Maytag shareholders are not happy

A class action has just been filed against Maytag:

NEW YORK, May 29, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) — Notice is hereby given that a securities class action has been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County on behalf of owners of the common stock of Maytag Corporation (”Maytag” or the “Company”) (NYSE:MYG).

Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the proposed transaction based on the proposed transaction being grossly unfair to Maytag’s public shareholders.

For an information package (http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html) or if you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice of your rights or interests with respect to this matter, please contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq., Bull & Lifshitz, LLP via telephone at (212) 213-6222, via fax at (212) 213-9405 or by email at counsel@nyclasslaw.com

Apparently, the lawsuit has to do with Maytag’s recent agreement to be “bought by a group of investors that would take the well-known appliance maker private, hoping to fix its myriad woes away from Wall Street’s sharp scrutiny.” The deal won’t go through, though, without both regulatory and shareholder approval.

According to an AP article, “California company holding 10.5 percent of Maytag Corp. stock said Friday [May 27] it would vote against the proposed purchase of Maytag by a group of private investors.” The company, Brandes Investment Partners LP, isn’t pleased with “the offer of $14 a share for Maytag.” “Brandes Investment Partners, which is based in San Diego, said in the document filed with the SEC said $14 is inadequate “relative to their estimate of the current fair value” of Maytag stock.”

H&R Settlement Blocked

Sometime in October a class-action lawsuit against H&R Block and the HSBC Taxpayer Financial Services will go to trial. The suit is regarding Block’s refund-anticipation loan program. Attorneys thought they’d reached a settlement in this suit and five other similar ones on May 11 when HSBC and Block agreed to pay $110 million cash and $250 million in rebate coupons to settle, but a U.S. District judge in Chicago rejected that agreement, returning the case to its pre-settlement status. The story appeared in the San Antonio Business Journal.

National breast implant registry in Canada?

The Canadian Press is reporting that the comeback of silicone-gel breast implants has renewed the call for a national breast implant registry.

The push to create a cross-country databank containing information on all women who undergo breast augmentation — for surgical and cosmetic reasons — is being spearheaded by women’s health advocates and assisted by a member of the Ontario legislature.

Why?

A national breast implant registry would address [safety] concerns in two ways: first, by allowing health officials to quickly contact women whose implants may pose a health risk, and second, by allowing the study the long-term health effects of those implants.

Legislation dealing with a registry has already died once in Canada, but some politicians are awaiting the chance to re-introduce it. If passed, the legislation would “create a registrar’s office whose responsibilities would include notifying women and doctors of any health concerns surrounding implants.”

And what does this have to do with Class Action Questions?

In the 1990s, allegations that ruptured silicone implants led to auto-immune diseases and vascular conditions culminated in Dow Corning Corp. paying out some $2.35 billion US to settle class-action claims brought by roughly 300,000 women, including Canadians.

Breast implants are perhaps more dangerous than some people realize, and, though it seems that a registry might be iffy in terms of patient privacy (IMHO), it could certainly be helpful in other ways. In fact, registries of this sort might just help reduce the need for class-action suits in the future…

Salon Accused of ‘Black Hair’ Surcharge

A salon in Alabama has allegedly been charging more to work with ‘black hair’ as opposed to ‘white hair.’

An Alabama woman is seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against a Dillard’s Inc. hair salon for allegedly charging black women more than white women

Debbie Deavers Sturvisant alleges that a hair salon in a Tuscaloosa, Ala., Dillard’s department store charged $35 to wash and set her hair, while white women paid $20 for the same service.

Sturvisant’s lawsuit could bring a whole new level of attention to the general practice across the country of charging differently for hair care based on ethnicity.

Officials in Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts have already addressed race- and sex-based pricing differences at hair salons.

“The stereotype is that all black hair is the same. But that’s erroneous, just as all hair for Caucasians is not the same,” said Patrick C. Cooper, a Birmingham, Ala., lawyer who plans to represent thousands of affected customers. Sturvisant’s lawsuit was filed in February.

Cooper said the department store’s “policy completely ignores hair length, which should be the real determining factor in how much they charge. Pricing ought to be based on reality, not stereotypes, and Dillard’s needs to stop what they’re doing.”

But Little Rock-based Dillard’s says that’s an oversimplification that distorts its policy.

“Dillard’s does not charge different prices based upon the race of the customer,” the company said in a statement. “Prices for salon services are based upon the level of experience of the stylist, degree of service, amount of time required and the cost of materials provided to the customer.”

