Law Offices of Brian Turner LLC

Archive for 2010|Yearly archive page

Initial BP Spill Report Points Fingers at Others

In Legal News on September 9, 2010 at 9:36 am

On September 8, 2010, BP released a 193 page report of its initial findings related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9034902&contentId=7064891).  In what many media outlets are calling a preview of how BP intends to defend legal claims brought against the oil giant, the report lays primary blame for the explosion at the feet of Transocean and Halliburton.  Not surprisingly, those companies are crying foul. 

The report focuses on eight findings of fault that lead to the explosion.  BP shares the blame in only one of those findings.  The reason for this is not surprising – as The New York Times reported today, “Central to BP’s legal strategy will be the need to rebuff claims that the company acted with gross negligence. The difference between gross negligence and negligence for BP, in this case, may be more than $15 billion in additional civil penalties under the Clean Water Act.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09spill.html?_r=2&hp) The Times article includes an informative graphic summarizing the defensive position outlined by BP in the report. ttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/09/us/20100909-oil-spill-blame.html?ref=us

As the report was being made public, Alabama’s Attorney General, Troy King, was meeting with lawyers for BP in what he called an “introductory meeting” to begin discussions regarding the suit Mr. King has filed against BP for tax revenues lost by the State since the oil spill occurred.  As quoted in today’s Birmingham News, Mr. King stated, “Some will, no doubt, sound the alarm that the lawsuit is premature. As Alabama’s lawyer, I say that if, anything, based on BP’s broken promises, their history of saying one thing and doing another, and now, new information that they have been secretly working to gain a legal advantage, further delay can only further damage our people.”  (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/troy_king_bp_alabama_oil_spill.html#incart_hbx)

The report leaves many questions unanswered, and no doubt will lead to the release of conflicting reports from the other involved companies and investigative bodies.  What is clear is that BP is digging in for a long fight – one that will have long lasting effects for the State of Alabama and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

The Danger of “Fracking”

In Legal News on September 3, 2010 at 9:02 am

As the Gulf Coast continues to struggle with the impending environmental consequences of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil leak, another energy harvesting technique that could have potentially devastating effects on Alabama’s ecology is beginning to draw attention, thanks in part to the recent HBO documentary, “GasLand.” 

“Fracking” – or more precisely hydraulic fracturing – is a method of drilling for natural gas developed by Halliburton that involves pumping extreme volumes of water, sand and a host of chemicals at high pressure into the ground, fracturing the rock structures below to allow easier access to natural gas deposits.  It is a process that has been used in Alabama for a long time – and contaminated streams and wells have been reported in areas near fracking operations since the 1990s, though the Alabama Oil and Gas Board claims that there have been no confirmed findings of contaminated groundwater. 

A recent article in the Birmingham News spells out the extent of fracking is taking place in Alabama.  (http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2010/07/hydraulic_fracturing_scheduled.html)  The article notes, “Energen, which also owns the Alagasco utility, has a lot resting on unconventional gas wells which require fracking. The company has spent about $40 million leasing 400,000 acres around the state from landowners whose property sits above natural gas shale formations. Most of the attention in recent years on Alabama shale gas has been in Tuscaloosa, Bibb, St. Clair, Cullman and Etowah counties.”  

With the increased practice of fracking comes the increased risk of contamination of the fresh water aquifer in areas where the practice is employed.  Around the United States, reports of water contamination have followed in fracking’s path.  Contaminated drinking wells, including wells where the water is so contaminated it has become flammable, have been reported in areas where fracking has been employed.  Chemicals commonly used in the fracking process include diesel fuel, benzene, methanol, formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid.  The Environmental Protection Agency is looking at this dangerous practice which, as of today, is exempt from federal regulation. 

If you believe that you have been exposed to a toxic substance, or want more information about toxic exposure, please go to our “about us” page and contact The Law Offices of Brian Turner, LLC.

Bad News for Diabetes and Diet Drugs Continues

In Legal News on September 2, 2010 at 10:15 am

It has been a busy summer for the manufacturers of two highly prescribed drugs – Avandia and Meridia – and not in a way those pharmaceutical companies would like. 

