Consumers pay price as lenders cash in, Bankruptcy bill 'the best law money could buy' for lenders

Sagging under $300,000 in debt and seeing no choice, Scott W. Hudson of Middletown filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in March.

Hudson was among the first in Delaware to confront a new bankruptcy law that imposes tougher requirements and hundreds of dollars in additional costs on consumers who use federal law to wipe out debts.

"It's a very long and drawn-out process," said Hudson, a 39-year-old father of two. "Bankruptcy is not an easy out."

One year ago, on Oct. 17, a law went into effect that overhauled the bankruptcy system, implementing sweeping changes that included higher fees for filing and mandating consumers get advance advice from counselors.

Wilmington-based credit card giant MBNA Corp., now owned by Bank of America, had been among the law's leading proponents, saying consumers who could pay were abusing the old system and walking away from credit card and other debt.

Consumer advocates and bankruptcy lawyers criticize the law for putting too much of a burden on people in dire straits because of illness, divorce, job loss, or some other major setback.

In the year since the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act became a reality, bankruptcy filings have plummeted. The number of consumer Chapter 7 filings -- the type that let consumers shed debts such as credit card balances and medical bills -- in Delaware is down 84 percent, according to statistics supplied by David D. Bird, clerk of the court for U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The steep drop parallels the national trend, Bird said.

New requirements for documents, income eligibility restrictions, additional costs and new liability risks for bankruptcy lawyers, who now must certify the validity of clients' claims, all played a part in driving down filings by consumers. A rush of filings before Oct. 17 last year also has depressed filings because many people who would have filed this year moved up their timetable to escape the new requirements, bankruptcy lawyers said.

"Last year, before Oct. 17, it was insane," recalled Doreen H. Becker, a Wilmington bankruptcy lawyer who represented Hudson. "We were turning away cases because there were so many."

Paying the price

From the standpoint of consumers, the most notable change has been a steep rise in the cost of filing for bankruptcy.

Citing additional documentation burdens, lawyers have raised their fees, so bankruptcy filings that would have cost consumers about $1,000 can now cost more than $2,000.

Court filing fees consumers pay have climbed. The fee to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is $299, 43 percent higher than before Oct. 17. The Chapter 13 court filing fee has jumped 41 percent, to $274. In addition, consumers have to pay for a credit counseling session and a class on debt management, each of which costs around $50.

The tumble in filings has been a boon to lenders, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, both of which have credit card operations based in Wilmington and collectively employ more than 15,000 Delaware workers. With the credit card industry such a significant employer in the state, Delaware's congressional delegation -- Sens. Joe Biden and Tom Carper and Rep. Mike Castle -- all supported the law.

Bank of America and Chase have said their credit card businesses enjoyed sharply higher profits in the first half of this year thanks to the steep decline in consumer bankruptcies. Late last year, though, it was a different story. Bank of America, Chase and other credit card banks took a short-term earnings hit in the fourth quarter because of the surge in filings by consumers who wanted to get ahead of the new rules. Long term, analysts expect the credit card industry will reap benefits from the changes in the law, as filings remain below the record levels seen in the past several years.

In the five years leading up to passage of the new bankruptcy law, the banking industry contributed about $25 million to federal candidates and political parties, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit in Washington that tracks political giving.

Unexpected difficulties

In the "vast majority of cases," consumers are forced into bankruptcy by "major and unforeseen expenses," according to the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. Job loss accounts for about 40 percent of consumer filings and medical expenses 33 percent, according to the association. The association said the survey found that about 8 percent of cases are tied to spending on nonessential items.

"It's not that people are setting out to avoid paying their creditors back," said Erin K. Brignola, a bankruptcy lawyer in Bear. "The only way out for them is to file a bankruptcy case. All this new law has done is increase the amount of work, and money that debtors have to pay, to enter into the process."

Rashmi Rangan, executive director of the Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, a consumer advocacy group focused on banking, objects to the bankruptcy law because, she said, it didn't rein in "predatory" lending practices through which consumers are enticed to take loans at high interest.

