Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
866-540-5505 877-891-9880

Dedicated Client Advocacy

Products Liability Archives

SCOTUS to Decide on Use of Statistics in Determining Class Action Liability and Damages

The landscape of class action litigation in the United States has been shaped by evolving judicial interpretations of class certification requirements, and the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") is once again primed to interpret these requirements. SCOTUS has granted certiorari in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, in order to address the use of representative samples - also referred to as the "trial by formula" method - in calculating liability and damages with respect to an entire class, and whether a class may include members who were not actually injured by the controversy at issue in a litigation.

Teva's Cephalon to Pay More Than $1 Billion in Pay-for-Delay Settlement

Cephalon, Inc. ("Cephalon") has agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), pursuant to which it will pay $1.2 billion to reimburse purchasers of the narcolepsy drug, Provigil. In the suit, the FTC alleged that Cephalon paid generic drug companies "to hold off on launching their own version" of Provigil.1 This settlement comes after the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis (133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013)), in which the Court held that pay-for-delay can result in violations of federal antitrust laws. Even more recently, the California Supreme Court determined that pay-for-delay cases can potentially violate state antitrust laws in In re. Cipro Cases I & II (2015 Cal. LEXIS 2486).

Jury Finds in Favor of Family in Risperdal Lawsuit

Drug makers are required to list potential side effects on labels and take the necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that prescribing doctors are aware of any risks to patients. Unfortunately, a mistake at any point, whether in the testing, packaging or taking a drug to market, can have a negative impact on consumers, who may then have to sue the drug company for product liability.

Complaint filed against Takata, Honda over defective airbags

Honda Motor Co. and Takata Corp. are the targets of a recently filed lawsuit alleging the manufacturers prioritized profits over customer safety. The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that Takata built cheap airbags to cut costs and that Honda bought the airbags to cut manufacturing expenses. Consequently, the airbags are "killing and maiming drivers and passengers involved in otherwise minor and survivable accidents."

Some things parents should know about product liability

People generally assume that products available to consumers are reasonably safe when used in the proper manner. However, the reality is that each year many products have to be recalled because they pose an unreasonable risk of injury or death, even if the products were initially approved by government regulators.

Ninth Circuit Overrules District Court: Botox Case Against Allergan Will Go Forward

On September 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California erred in dismissing a shareholder derivative case against Allergan. The plaintiffs in the case allege that Allergan Board of Directors ("Board") allowed for the illegal marketing of Botox by promoting "off-label" uses of the product. The plaintiffs complain that the Allergan Board members participated in organizing programs to promote the off-label uses and encouraging the sales team to market Botox for off-label uses.1

Class action suits see increase in privacy violation claims

An interesting report from the global consulting firm NERA traces the number and kind of consumer class action settlements in the last four years. The settlements, ranging from 2010 through 2013, related to anti-trust claims (price fixing, for instance), consumer fraud, product liability and false advertising, among other issues. Examined in the report are 479 class action suits, nearly 85 percent of which involved a monetary payment to plaintiffs.