Articles Posted in Class Action Litigation

Individual NFL retired players will receive up to $5 million of the $1 billion settlement that was reached with the NFL (National Football League). The NFL has recognized that current and former players are exposed regularly to different forms of brain concussions. Some of these injuries lead to neurocognitive or neuromuscular symptoms. The NFL brand of football is increasingly fast, including extremely talented and bigger players. All participants are subjected to serious injuries, including brain injuries.

The player lawsuits originally accused the NFL of hiding what it knew about the link between concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the degenerative brain disease found in dozens of former NFL players after their deaths. The settlement avoids the need for a trial and means the NFL may never have to disclose what it knew and when about the risks and treatment of repeated concussions.

The settlement covers more than 20,000 retired NFL players for the next 65 years. The league estimates that 6,000 former players, or nearly 3 in 10, could develop Alzheimer’s disease or moderate dementia. Continue reading

Takeda Pharmaceutical is a Japanese company that has been defending as many as 9,000 lawsuits or claims for individuals who were taking the medication Actos, which is a Type 2 diabetes drug. Takeda’s United States’ headquarters is located in Deerfield, Ill.

The filed complaints include 4,000 in Cook County, Ill., another 4,000 filed in Louisiana and about 800 filed in Florida. There are still other cases filed in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana; these are part of the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). In one of those cases, tried to a jury in 2014, the verdict against Takeda and Eli Lilly was for $9 billion, which set a record. In that case Takeda was found to have destroyed evidence about Actos and its link to bladder cancer. It was also revealed that Takeda’s former employees and some top executives in the U.S. and Japan deleted files that if considered would have had negative impact. That verdict amount was later reduced by the presiding judge and is on the appeal filed by Takeda. That case as consolidated is titled In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 11- md-02299, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette).

According to reports, the diabetes drug Actos produced $16 billion in sales since it went on the market for public use in 1999. In June 2011, the United States Food and Drug Administration (USDA) issued a written warning about the possible risk of bladder cancer for those patients who were taking Actos for a year or longer. In August 2011, the FDA issued a new warning about Actos stating that people taking Actos “may be an increased risk for developing bladder cancer.”

Continue reading

On April 6, 2012, nine graduates from DePaul University College of Law filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others who were similarly situated against DePaul. They were making claim that the university and particularly its law school violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and committed common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The law school graduates claimed that DePaul published “employment and salary statistics that deceptively overstated the percentages of recent graduates who had obtained full-time legal employment with salaries in excess of $70,000.”

The law school graduates said they relied on DePaul’s statistics by entering law school and borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to pay their tuition and taking out loans to pay such tuition. The plaintiffs wanted DePaul to pay a percentage of the tuition they paid as well as the lifetime income they would have earned based on DePaul’s statistics.

Continue reading

In a class action brought by Motorola investors it was maintained that during 2006, the company made false statements in order to disguise its inability to deliver a mobile phone for sale that would employ three different protocols. When it became public that Motorola could not produce the new mobile phone, its stock sank significantly. 

After the lawsuit had been pending for four years, the district court denied Motorola’s motion for summary judgment. After that, the parties settled for $200 million. The class members approved the settlement, but objected to the judge’s decision to award 27.5% of the settlement to the trial lawyers who represented the class.

One of the former class members filed an objection a month after the deadline. Though he filed an objection to the award of legal fees, the objector chose not to file a claim for his share of the settlement fund. As a result, the court of appeals concluded that the objector lacked any interest in the amount of attorney fees awarded and as a result, dismissed his appeal.

Continue reading