Tom McArthur, an instructor and manager of ABC Barber College in Hot Springs, Ark., said different charges based on race and sex are typical. Training manuals routinely note major differences between “black hair” and other ethnic groups’ hair, he said. Also, he said, additional skills must be taught to cut the coarse, tightly curled hair commonly called “black hair.”

“It’s a whole new way of cutting. Not everyone can do it. I cut both and I do it pretty fast, but I grew up in this business,” McArthur said.

The more a stylist has to do with the hair, the more the customer can be charged. McArthur said that explains why women are generally charged about twice as much as men.

Still, civil-rights law expert Robert Belton said Dillard’s could be in trouble if the pricing is determined solely on race, and not on other factors, like amount or style of hair.

“If they’re saying that because of a person’s color that it takes more time, then it’s obvious that it’s race,” said Belton, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.

He also said Dillard’s could be hurt by past race discrimination cases, including a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that awarded $1.2 million to a black woman who alleged she was not allowed to sample cologne at a Kansas store.

But Dillard’s is not alone in having to deal with new concerns about hair care. Eight women filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Hair Cuttery last year, saying the national salon chain unfairly charged black customers more. Also, Arizona, California, Massachusetts and Florida all passed new laws recently to curb pricing based solely on gender, according to a report in the Arizona Business Gazette.

Proposed settlement for Mississippi Medicaid suit

DeSoto Times Today writer Robert Lee Long commented recently on a proposed class action settlement involving nursing home residents in Mississippi:

For some time, Mississippi lawmakers have sought to [allow] nursing home residents on Medicaid a chance to receive care at home by providing housing and utility deposits. They hope the practice will reduce Medicaid costs by freeing up Medicaid beds.

The proposed settlement pending in federal court would also save taxpayers an estimated $15 million in Medicaid payments to nursing homes.

The 2002 class-action lawsuit against Medicaid and the Department of Rehabilitation Services is pending before U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate.

Several disabled patients sued the agencies after they could not obtain special waivers to allow them to receive medical care at home. In the lawsuit, they alleged discrimination because they were segregated into nursing homes and not allowed to live on their own.

Under the plan, thousands of nursing home residents could have a higher quality of life (living at home) and millions of taxpayer dollars could be put to better use in Mississippi. Sounds pretty promising…

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

There’s a terrific article on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by Anthony J. Sebok (a Professor at Brooklyn Law School) at FindLaw.com.

It was published back in February, so, yes, it’s a little dated. But it’s an insightful review just the same…

On Friday, February 18, President Bush signed the “Class Action Fairness Act of 2005″ (CAFA). The law is the first victory in the President’s campaign for reforming the civil justice system in the United States.

In this column, I will discuss both the substance and the symbolism of CAFA. The law itself is not so bad, I will argue. CAFA effects a few modest and reasonable changes into the law. They are probably not necessary, and they may have little effect, but nor are they harmful.

The problem with CAFA is that it may - but should not - become a wedge for a wider Republican tort reform effort. Wider “reform” will be harmful; Americans should reject it even if they support CAFA.

For the rest of the article, check out the link above. (Or, just go to the FindLaw homepage.)

Credit agency class action

Columnist Kenneth R. Harney writes that potential homebuyers may benefit from a class-action related ruling:

A recent federal court ruling in California could have far-reaching effects on consumers nationwide who discover errors in their credit reports while applying for a home mortgage.

The court turned down a request by the three dominant credit bureaus — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — to dismiss class-action suits charging them with anti-competitive and predatory pricing practices in violation of federal antitrust and state fair-trade laws.

The suits were brought against the national bureaus last year by two dozen small credit agencies that specialize in “rapid re-scoring” for homebuyers and other mortgage applicants. Rapid re-scoring often can get erroneous negative information removed from the national bureaus’ files within 48 to 72 hours — fast enough for the loan applicants to raise their credit scores and qualify for a lower interest rate and fees.

When consumers try to correct misinformation directly with the bureaus, by contrast, the process can take 30 days or several months. That is far too long for lenders to hold open an application or for sellers to wait for a would-be homebuyer to obtain a needed loan.

The independent credit agencies charged in their suits that Equifax, Experian and TransUnion conspired to put them out of business by sharply raising prices for re-scoring and credit data and by prohibiting the independent agencies from directly charging consumers for re-scoring services. In some cases, the independents say, the national bureaus charged them prices five times more for wholesale credit data than they charged the independents’ customers directly on a retail basis.