"I still say it was the best law money could buy against the consumer," Rangan said.

Advocates say bankruptcy reform hasn't been unfair to consumers because the new requirements haven't stopped legitimate filings.

"The new system ensures that the nation's bankruptcy courts are open to those who truly need them and not abused by those who don't," said Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for Chase's Wilmington-based credit card unit. "We believe the results of bankruptcy reform, such as more people using credit counseling services and improved credit quality, show that the new system is working as it was intended."

A spokeswoman for Bank of America, Delaware's largest private employer since its Jan. 1 purchase of MBNA, declined to comment for this story.

'Maybe I better not do this'

The extent to which bankruptcy law changes have curbed inappropriate filings by people who could pay their debts isn't clear.

Bird, the Bankruptcy Court clerk, said the law has probably discouraged people who would have abused the system, but that number was "relatively few" to begin with.

"My feeling is that for those individuals who have the wherewithal to pay creditors, who have pretty good incomes, they will now pause and think, 'Maybe I better not do this,' " Bird said.

But consumers who genuinely are "down and out" should realize they can still get bankruptcy protection, Bird said. He said there's a misperception among consumers that they no longer are allowed to file for bankruptcy. But he said the protection is still there for people with legitimate need. Bird said he expects bankruptcy filings to begin to rise as more consumers understand that, despite more stringent rules, they can still file for bankruptcy protection.

Another key change under the law is creation of a "means test" that can bar people whose annual income exceeds the median income for their state from filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which requires consumers to liquidate assets, with proceeds going to creditors.

"You basically lose everything that you had" under Chapter 7, said Hudson, who filed for the protection in March.

In exchange, the consumer is freed from any additional obligation to pay so-called unsecured creditors, such as credit card banks. So even if the consumer's assets weren't enough to pay off the credit card bill, the bank could not pursue further collections.

But now, consumers whose incomes are higher than the state median can be forced to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy, under which they're required to repay at least some debts over a three- to five-year period. For Hudson, the means test wasn't much of an issue because he was unemployed when he filed and had only minimal income. In Delaware, the median income for a single person is $45,182, according to the latest census figures.

Consumers can file bankruptcy on their own. But, given the complexity of the process, they typically have to hire lawyers who specialize in the field.

The law has meant "more hoops to jump through," said Maria Pippidis, who teaches classes on personal finance through the University of Delaware's cooperative extension education program.

Among the new requirements, consumers who file for bankruptcy have to take classes on debt management. Pippidis teaches the classes at UD. The YWCA of Delaware also offers the "debtor education" course.

Pippidis said she considers the educational requirement of the law a positive change because the course can help consumers from repeating financial missteps.

Long-term implications

Filing for bankruptcy has a lasting impact on a consumer's ability to borrow because a filing remains on a credit report for 10 years, said Nathaniel C. Nichols, who specializes in bankruptcy law as an associate professor at Widener University School of Law in Brandywine Hundred.

The credit report, which includes a consumer's track record for paying bills, is used by lenders to assess the credit risk posed by a potential customer. People with bankruptcies on their records aren't automatically barred from borrowing, but they'll pay sharply higher interest when they do, Nichols said.

"People who have filed do get credit offers, but with exorbitant interest," the law professor said.

And consumers can find themselves cut off from credit entirely. Hudson said he recently had his J.C. Penney store charge card canceled because of his Chapter 7 filing.

"I tried to use the card and they closed my account," he said. "They told me that's the policy: If you file bankruptcy, they cancel the card. In 20 years, I had never missed a payment on that card, but they canceled it anyway. Bankruptcy really does affect you horribly."

Hudson said he wished he could have avoided bankruptcy, but didn't see another option. He had more than $300,000 in debt, including about $45,000 on business credit cards, after his small business, Glasgow Seafood, closed at the end of 2005. When he borrowed for the business, Hudson had personally guaranteed the debt, leading to his personal bankruptcy filing.

