Los Angeles Class Action Law Blog

This year, the Alabama Supreme Court became the third state court, after California and Vermont to find that brand-name manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by their generic counterparts. This is true even though the generic brands are manufactured by different companies.

Why?

Under FDA regulations, the manufacturers of generic drugs must create labels that are identical to those used by brand-name manufacturers. In other words, generic manufacturers are unable to change warnings and other important information on their labels. Thus, if consumers are injured because of inadequate warnings on generic drug labels, it is ultimately the brand-name manufacturer that is responsible.

The term "credit card fraud" generally refers to credit card theft and similar issues, but credit card companies can also create serious challenges for consumers. Here are some of the main forms of credit card consumer fraud:

Credit Card Traps: Did a credit card company advertise a card that unfairly presented its benefits and hide terms? For example, some cards will not advertise that they start with low interest rates but raise the rates when a consumer makes a late payment. Others will have large fees that are unknown to an applicant. While not all of these practices are illegal, some are and those companies can be held accountable.

A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, "At the Crossroad, Waiting for a Sign," notes that securities class action settlements are the lowest they have been in a decade. Yet, what do the numbers really mean?

Many experts doubt that the lull will remain. While there were fewer publicized scandals in the past year, it is hard to imagine that the number of securities fraud cases have diminished substantially. In fact, there have been more securities cases filed against the health industry than have been filed since 2003 (22 percent of all securities fraud cases were against the healthcare industry in 2012). Other numbers help paint the picture:

• Thirteen healthcare-related securities lawsuits involved product efficacy and disclosure to investors while the others involved business practices and mergers.
• There has been a significant drop in securities cases in California and the 9th Circuit.
• There were far fewer securities class actions against computer and telecommunications companies in 2012.

Fisker Automotive is facing a class action lawsuit after it failed to provide 60 days notice for a mass layoff last Friday. Under the U.S. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), large companies (companies with more than 100 employees) must give employees 60 days notice before laying them off. This includes 60 days of pay and benefits.

Fisker may fit into an exception of the WARN Act, which allows for the immediate layoff of employees of companies who are faltering or face unforeseeable business circumstances. If Fisker Automotive is able to prove it falls into the exception, then the class action lawsuit will be unsuccessful on this count.

The lawsuit, however, also alleges that Fisker failed to notify the California Employment Development Department and the workforce enforcement board of the layoff.