Avandia, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKine, is a top-selling diabetes drug that has been in the news for quite some time.  This summer, Glaxo announced it was going to resolve over 10,000 lawsuits claiming the drug caused heart attacks or strokes in users.  The settlements to date will cost the company $460 million.  And the case against Avandia continues to grow.  A recent advisory panel of the FDA voted to allow Avandia to stay on the market with more warnings about its risks; however, that same panel found overwhelmingly that the drug increases the risk of heart attack compared to other diabetes drugs.  At the same time as the panel was considering the possible recall, information was made public that Glaxo had known for several years that study data confirmed the increased risk for heart attacks and strokes in patients using the drug.  A recent article in TIME (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2010028,00.html) outlines the history of this dangerous drug and the steps taken by its manufacturer to keep it on the market as it made billions of dollars per year from its sale.  As lawsuits continue to be filed by patients who have suffered strokes or heart attacks while on Avandia, the FDA has not made its final decision on whether it will follow the recommendation of the advisory panel to keep Avandia on the market or whether it will be recalled.  A final decision is expected soon. 

The diet drug Meridia faces similar questions over its link to increased risks for heart attacks and strokes in patients.  Meridia is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories and was first approved for use in 1997.  The drug works by altering brain chemicals to suppress appetite.  On September 1, 2010, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1007993) called for the recall of Meridia due to its risk profile.  An FDA panel is scheduled to meet on September 15, 2010, to begin a review of Meridia.  As posed by Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel of Columbia University in a recent New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/health/research/02diet.html), the issue is that, “A small number of patients lose considerable weight while taking Meridia and therefore benefit enormously from the drug…but a far larger number of people get no benefit from the drug, and some of these patients may suffer heart attacks and strokes as a result of taking it. The question is do you withdraw the drug to protect the large number of individuals who have no benefit and could have a bad response and thereby eliminate the opportunity for that small number of people who respond well?”  The article also notes that at least one drug safety official at FDA thinks a prior decision by the agency to allow continued marketing of Meridia was misplaced.  

If you or someone you know has been injured by a defective drug and are seeking more information, please go to our “about us” page and contact The Law Offices of Brian Turner, LLC.

BP and Indirect Claims for Relief

In Legal News on August 24, 2010 at 10:06 am

The well is capped. Much of the surface oil is gone and scientists are now debating the presence of oil on the Gulf floor or suspended at depths that may still cause significant damage to the ecosystem. Tony Hayward is out as CEO of BP.  Many changes in the BP catastrophe have happened in the last several weeks – but it appears that no major changes are in sight for the businesses and property owners who have been damaged by the oil spill.  The positions taken by Kenneth Feinberg, who started administering claims for damages suffered by businesses and residents of the Gulf Coast from the oil spill on August 23rd, have remained consistent.  Mr. Feinberg has said people with “legitimate” claims will receive quick relief.  But his definition of “legitimate” leaves many injured parties out in the cold. 

Injured Gulf Coast residents have begun lining up at claims centers to apply for relief.  Mr. Feinberg has said Gulf Coast residents and companies would be able to receive an emergency payment equal to six months of wages or income without waiving the right to sue.  However, anyone who accepts a second, final payment would have to agree not to litigate. Mr. Feinberg is hopeful the $20 billion pledged by BP will be sufficient to pay “legitimate” claims.

Multiple news sources have quoted Mr. Feinberg’s positions regarding what he perceives to be the “craziness” of people or businesses hiring lawyers to assist with the claims process or filing lawsuits.  Further, Mr. Feinberg has repeatedly described the difficulty of the “judgment calls” he will have to make regarding claims presented for payment:

“It’s easy if you are a beachfront restaurant with oil or a fisherman with oil (who) can’t harvest… It’s the tough case — ‘I own a motel 20 miles from the beach; I’ve lost 30 percent of my guests.’ Is that a legitimate claim?”

 “Property value has diminished as a result of the spill. Let’s assume that’s right. That doesn’t mean that every property is entitled to compensation… I’m on the beach, but there’s no oil at all there.  It’s just the public perception that drives the values down… There’s not enough money in the world to pay every homeowner, wherever they live in the Gulf Coast, who says, ‘My property is down because of the oil spill.’”