"Bankruptcy is a very uncomfortable option," Hudson said. "You've been a hard worker, and this isn't something that you want to do."

Although filing for bankruptcy was difficult and doing so will affect his ability to borrow for the next decade, completing the process has given Hudson new hope. His bankruptcy case was closed in June. Now working as an assistant superintendent in a cemetery, Hudson said he's putting his financial troubles behind him.

"It gave me a fresh start," Hudson said. "I can start my life all over again."

Federal Probe Of Bristol-Myers' Plavix Deal Widens

A federal investigation into Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s (BMY) proposed settlement of a patent dispute has been expanded to determine whether the deal violated securities laws, the drug maker disclosed Thursday.

Earlier this year, Bristol-Myers and Sanofi-Aventis (SNY), which co-market the heart drug Plavix, reached a proposed settlement with Apotex Inc. of Canada to stave off the introduction of a generic version of Plavix until 2011. The deal fell apart after state regulators objected, and Apotex sold generic Plavix for about three weeks in August before a judge's order halted sales.

Bristol-Myers previously disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey began an investigation into corporate governance issues related to the company's negotiations of the proposed settlement. Also, the Department of Justice's antitrust unit launched a criminal investigation into the proposed settlement, Bristol disclosed in July.

On Thursday, Bristol-Myers said the U.S. Attorney's office investigation has been expanded to include a review of whether there was any violation of federal securities laws in connection with the proposed settlement. Bristol-Myers said this was in connection with the terms of a consent order entered into with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2004.

Bristol disclosed the development in a press release for its third-quarter financial results.

The 2004 SEC agreement settled charges that Bristol-Myers engaged in a fraudulent earnings management scheme that was unrelated to the current Plavix matter. The settlement required Bristol-Myers to pay $150 million and included a permanent injunction against future violations of certain accounting provisions of federal securities laws.

In a related development in June 2005, Bristol-Myers agreed to pay an additional $300 million as part of a deferred-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark, N.J. Under that pact, federal prosecutors agreed to defer prosecution on a charge of conspiring to commit securities fraud for two years. If at the end of two years, Bristol-Myers has fully complied with the terms, the criminal complaint will be dismissed.

The terms included Bristol-Myers' agreement to submit to an independent monitor, former federal judge Frederick Lacey. It was Lacey's oversight, in connection with the U.S. Attorney's office probe into corporate governance issues surrounding the proposed Plavix settlement, that led to the firing of Peter Dolan as CEO last month.

Law Firms Fight For Control Of Merck Holders' Suit

A power struggle is emerging over which plaintiffs' law firm will control a potentially lucrative shareholder securities litigation pending against Merck & Co.

Class-action law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP is one of the lead counsel in the case, a coveted position that often results in high fees. But Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has made a move to replace it as a lead counsel by filing a motion claiming that Milberg Weiss was dropped by clients in the case and failed to inform the court.

The motion asks the court to consider naming Bernstein's client as a lead plaintiff in the case, thus making the firm a lead counsel.

Milberg Weiss didn't respond to requests for comment.

The shareholder suit alleges Merck defrauded shareholders by failing to fully disclose to the market the safety risks of its painkiller Vioxx, causing investor losses. Merck voluntarily removed the blockbuster drug from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, leading to stock-price declines. Merck is facing nearly 24,000 lawsuits from people who blame Vioxx for their heart attacks or strokes.

The securities class action was filed in 2003, following reports of alleged Vioxx risks. Milberg was appointed co-lead counsel the following year, after being hired by two of the lead plaintiffs. Stull, Stull & Brody, a New York firm, was named co-lead counsel. Last year, Merck moved to dismiss the securities class action, denying that it made public misstatements about Vioxx. The court hasn't yet ruled on the motion.

In May, Milberg Weiss was indicted on fraud charges based on allegations it improperly shared legal fees with clients. The firm has pleaded not guilty and has vowed to fight the criminal case.

