Articles Posted in Class Action Lawsuits

In 2007, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey was involved in a class action lawsuit filed by a group of nine medical specialists; including podiatrists and ophthalmologists. The medical specialists claimed that Blue Cross Blue Shield class action lawsuit stemmed against Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield because of denied insurance claims that were considered “medically necessary” treatment for patients.  The medical specialists also contended that following an appeal process, which required a significant administrative expense, the insurance company very slowly paid the doctors for the patients’ services.

This lawsuit, known as Sutter v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Esx-L-385-02, resulted in Horizon agreeing to settle the case. The provisions in the settlement, included:

• Financial compensation of approximately $1750.00 per physician over a five year period.

If you are or were a Countrywide mortgage holder, you may be at risk of identity theft following a breach in computer security at the firm. The risk has been identified for hundreds of homeowners s who may or may not have received a notice from Countrywide if they have moved. The court has appointed Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., of Chicago, Illinois, and Burton H. Finkelstein, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, of Washington, D.C., as “Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel”to oversee this class action lawsuit. However, lawyers from across the U.S. may able to represent your interests if you have been a victim of identity theft.

Countrywide has reserved millions to settle cases that they project will be brought against the company for this security breach. Under the current settlement agreement, mortgage holders who had their information stolen by an outside party are entitled to receive the following compensation, but costs may be significantly higher if you are a victim of identity theft. Remember, it is unknown if or when the thieves will attempt to use the mortgage holders’ personal information.  For this reason, it may be wise to contact an attorney to see if you may be entitled to other compensation because once you accept the proposed settlement, you will not be able to file any other lawsuit against Countrywide for this security breach.

The Proposed Settlement Benefits

In February of 2010, Ormat concluded that the company’s 2008 financial statements required restatement and that current statements were unreliable. This occurred because capitalized costs for exploration and development of select properties that the company did not plan on developing were suspected to be improperly calculated into financial equations.  Once this information became public, Ormat stock declined by nearly 13% over a three day time period. Lawyers are investigating potential claims that Ormat directors and/or executives failed to fulfill the Company’s fiduciary responsibility which has caused financial harm to stock holders.

Questionable breaches of fiduciary duty have been a topic of discussion for Comcast as well.  An ERISA class action lawsuit was recently filed on behalf of nearly 90,000 Comcast employee stock plan participants with the allegation that Comcast executives projected unreasonable company growth, despite knowledge that there were reasons in the competitive market which would impact Comcast’s projected growth.

Fiduciary duty is outlined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It is not known if a class action lawsuit will be filed against Ormat Technologies at this time. Lawyers are merely in the discovery stage of an investigation to identify the possibility of any company wrong doing. Ormat shareholders may be entitled to financial compensation for the damage sustained due to the company’s failing to perform fiduciary duties. Yet, a lawsuit must be filed against Ormat technologies before this occurs. A lawsuit against Ormat Technologies will not occur until claims have been identified as valid by lawyers and a federal judge agrees that a lawsuit may be filed.

An ERISA class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of nearly 90,000 Comcast employee stock plan participants because of an alleged breach in fiduciary duty by the company’s failure to make “reasonable” investments. Total plan assets were over $2 billion in 2006 and roughly $293 million consisted of Comcast stock.

The fundamental contention in the lawsuit dates back to 2007 predictions of Comcast executives who projected that the company would do very well in that year, despite knowledge of competitors’ bonus programs that could significantly reduce Comcast revenue. The Comcast executives’ projection drove stock prices up creating a false inflation of stock prices.  Consequently, Comcast employees suffered losses because a significant portion of their investments were in Comcast stock.  Comcast’s stock price plummeted from a high of over $28 in February to $18 plus in December.

The lawsuit was granted in federal court because of premises identified in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. One of the highlights during initial arguments was that a lawsuit is not justifiable when an employee signs a release or leaves the company.  However, the Judge determined that ERISA provides for a continuing duty to review plan holdings and divest imprudent fund plans. So, if Comcast failed to exercise duty, then they have committed a wrongdoing.  Over the course of the next months, facts surrounding the case will be heard in court to identify if any wrong doing occurred on the part of Comcast.