“I use that famous example of a restaurant in Boston that says, ‘I can’t get shrimp from Louisiana, and my menu suffers and my business is off.’ Well, no law is going to recognize that claim.”

Clearly, Mr. Feinberg is still trying to figure out how to handle “indirect claims” from businesses that are not immediately on the coast, or hotels or condos that lose bookings because tourists think the beaches are covered in oil.  Further, there has been no confirmation that claims will be paid for people who see their property values decline. 

What is not in question is that businesses and property owners along the Gulf Coast – as well as businesses and property owners located inland – are feeling the pain from this disaster even if they have not had direct contact with the oil.  A New York Times article on July 20, 2010, detailed the plummeting prices of Gulf Coast properties from the Louisiana to Clearwater, Fla., “[A] stretch that before the spill was worth at least $4.3 billion, just counting the land and buildings within an acre of the shore, according to Norm Miller, an economist at the University of San Diego who is also the vice president of analytics at CoStar Group Inc.”  Reports of home sales falling through and condo rentals being cancelled abound.  Yet, Mr. Feinberg suggests many of these property and business owners may not be due compensation. 

Then there are countless other business like travel agencies, dive shops, booking agencies and other tourism related industries located inland that are being told they will never be able to prove a claim due to their remoteness from the Gulf Coast.  These businesses have documentable, real and verifiable losses.  But the question remains – will their claims be “legitimate” in the eyes of Kenneth Feinberg?  Or are these victims of the spill “crazy” to seek counsel to assist them in determining whether they should pursue a claim? 

What is clear is that these businesses and property owners should enter the claims process, obtain a claim number and gather the records they have to support their loss.  Further, claimants should not be dissuaded from seeking counsel.  Clearly, from Mr. Feinberg’s own statements, the process of determining what claims should be paid and how to value the damages suffered by property owners and businesses – both on the Gulf Coast and inland – will be challenging.  The ability to receive a payment outside of the litigation process does not, in and of itself, negate the necessity for counsel when going through this daunting ordeal – whether that is Mr. Feinberg’s preference or not.

Dodd-Frank Bill to Create Powerful Consumer Financial Protections Bureau

In Legal News on June 25, 2010 at 2:00 pm

After marathon negotiations lasting into the pre-dawn hours of this morning, negotiators from the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and the Obama administration reached a deal that is nothing short of a major victory for consumers.  Touted by some as the biggest financial reform since the Great Depression, the Dodd-Frank Bill, created in reaction to the economic meltdown of 2008 and named for Rep. Barney Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, is going before the House and Senate for approval. Lawmakers hope approval will come by July 4. 

The measure creates a powerful consumer financial protection bureau to police lending, sets up a warning system for financial risks, and forces large failing firms to liquidate. Further, the Bill sets new rules for financial instruments that have been largely unregulated. Under the agreement, banks would be forced to spin off their riskiest derivative trades. They would also be allowed to continue credit default swaps as long as they are conducted through clearing houses.  Limitations on high-risk trades and investment in hedge funds and equity funds were also included in the agreement.  By adding accountability, the goal of the Bill is to help prevent another financial meltdown like the one experienced in 2008.  Said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner,  ”It represents the most sweeping set of financial reforms since those that followed the Great Depression.  It establishes the greatest consumer financial protections in American history.  It prevents financial firms from taking risks that will threaten the economy.  And it provides the government with significant new tools to better protect taxpayers from the damage of future financial crises.”

The legislation would affect everyone from credit card users to new home buyers negotiating a mortgage to international finance negotiations.  The Bill promises to bring much needed transparency and accountability to the financial industry in the United States and provides much needed protection for American consumers.