In its motion, Bernstein claims that two Merck clients fired Milberg Weiss but the firm failed to inform the federal judge in New Jersey overseeing the securities case.

"Rather than advise the court . . . Milberg Weiss continues to operate as if it has a lead plaintiff client," alleges Bernstein, which is seeking to take over the case on behalf of the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, a Merck shareholder claiming $38 million in losses. "Also troubling is the fact that the lead plaintiffs have allowed this to happen," says the motion, in an effort to argue that Mississippi would be a more-effective lead plaintiff.

The Merck lead plaintiffs who hired Milberg say they have parted ways with the firm. Steve Le Van, of Whittier, Calif., says he sent a letter to Milberg in August, firing the firm because of the indictment. "The firm had a cloud over it, so there was no point staying with them." Mr. Le Van says he informed Milberg that he wanted to be represented by David Brower, a former Milberg partner who left the firm in June to form Brower Piven. Mr. Brower didn't return a call for comment.

"Milberg Weiss no longer represents me," says Richard Reynolds, a pharmacist in Marco Island, Fla., and another Merck lead plaintiff, who says his attorney is now Bruce Bernstein, a former Milberg partner who left in August to join Dreier LLP of New York.

"Mr. Reynolds has always taken his duties as a lead plaintiff seriously," Mr. Bernstein says.

The Effects of Brain Injury

In my practice, I see the effects of traumatic brain injury. Unfortunately, many times certain symptoms of brain injury have gone completely undiagnosed by the attending physicians. Initially, emergency and rescue is usually called to the scene to treat life threatening conditions that may be present. Then, the injured party may be taken to the hospital, where they are treated for certain injuries that may show up on x-ray.

Not surprisingly, the only attention that is paid to a potential brain injury is when the nurse or doctor may hand some prepared form relating to concussion. All the injured party may know is that they have some amnesia or continue to experience headaches.

One symptom of brain injury is a loss or impairment of smell and taste. The University of Pennsylvania reports that up to 30% or patients with a head injury have some kind of olfactory loss that may result from injury to the delicate nerves that pass from the nasal canal, through the cribriform plate and then to the olfactory bulb.

Typically, my clients do not really put the head injury and loss of smell or taste mechanically related to the head injury. As a result, their condition does not get the medical attention it deserves.

With the loss of smell and taste, a person no longer has the ability to enjoy the fragrance of a summer flower or the taste of good food. In addition, this places our clients at a high risk for depression, anorexia, and weight loss.

Treatments are available to assist in treating this specific injury. A team approach that starts with smell and taste testing and may include medical doctors and dentists may help in providing such care. In addition, such medical care provider help access the damage which, in turn, helps our firm in making sure wrongdoers are held accountable for causing this injury to our clients.

Does Virginia's Attorney General Still Want to Limit Our Rights to a Trial by Jury?

Today I saw the announcement that Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell will begin to regularly appear on a popular conservative website so that web surfers can blog with him on a weekly basis. In going to the site, they catagorize this announcement as "straight talk from the internet's first elected blogger".

My relationship with Attorney General McDonnell goes back to 1991 when he first ran for the house of delegates. Republican activist and Virginia Beach attorney, Gary Byler calls me Bob's first campaign contributor. Throughout the years, I have maintained some contact with him but have become increasingly disappointed with his desire to limit a victim's to the right to trial by jury.

A search of contributors to his attorney general's campaign shows that he and two other delegates originally formed a political action committee called Virginia Conservative's Action PAC. According to VPAP.org, in May of 2005, the American Tort Reform PAC contributed $260,000.00 to Mr. McDonnell's conservative PAC. By their own admission, the American Tort Reform PAC was formed to limit jury awards on personal injury awards and product liability claims and to place limits and restrictions on class actions and punitive damages.

After the Virginia Conservative Action PAC received this $260,000.00 from the American Tort Reform Association, it then funneled this money in May and June 2005 to the Attorney General's race by contributing $252,609.00 to Bob McDonnell's campaign. Apparently, he did not want it to show as directly coming from the American Tort Reform Association.

