California 92101.

The class counsel appointed in the case are: Nicholas E. Chimicles and Alison G. Gushue of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP; Jonathan W. Cuneo and William H. Anderson of CUNEO GILBERT & LaDuca LLP; Alan M. Mansfield of Consumer Law Group Of California; James R. Hail of Doyle Lowther LLP; and Michael E. Lindsey of the Law Offices Of Michael E. Lindsey.

The settlement admin can be reached toll-free at 1-877-465-4797 or by mail:

Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2566
Faribault, MN 55021-9566

or visit the website…

www.hchsettlement.com 

If you paid your GMAC  home loan of early and were charged a “late fee” anytime between December 30, 2005 to the present time you are considered a class member of the GMAC Mortgage Late Fee class action lawsuit.  This lawsuit revolves around claims that GMAC imposed a fake fee when a home loan was paid off early by a customer.  So when a customer tried to do the right thing and pay their loan off early they ended up getting screwed by GMAC.  How can this “late fee” be imposed when the loan was paid of early?  This is what thousands of class members want to know.

The lawsuit states: “GMAC routinely adds a late payment charge to the schedule of amounts due when all GMAC mortgagors request a payoff letter to repay their note early… The Late Fee, consisting of 3% of the monthly loan payment due, was unlawfully included in each and every home mortgage loan paid off during the Class Period.” and these late fees were “improper and unlawful” because the customers payments “were in fact timely made.”

The case is entitled Audrey Kessler v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.  Audrey Kessler is the head Plaintiff.  A copy of the GMAC lawsuit can be found here.

Another overdraft fee class action lawsuit is upon us.  These type of lawsuits are almost as common as securities fraud lawsuit nowadays.  This time Umpqua Bank is at the center of a Overdraft Fee Class Action Lawsuit.  The lawsuit claims that Umpqua Bank  re-ordered debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount in order to maximize customers overdraft fees.  This is a common complaint in these types of lawsuits. The goal of this reordering is to deplete the customer’s available funds as quickly as possible in order to obtain a high amount of overdraft fees.  Other Banks that have been hit with an Overdraft Fee class action lawsuit include Bank Of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Union Bank.

The Umpqua Bank lawsuit includes customers in Oregon, California, Washington, and Nevada.  The lawsuit is in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco/Oakland Division of the Northern District of California.  The Umpqua Bank overdraft fee class action lawsuit also alleges that Umpqua failed to disclose or properly disclose its overdraft policies, including by providing bank statements which did not indicate the order in which transactions were actually posted to accounts.

A Washington-D.C.-based law firm Tycko & Zavareei will represent the plaintiff.  A copy of the Umpqua class action lawsuit complaint is available upon request from Tycko & Zavareei at www.tzlegal.com.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veolia Environnement S.A. claiming that Veolia Environnement S.A. and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. The lawsuit is in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and includes anyone who bought American Depositary Shares of Veolia Environnement S.A. between the dates of April 27, 2007 and August 4, 2011.   The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Izard Nobel LLP which has handled many past security fraud claims.

The lawsuit claims that Veolia  failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that Veolia was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (ii) Veolia lacked adequate internal controls; and (iii) Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the U.S., and for Southern Europe.

This action ultimately resulted in a loss of money for shareholders.  More information about the case can be found at www.izardnobel.com or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com.

Veolia Environnement S.A. can be found on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol VE.

Veolia Environnement 
36-38, avenue Kléber
75116 Paris
Tél : +33 (0)1 71 75 00 00
Fax : +33 (0)1 71 75 10 45

Nike is in some trouble over claims that they violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act by making their employees work overtime and off the clock without being paid.  The Nike Store Employee lawsuit includes  any Nike employees who worked as sales associates between the dates of December 28, 2008 to the present time and was filed by Plaintiff Webster Proctor of the San Francisco NikeTown store.  A secondary class of the lawsuit also includes any California Nike store employees from December 28, 2007 to the present.  The case is entitled Webster Proctor v. Nike Retail Services, Nike USA, Inc., and Nike, Inc., and is in the jurisdiction of the  U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

Some key highlights of the Nike Store Employee Overtime Lawsuit include:

The case will be handled by Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLP.  A copy of the case can be found here.

If you purchased Gentek siding anytime after 1986 you could be part of the Gentek Defective Siding Class Action Lawsuit.  The case is entitled Robert A. Patrick v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., and Associated Materials, Inc. and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.  This lawsuit revolves around claims that Gentek’s siding is prone to  warps, cracks, buckles, flakes, peels, splits, discolors and deteriorates and that Gentek refuses to honor their lifetime warranty associated with the product.  The lawsuit also states the siding allows moisture to penetrate the building which causes problems and can lead to costly damage repairs.  The lawsuit is seeking damages for breach of warranty and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  More information about the Gentek Defective Siding Lawsuit can be found here.

The following LCD Flat Panel TV producers have agreed to a settlement in the TFT LCD Class Action Lawsuit:  Samsung Electronics, Sharp, Chimei Innolux, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Epson Imaging Devices, HannStar Display and Hitachi Displays.  These manufacturers of LCD flat screens and producys have agreed to pay consumers over $553 million to resolve allegations they conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panel.  A TFT-LCD is a display technology used in flat panel televisions as well as in computer monitors, notebook computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices.  The $553 million dollar settlement is the largest pay out in the history of antitrust class action lawsuit.

