Articles Posted in Business Disputes

When things go wrong in the operating room, it can sometimes be difficult to discern who the real perpetrator is. In the case of thousands of hip implants designed and sold by Johnson & Johnson, the issue is with the company producing and selling the implants, not the hospital or the doctor. Andrew Ekdahl, appointed in 2011 to head the company’s troubled DePuy Orthopaedics division after the flawed implant had been recalled, tried at first to say that it was not the design that was flawed. Rather, he argued that the surgeons were not implanting them correctly.

However, there is much evidence which allegedly points to the contrary. Before it was sold in the U.S., the device (the Articular Surface Replacement, or A.S.R.) was used in other countries for an alternative hip replacement procedure called resurfacing. It was not used in the United States because the Food and Drug Administration would not pass it due to concerns about “high concentration of metal ions” found in the blood of patients who had received the device.
Mr. Ekdahl, head of the marketing team in charge of the device at the time, failed to disclose this information when marketing the device outside of the United States. When a news article appeared last year about the FDA’s ruling, Mr. Ekdahl issued a statement that any implication that the FDA had determined there were safety issues with the A.S.R. was “simply untrue”. In 2009, the FDA was still asking the company for more safety information regarding the hip implant version which was being used in the United States.

Since the A.S.R.’s introduction to the U.S. in 2005, more than 10,000 lawsuits have been filed against DePuy regarding the device. The first of these cases to go to trial is currently being fought in court in Los Angeles. Recently, portions of Mr. Ekdahl’s videotaped testimony was shown for the jury. In the video, when pressed as to whether DePuy decided to recall the A.S.R. due to safety issues, Ekdahl insisted that the company did it “because it did not meet the clinical standards we wanted in the marketplace.”

Despite that assertion, Mr. Ekdahl and other DePuy marketing executives all allegedly publicly stated at the time that the device was performing extremely well. Internal documents on the other hand, conflict with those statements. The documents have recently been made available to the public as a result of the litigation.

Included in these documents is a statement made in 2008 by Dr. William Griffin, a surgeon who served as one of DePuy’s top consultants. He allegedly told Mr. Ekdahl and two other DePuy marketing officials that he had concerns regarding the cup component of the A.S.R. and that he believed it should be “redesigned”.

Before the device was recalled in 2010, DePuy was aggressively promoting it in the U.S. as a breakthrough device and implanting it into thousands of patients. Yet internal DePuy projections estimated that it would allegedly fail in 40% of patients within five years, a rate eight times higher than normal.

According to Mr. Ekdahl’s testimony, he did participate in a meeting that resulted in a proposal to redesign the A.S.R.’s cup, but the plan was dropped. The reasoning used was that sales of the device did not justify the expense.

Continue reading ›

With all the debate raging around healthcare these days, cases like this one must be particularly harmful to the reputation of companies like Hospital Corporation of America (HCA).

It is common practice for profitable hospital chains to buy community hospitals to convert to profit status. These purchases typically include an agreement for the purchaser to spend money to fix up the community hospitals and spend a certain amount on charitable care in the community.

In 2003, HCA purchased twelve hospitals in the Kansas City area from Health Midwest for $1.125 billion. As part of the deal, HCA agreed to spend $300 million in capital improvements to the hospitals in the first two years and an additional $150 million in the three years after that. The hospital chain also agreed to maintain the levels of care which had previously been provided to low-income members of the community for ten years.

The Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City is a nonprofit organization which was created from the proceeds of the sale of the hospital. When they received their first report from HCA in 2004, they allegedly realized the company was already behind in their promised payments.

Of the $300 million that was supposed to have been spent in the first two years, records allegedly indicated that only $50 million had been spent.

HCA’s reports also allegedly indicated that the amount of charitable care provided in their inner-city hospital had fallen while the level of charitable care provided at the more affluent suburban hospital had gone up dramatically.

The foundation repeatedly asked HCA for an explanation but, when they received none, they finally filed a lawsuit against the health care company in 2009.