Lenders abandoned the independents in droves, forcing many of them to close or be bought. Since the early 1990s, the number of independent credit-reporting agencies has plummeted from about 1,000 nationwide to about 200 today, the industry estimates.

By forcing the independents out of business or buying them, they claim, the three big bureaus could essentially control virtually all phases of consumer-credit information — especially the critically important specialty of getting erroneous data in their files corrected quickly enough for mortgage applications.

The ruling “did not decide the merits of the independents’ charges, but it moved the litigation either to a trial or a settlement. Preliminary discussions on a possible settlement have begun.”

Has your Ford caught fire?

“Problems with F-150s and Expeditions catching fire are now sparking huge legal problems for Ford Motor Co.” according to this Yahoo! News article by Stephen Stock.

Federal investigators are focusing in on a “$13 part called the secondary cruise control deactivation switch” as the culprit of the fires. So far, at least 40 Ford owners in the U.S. have sued Ford individually, and this month, there were two Tampa-area class-action lawsuits filed “on behalf of 4 million Ford owners — all who have vehicles that might catch on fire because of the defective part.”

If a judge decides to allow the suits to go forward, “anyone who owns a Ford with one of the switches could join the lawsuit.” Some of the Fords may include Ford F-150s, Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators.

“If you own a Ford and have any questions, call Ford’s Customer Assistance Center at (800) 392-3673. Or if you want to notify them of a problem, you can call (866) 436-7332.”

Suit involving vets’ retirement homes

I was reading in The Sun Herald that the director of a veterans’ home, (the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, Mississippi), is retiring amid controversy. Apparently there were a multitude of complaints filed against him while he worked there.

But the part of the article that most interested me was this:

In addition, 14 veterans in a Washington, D.C., home filed a class-action law suit Tuesday against the director of the home, Tim Cox, who also oversees the officers in charge at the Gulfport facility, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The suit alleges the new administration’s budget cuts caused them to not be able to receive adequate treatment. They said the budget cuts are a violation of a federal law that requires the homes to meet a minimum standard for health care, a Washington Post report said.

I couldn’t find any more info on the suit or on Tim Cox, but I’ll keep my eyes peeled…

Arizona taxpayer settlement put on hold

Arizona Capitol Times is reporting that a judge has put a stop on refunds from a class action settlement in Arizona:

A judge has agreed to allow the state to delay sending scheduled July refund checks stemming from a class-action settlement to thousands of taxpayers who are said to have already received overpayments as high as $1 million.

‘We need to get this resolved so people get the refunds they’re entitled to–nothing more, nothing less,’ said Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Paul Katz May 26.

The July installment payment that was put on hold represents 25 per cent of the total refunds to be made in three payments by the Arizona Department of Revenue.

Judge Katz said he and lawyers for the state and taxpayers then will sort out whether and how the state can recover $5.5 million in overpayments already made through the initial installment payment last year, representing 50 per cent of the total refunds. A third payment is due in July 2006 to cover the remaining 25 per cent.

The July payment would produce nearly $3 million in overpayments if not put on hold, said Lisa Neuville, an assistant attorney general representing the Department of Revenue.

The state agreed to a $300 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of taxpayers who were improperly taxed on some corporate dividends during the late 1980s.

The department has said that programming problems, keypunching errors and other circumstances led to the overpayments.

The overpayments — and some underpayments — were detected through computerized reviews that compared calculated refund amounts against other information, such as taxable income and dividends received, Ms. Neuville said.

Further reviews of tax records are being conducted, she said. ‘We will know by the end of June exactly who is involved.’

The delay of July payments only affects those taxpayers whom the department contends were overpaid, and that’s only a small fraction of the 875,000 claimants in the case.

One married couple received more than $1.5 million in overpayments just in the first installment last year, Ms. Neuville said. Most overpayments involve much smaller amounts.

Judge Katz agreed with lawyers for the class-action plaintiffs who said taxpayers whom the state contends were overpaid are entitled to legal notice and the chance to individually fight the state’s efforts to get repaid for overpayments.

But first it must be determined whether the state has a contractual right to seek recovery of overpayments under the settlement agreement, said Paul Bonn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Looks like AZ has a big mess to sort out.

…On a different note, though, wouldn’t it be neat to receive a $1.5 million overpayment and be allowed to keep it?

Next Page »