Another Major Crib Recall

In Legal News on June 25, 2010 at 11:01 am

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firms named today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer products: Child Craft Brand Stationary-Side Cribs with Dowel, Child Craft Drop-Side Cribs, Delta Drop-Side Cribs, Evenflo Drop-Side Cribs, Jardine Drop-Side Cribs, LaJobi Bonavita, Babi Italia, and ISSI Drop-Side Cribs, Million Dollar Baby Drop Side Cribs, and Simmons Drop-Side Cribs.  The cribs’ drop side components have the potential to malfunction or detach which causes part of the drop side to shift out of position, creating a space which an infant or toddler could become entrapped.  Entrapment in such a space could cause strangulation or suffocation. It is also possible for a child to fall out of a crib. Drop-side failure can also occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and tear. The CPSC has received numerous reports or malfunctioning drop-side cribs leading to entrapment, strangulation and suffocation, and in some cases death. The makes and models recalled include:

Child Craft Convertible Cribs- Model F36101

ALL CHILD CRAFT DROP-SIDE CRIBS WITH THE HARDWARE SHOWN BELOW MANUFACTURED BETWEEN 2000 and 2009

Models: F10151, F10171, F10181, F10281, F13311, F13761, F16001, F16011, F16131, F16661, F17001, F17701, F17731, F17801, F17811, F20161, F20181, F20191, F21041, F21081, F21091, F26131, F27301, F27771, F31061, F31701, F32901, F33301, F33601, F33801, F33901, F34101, F35101

Delta Drop-Side Cribs with three different types of drop-side hardware and Delta cribs with wooden stabilizer bars that support the mattress platform. Consumers should visit www.cribrecallcenter.com for photographs and model numbers.

Evenflo

Models: 012614 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Maple

0126141 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Maple

012615 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, White

012616 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Oak

012617 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Natural

014614 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, Maple

014615 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, White

014616 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, Oak

014617 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, Natural

0151614 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Maple

0151615 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, White

0151616 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Oak

0151617 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Natural

0161614 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Maple

0161615 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, White

0161617 – Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Natural

Jardine Drop-Side Cribs
Models: Olympia Single / 02/2007 – 11/2008 0102P00 / Black Olympia Single / 04/2006 – 01/2009 0108C00WP / White Capri Single / 12/2007 – 12/2008 0108L00WP / Antique Walnut Capri Single / 12/2007 – 11/2008 0115S00 vRubbed Black Claremont Single / 12/2006 – 06/2007

BC-33 / Dark Pine 3-1 Convertible / 01/2000 – 06/2004

BC-66 / White 3-1 Convertible / 09/2001 – 08/2003 DA0930B / Walnut Single / – DA333BC / Natural Madison Single / 01/2004 – 11/2004 DA616BC / Dark Pine Siera 2 in 1 / 11/2001 – 04/2004 DA616BN / Natural Siera 2 in 1 / – DA618BC / Natural Hampton / 11/2002 – 06/2003 DA833BC / Natural Madison Single / 05/2005 – 08/2005 DV601BC / Dark Pine Windsor Single / 03/2001 – 06/2003 DV623BC / Cherry Windsor Single / 11/2001 – 08/2003 DV628BC / White Windsor Single / 02/2003 – 09/2003

LaJobi

Models: Bonavita, Babi Italia and ISSI Drop-Side Cribs

Million Dollar Baby Drop-Side Cribs

Models: Alexandria 4191 Alpha 591 Bailey 5201 Caleb 1701 Ellie 5401 Jenny Lind 371 / 391 Lauren (convertible) 4491 Lauren (pine) 5691 Lauren (w/ drawer) 4001 Lauren 4091 Naomi 4291 Oxford 2191 Pine 4-Poster 3991 Sleigh 2991 Twinkle 2301

M0391, M0591, M3691, M4191

Simmons Juvenile Products

Models: 011641; 011671; 011941; 015341; 016061; 016771; 016821; 016831; 017201 ; 017211; 017351; 018500; 018501; 018502; 018510 ; 018511; 018512; 026261; 028061; 028081; 028180; 029061; 29062; 029071; 029180; 029561; 029562; 029571; 034060; 034560; 039180; 044091; 053091; 065071; 068261; 068271; 068561; 201060; 202060; 202080; 202180; 202181; 203060; 204060; 204180; 205060; 206060; 207060; 209560; 211060; 211080; 212060; 214060; 214080; 215060; 216060; 216070; 216080; 216180; 216180; 216570; 218060; 219560; 220180; 220181; 221060; 221070; 221070; 221077; 222060; 222070; 224060; 225060; 225070; 225080; 227560; 228060; 229060; 230060; 231070; 236180; 236187; 236188; 236189; 238060; 238069; 239180; 239187; 239189; 240060; 248069; 251060; 251069; 257060; 261060; 053091A; 251060M.