In the trial, HCA argued that it had met its obligation to spend money on hospitals by building two new hospitals rather than repairing the older facilities. However, Judge John Torrence of Jackson County Circuit Court decided that the agreement had specifically called for improvements to the existing hospitals, not the construction of new hospitals. He therefore ruled that HCA stilled owed $162 million of the $300 million it had agreed to spend between 2003 and 2005. He then named a court-appointed forensic accountant to determine whether HCA had provided the charitable care it had agreed to provide.

In his ruling, the judge said HCA’s own written statements included “differing amounts” of money spent on charitable care. One HCA report said it had provided $48 million in charitable care to the community in 2009 while another report on its Web site claimed that it had provided more than $87 million. The annual report to the foundation, on the other hand, said it had provided $185 million in charitable care that year.

When asked about the widely differing numbers, neither the president of HCA’s Midwest division nor other HCA executives could offer an explanation.

The $162 million will be paid to the foundation, which will use it to create grants to provide care for uninsured and under-insured families in the area. It is unclear whether the spending on improvements for the local hospitals will take place.

But HCA may end up required to cough up even more than the $162 million paid to the foundation, depending of what the court-appointed accountant discovers. Paul Seyferth of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris, which represents the foundation, speculates that the HCA will “have a tremendously difficult time convincing anybody that they spent what they claim they spent”.

Continue reading ›

It’s amazing how one person’s idea can turn into a patent war between two major companies. In the case of Carter Bryant, an idea for dolls which began with some sketches in 1998 while he was living with his parents in Missouri, later turned into a major battle. Bryant went to work for Mattel Inc., based in El Segundo, California, which claims they began work on designing the dolls with Bryant while he was working for them.

In 2000, MGA Entertainment, based in Van Nuys, California, made a deal with Bryant and, in 2001, the Bratz dolls were released. They were an immediate hit among “tweens” and threatened to de-throne the long-ruling queen of dolls, Mattel’s infamous Barbie. In 2004, Mattel sued Bryant for allegedly working with a competitor while also working with Mattel, and Mattel also sued MGA for alleged copyright infringement. The case against Bryant settled rather quickly but the battle with MGA rages on.

The case went back and forth in the courts. Initially, a jury agreed that Bryant had developed the concept while working with Mattel and thereby awarded the company $100 million.

The decision was overruled on appeal however when the 9th Circuit court overturned that decision and ordered a new trial.

MGA counter-sued, alleging Mattel had engaged in corporate espionage when some of their employees gained access to some of MGA’s designs at a toy fair. Mattel then allegedly used the information gained to try to keep Bratz dolls off the shelves and thereby participated in some illegal practices of their own.

In April 2011, a jury sided with MGA, awarding the entertainment company $3.4 for each of 26 instances they found of Mattel using misappropriated trade secrets, a total of $88.4 million. With fees and damages together, Mattel was ordered to pay $172 million in punitive damages in addition to the judge’s order of $137 million in legal fees and costs to defend against Mattel. This brought the entire award to over $309 million.

According to the U.S. District judge, the copyright case that Mattel was alleging was “stunning in scope and unreasonable in relief it requested.” He also said that the claims endangered free expression and competition.

A federal appeals court however has overturned the $172 million punitive damages ruling. The court decided that, as it is considering Mattel’s copyright infringement lawsuit against MGA, Mattel’s trade-secret thefts are irrelevant to the case. However, the court allowed the award of $137 million to cover legal fees and costs to remain. The case will now return to the courts.

MGA has said that it intends to file a new lawsuit to pursue their trade-theft claims against Mattel.

Continue reading ›

Once again the issue of what is required to certify a class for class-action litigation has been battled in court. In this case it went up to the Montana Supreme Court, which sided with the plaintiffs and agreed to certify the class.