The case is entitled TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation and is in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Class members in the lawsuit include anyone who purchased a TFT-LCD panels or certain products from Samsung Electronics, Sharp, Chimei Innolux, Chunghwa, Epson Imaging Devices, HannStar and Hitach containing those panels between 1996 and 2006.  There are two distinct classes, the “panel class” and the “product” class.  The panel class includes customers who bought a TFT-LCD panel.  The product class includes anyone who bought a television, computer monitor, or notebook computer containing a TFT-LCD panel.  And yes it is possible to be part of more than one class.  Settlement payouts have not yet been determined but all claims must be filed no later than April 5, 2012 in order to be eligible for a payout.  The class counsel consist of Bruce L. Simon of the Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP and Richard M. Heimann of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  The claim form is currently being revised and will be available soon.  Please check the class administrators website at a later date for the form.

www.tftlcdclassaction.com 

Here is a complete list of the named defendants and the co-conspirators:

AU Optronics Corporation
AU Optronics Corporation America
Chi Mei Corporation
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.
Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.
CMO Japan Co., Ltd.
Epson Electronics America, Inc.
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation
HannStar Display Corporation
Hitachi Displays, Ltd.
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
Hitachi, Ltd.
Hydis Technologies Co. Ltd.
IPS Alpha Technology, Ltd.
LG Display America, Inc. (formerly known as
LG.Philips LCD America, Inc.)
LG Display Co., Ltd. (formerly known as
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.
NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd.
Nexgen Mediatech, Inc.
Nexgen Mediatech USA, Inc.
Panasonic Corporation
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Company, Ltd.
Sanyo North America Corporation
Seiko Epson Corporation
Sharp Corporation
Sharp Electronics Corporation
Tatung Company of America, Inc.
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
Toshiba Corporation
Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd

Gaspari Nutrition, Inc is in some trouble over the body building supplement “Novedex XT”.  A class action lawsuit was filed against Gaspari Nutrition claiming that they made misleading statement and falsely advertised Novedex XT to consumers.  The lawsuit is entitled James Keller v. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc and is in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  If you or someone you know purchased Novedex XT between the dates of November 2, 2006 and October 3, 2011 you are considered a class member of the Novedex XT Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.  Pumping iron is finally starting to pay off.  Eligible class members could receive a settlement of $20 per bottle purchased.  A settlement fund of $1,000,000 has been established.

Any class members with a valid receipt of purchase or credit statement showing you made the purchase will receive a check for $20 for each bottle of Novedex XT purchased during the Class Period under the settlement terms.  So if you bought 5 bottles of Novedex XT you would be entitled to $100.00.  If you do not have a valid receipt or statement but make a sign sworn affirmation under penalty of perjury you will receive a check for $10 for each bottle of Novedex XT purchased during the Class Period.  Gaspari Nutrition denies all wrong doing in the case.

All claim forms are due no later than 01-16-12.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held on March 19, 2012 at 930am to determine of the settlement is fair and reasonable.  The hearing will be held before the honorable Gary A Feess at the Royal Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street, Crtrm 740, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

To get any type of settlement payment you MUST submit a claim form.  If you are a Class Member and do nothing, you will not receive a payment from this Settlement.  All claim forms can be filed online at the Novedex XT Settlement Administrators website or printed and mailed to: Novedex XT Settlement Administrator, PO Box 6389, Portland, OR 97228-6389.

www.novedexxtsettlement.com

It looks like the De Beers Diamond Class Action Lawsuit Settlement has finally been approved by the courts.  The case was entitled SHAWN SULLIVAN vs. DB INVESTMENTS, INC., and was in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey.  The lawsuit revolved around claims that De Beers artificially inflated the market price for the price of rough diamonds in order to increase their bottom line.  The settlement agreement states that De Beers will have to pay $295 million to U.S. retailers, jewelry makers and consumer who had purchased diamonds since 1994.   The settlement included $22.5 million for direct purchasers of De Beers diamonds and $272.5 million for indirect purchasers. In addition, De Beers would pay $73 million in attorney’s fees and costs.  De Beers did not have a comment at the time of the ruling. 

www.DiamondsClassAction.com

The Nortel SEC Fair Fund class action lawsuit revolves around claims that Nortel engaged in fraudulent schemes and plots to meet unrealistic revenue and earning reports.  This inaccurate revenue and earnings were provided to Wall Street by the  Nortel Networks Corporation in 2000 and again in 2002 and 2003.  The Nortel Networks Corporation consented to a Final Judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) on October 25, 2007.

Class members of the Nortel SEC Class Lawsuit Settlement include anyone who purchased Nortel common stock between October 24, 2000 through the close of the markets on February 15, 2001 and/or April 24, 2003 through the close of the markets on April 27, 2004 (the “Recovery Period”).

All proof of claim forms must be received no later than March 16, 2012.  You can submit your Proof of Claim Form to the Distribution Agent at the address below:

Nortel SEC Fair Fund
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
Distribution Agent
PO Box 9530
Dublin OH 43017-4830

You should receive confirmation that your claim form was received within 60 days of the mailing date.  If you do not receive confirmation within 60 days please call (888) 561-9182 and speak with a Distribution Agent.  Other case documents can be found at the settlement administrators website such as the Distribution Plan, Order Approving Plan of Distribution, Distribution Plan Notice, Summary Notice, and the Proof of Claim Form.  All documents are available in PDF Format.

www.NortelSECSettlement.com