The drop-side and fixed-side crib recalls are of units manufactured between 2000 and 2009 by the companies listed below. Consumers should contact these firms directly for the appropriate remedy:

 - Child Craft, (this firm is out of business): Fixed-Side | Drop-Side

 - Delta Enterprise Corp., of New York, N.Y.

 - Evenflo, of Miamisburg, Ohio

 - Jardine Enterprises, of Taipei, Taiwan

 - LaJobi, of Cranbury, N.J.

 - Million Dollar Baby, of Montebello, Calif.

 - Simmons Juvenile Products Inc. (SJP), of New London, Wis.

CPSC reminds parents not to use any crib with missing, broken, or loose parts. Make sure to tighten hardware from time to time to keep the crib sturdy. When using a drop-side crib, parents should check to make sure the drop side or any other moving part operates smoothly. Always check all sides and corners of the crib for disengagement. Disengagements can create a gap and entrap a child. In addition, do not try to repair any side of the crib.

If you, a family member or friend have been injured by a defective product, please visit our About Us page and contact HILL | TURNER LLC with any questions you may have about protecting your rights as a consumer.

Facts About the Latest Occ Tax Opinion

In Uncategorized on May 25, 2010 at 9:03 am

We are issuing this statement in response to the extremely negative and incorrect information being given by members of the Jefferson County Commission regarding the recent opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court in the case of Edwards, et al., v. Jefferson County – the occupational tax lawsuit.  As class counsel, we find it important that the information presented to the public is accurate and not misleading.  It is our goal that the refund process moves forward efficiently and with as little confusion as possible. 

On May 14, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court entered its second opinion in this case, affirming that the money currently held in escrow from collections under the old illegal occupational tax is due to be refunded to the taxpayers.  The Supreme Court made clear that the disbursement of the escrow account to the taxpayers was to move forward.  The opinion also reiterated the well established rule of Alabama law that the Alabama Legislature has the power to enact retroactive taxes.  What the opinion did not do was award the escrow account to the Jefferson County Commission, nor did it order the Jefferson County Commission to enact any new ordinances to try to collect these funds after the refund was processed.  

The Supreme Court stated that, after striking language that violated Alabama law, Act 2009-811 (the new occupational tax) would allow for a retroactive tax.  The Supreme Court did not find that ACT 2009-811 in fact enacted one or that any ordinance existed to collect one.  There are serious questions as to whether the provisions of that Act would still allow for such an ordinance, as the new occupational tax took effect on January 1 of this year and all remnants of the old occupational tax are now dead.  The validity of the new tax, and any ordinances enacted under it, is the subject of a lawsuit currently pending in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama, in the case of Weissman v. Jefferson County.   Those questions are not part of the Edwards lawsuit. 

The Edwards lawsuit was filed on May 11, 2007.  The case was litigated heavily through the years of 2007 and 2008.  This case was taken on because the Jefferson County Commission tried to skirt a valid enactment by the Alabama Legislature and Governor that repealed the old occupational tax.  Hundreds of millions of dollars were illegally collected.  On January 12, 2009, Judge David Rains entered an Order that confirmed that we were correct – Jefferson County had been collecting an illegal tax.  Judge Rains took into consideration that ordering the County to fully pay back all the taxes illegally collected would be devastating to the County.  He crafted a very thoughtful remedy – the escrow account which now has a balance of approximately $37.8 million.  Since the entry of that Order in January of 2009, the County has fought long and hard to keep this money from being refunded to the taxpayers. There have been two full appeals on the merits of this case to the Alabama Supreme Court.  And after each of those appeals, the County has been told by the Supreme Court that this is the taxpayers’ money and that it is due to be refunded.

As a result of this lawsuit, the old occupational tax has been finally laid to rest and $37.8 million is coming back to the local economy – the Alabama Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally said so.  This case demonstrated the mismanagement of the County, and after a special session was called by Governor Riley last summer to address the occupational tax, a new occupational tax (at a 10% lower rate and without the exclusions of the prior tax) was passed – along with a bill that required Jefferson County to hire a county manager.  In short, the County did not win the Edwards lawsuit – the taxpayers did. 