The case involves several property owners along the shoreline of the Flathead River in Montana who are going to court for erosion against the sides of the lake caused by the Kerr Dam keeping the lake at artificially high levels. According to the lawsuit, the lake reached peak elevation levels of 2,980 feet before the dam was built in 1938. Now the Dam keeps the lake at 2,983 feet, which is causing severe erosion to the sides of the lake and widening its “footprint” particularly during fall storms. While the amount of erosion caused by the high levels might be deemed reasonable when considering the recreational needs of shoreline property owners and businesses in the summer, the degree of erosion occurring when the lake’s level is kept artificially high into October and November could be deemed unreasonable.
Initially, Flathead District Judge Kitty Curtis denied certification of the class, saying that the cause of the erosion would need to be shown on a property-by-property basis around the lake and on parts of the Flathead River affected by the lake levels.

The state Supreme Court disagreed, saying that damage caused by the dam over the years has to be considered collectively because the lake can only be maintained at singular elevations, and those elevations cannot be changed for particular lakeshore properties. The liability of the defendants on the other hand, will have to be determined separately, as will the damages for each property. The two defendants are Montana Power Co. and PPL Montana. Shoreline easements granted to the dam operator when the dam was built provide protections for that operator.

The case has gone to the Supreme Court for review three times since litigation got under way in 1999. This most recent ruling defines the “class” as anyone who has owned property on the lake or certain portions of the river since November 1991. Due to that very large range, the class includes about 3,000 properties and could include multiple owners of each property.
Since the state Supreme Court’s ruling, the class-action lawsuit is going back to the Flathead District court, which will schedule hearings for 2013. Jamie Franklin, a Chicago-based attorney who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, says he is ready for the hearings to proceed.
This ruling demonstrates another victory for class-action litigation. At a time when courts and judges across the country are finding reasons not to certify class actions and contracts are making it more difficult for consumers to bring class action litigation to the courts, decisions like these seem to be getting more rare.

Continue reading ›

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbW2cj_k_WE

To learn more about our qui tam and whistle blower practice click here. DiTommaso Lubin’s Chicago business trial lawyers have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients on unraveling complex business fraud and breach of fiduciary duty cases. We work with skilled forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to help recover monies missappropriated from our clients and from government. Our Chicago litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and sucessfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investements and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Aurora, and Naperville, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you know about fraud on the government and are prepared to blow the whistle, and you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois qui tam and whistle blower attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Hinsdale and Wheaton qui tam and whistle blower lawyers, please call us toll-free at 630-333-0333 or contact us through the Internet.

In The Business Store v. Mail Boxes Etc., the District Court for the District of New Jersey considered the effect of a “forum selection clause” in a business dispute between companies from different states, finding that these clauses are not always enforceable.

In 2003, Plaintiff The Business Store, Inc., a New Jersey company, entered into a franchise agreement with Defendants Mail Boxes, Etc. (MBE) – a California company – and United Parcel Service (UPS), under which Plaintiff was to operate a UPS franchise in Spotswood, New Jersey. The parties entered into two additional agreements for new stores in 2007. Two years later, however, a disagreement arose over $80,000 in royalties that Defendants argued they were owed. When the parties could not reach an agreement, Defendants terminated the franchise agreements.

Plaintiff sued Defendants in New Jersey state court, alleging breach of the franchise agreements and an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, as well as tortious interference with contract, fraud and violation of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (NJFPA). After Defendants removed the case to federal court – on diversity of citizenship grounds: the parties are from different states – they filed a motion to transfer the case to the federal district court in the Southern District of California. Defendants argued that the “forum selection clause” in each of the franchise agreements dictated that any disputes be litigated in California.

The court denied the motion to transfer, finding that each of the factors to be considered in reviewing a venue transfer request weighed in favor of New Jersey. 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) provides that “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought.” The court noted that it considers “all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interest of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum,” and that the burden is on the party requesting transfer to show that it is warranted.

The court began by finding that, because MBE’s principal place of business is in San Diego, the action would have been proper if originally brought in the Southern District of California. Nevertheless, the court noted that “[a] strong presumption of convenience exists in favor of a domestic plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Moreover, the fact that the dispute arose in New Jersey – where the contract was executed and performed – also weighed against transfer.

Continue reading ›