Members of the Jefferson County Commission have raised angry protest to the possibility of our being awarded an attorneys’ fee for prosecuting this case over the last three years.  The issue of the payment of our fee is currently pending before Judge Rains.  Pursuant to Alabama law, our firms submitted a request for attorneys’ fees in December.  Lawyers for Jefferson County responded and a hearing was held.  Currently, Judge Rains has the matter under consideration.  We do not know what the amount of fee will be awarded to our firms for the work we have done these last three years.  However, we do know that members of the Commission are very publicly decrying the award of any fee for our work on behalf of the working people of Jefferson County who paid the old illegal tax.

The Court has appointed an escrow agent to process the refunds, and more information will be coming from the escrow agent to employers and the public in the very near future.  We appreciate the public’s concerns regarding the refunds that the Supreme Court has affirmed.  We will stand by the taxpayers and continue to fight to make sure that those refunds are processed as quickly as possible and that the money stays in the hands of the people who it belongs to – the taxpayers of Jefferson County.

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms $38 Million Refund of Occupational Tax

In Legal News on May 14, 2010 at 2:23 pm

On May 14, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Judge David Rains’ order providing for refunds of illegally collected occupational taxes to Jefferson County taxpayers in the amount of $37, 796,302.06.  All six justices who heard the case concurred in the result.

The opinion clears the way for the processing of refunds to people who work in Jefferson County and paid the tax between January 12, 2009 and August 14, 2009, when the Alabama Legislature approved and Governor Riley enacted a new occupational tax for Jefferson County.

“Overall, we are pleased with this result,” said Jim McFerrin, one of the lawyers representing the taxpayers in the case. “While we still believe that other moneys were collected by the County that were subject to the trial court’s Orders, we will stand by the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court.  The opinion is well reasoned and it is clear the Supreme Court put a great deal of thought and care into writing this opinion.”

Added Sam Hill, “We anticipate that there will be further attempts by the County to delay the payment of refunds to the taxpayers.  However, we will push as hard as we can to get the refund process moving so that $38,000,000 gets back into the hands of the taxpayers and into the local economy as quickly as possible.”

11th Circuit Rules Class Action Case to Go Forward in Alabama

In Uncategorized on May 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a proposed class action lawsuit against Oasis Legal Finance, L.L.C., may go forward in the Northern District of Alabama.  In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Judge Robert B. Propst was correct in his “well-reasoned memorandum opinion…denying Oasis’s motion to dismiss the case for improper venue.”  Oasis had sought to have the case dismissed under a clause in its form-contracts that required actions involving these agreements to be filed in an Illinois court.  Oasis’s headquarters are in Illinois. 

The class action lawsuit, filed by the law firms of Hill | Turner, LLC, and the McFerrin Law Firm, challenges the validity of Oasis’s “non-recourse” legal funding contracts under principles of Alabama law that hold contracts involving gambling on the outcome of lawsuits invalid.  Both Judge Propst and the judicial panel of the 11th Circuit who ruled on the matter noted that the agreements provide that any disputes would be determined under Alabama law; that issues regarding the validity of the contracts are a matter of Alabama law; that the potential class members are all Alabama residents; that the class members entered into their contracts in Alabama; and that under those circumstances it was unreasonable to hold that the forum selection clause in Oasis’s contracts seeking to restrict the cases to an Illinois court was unreasonable. 

The lawsuit, styled Rucker, et al v. Oasis Legal Funding, L.L.C., will now move forward in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Another Major Children’s Medicine Recall

In Legal News, Uncategorized on May 1, 2010 at 10:44 am

McNeil Consumer Healthcare has announced another major recall of children’s medications – including Tylenol, Motrin and Benadryl formulations.  The recall has been announced for quality control purposes and no injuries have been reported to the Food and Drug Administration involving these medications.

A full list of the recalled medications, including NDC numbers, can be found at http://www.mcneilproductrecall.com/

Parents should discontinue using any of the listed medications.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.