Delegate McDonnell contacted me during his political campaign for Attorney General. He knew that I had previously been a donor and requested that I assist in his current campaign. At that time, I was unaware of this veiled contribution by the American Tort Reform PAC. However, I did know of the various bills that he introduced that, in my opinion, specifically were an attempt to limit the rights of injured victims. At that time, I told him that I viewed him as an enemy to the rights of ordinary people.

Recently, Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued a statement as a reaction to Governor Kaine's State of the Commonwealth Address. In that, he stated that the "Office of the Attorney General will make its decisions based on the role of law, and a strong and abiding belief in free individuals and free markets". In light of the large contribution by the American Tort Reform PAC as well as some of the bills that he has introduced in the legislature, it is hard to match up this statement with his emphasis to protect corporate accountability and limit rights of recovery. His weekly blog should hold some interesting future revelations. Hopefully we will now let free individuals and free markets deliver accountability.

Ex-Printing Plant Worker Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading

p> A former Wisconsin printing-plant employee pleaded guilty to insider-trading charges on Monday in connection with alleged improper trades in more than a dozen stocks based on pre-publication copies of BusinessWeek magazine's "Inside Wall Street" column.

Nickolaus Shuster, who worked at a printing plant in Hartford, Wisc., pleaded guilty to insider trading and conspiracy to commit insider trading.

At a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman in Manhattan, Shuster admitted that he stole pre-publication copies of the magazine and then used a cellular phone to call in the names of companies mentioned favorably in the column to two co-conspirators. Those co-conspirators would then make improper trades in shares of those companies. He was obligated by his employer not to divulge details of what was in the magazine before it was available publicly, Shuster said.

"I knew what I was doing was wrong," Shuster said at the hearing.

Sentencing is set for Jan. 12. He faces up to 20 years in prison on the most serious charge of insider trading.

Prosecutors have alleged that Shuster and Juan Renteria, who also worked at the plant, were bribed by Eugene Plotkin and David Pajcin, two former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) employees, to divulge the names of companies favorably mentioned in the "Inside Wall Street" column prior to the magazine being available to the public.

Renteria and Plotkin have been charged criminally in the matter and are awaiting trial. Pajcin, who is facing criminal charges, is cooperating with the government.

The magazine, which is owned by McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP), is made available to the public after 5 p.m. Eastern on Thursdays on its Web site and is available on newsstands on Fridays. Positive news about a company in the column can push that company's stock higher in trading on Fridays.

The government has alleged that the BusinessWeek scheme was part of a broader insider-trading ring orchestrated by Pajcin and Plotkin that netted more than $6 million in illicit profits.

Plotkin and Pajcin also have been accused of orchestrating two other insider-trading schemes in which they allegedly made trades based on insider information they received about pending mergers being handled by Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER) from a Merrill investment banking analyst, including improper trades prior to Adidas-Salomon AG's (ADX.XE) acquisition of Reebok International Ltd. last year.

The former analyst, Stanislav Shpigelman, has since pleaded guilty to criminal charges.

Amgen CEO 'Very' Confident Roche Infringes Patents

Amgen Inc. Chief Executive Kevin Sharer said the company is confident the company will prevail in a patent-infringement lawsuit against Roche Holding Ltd.'s (RHHBY) anemia drug.

During a conference call with analysts following the company's third-quarter earnings release, Sharer said U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston on Monday accepted jurisdiction over the case, and that "we see that as a positive step."

Company spokesman David Polk said after the call that a specific trial date hasn't been set, although the company has been told it will take place in September 2007.

On the call, Sharer said many people have asked about the lawsuit, in which Amgen says it believes Roche's peg-EPO product violates Amgen's patents for Epogen and Aranesp, and doesn't provide any clinical or patient benefit over Amgen's therapies.

On Friday, the federal court denied Roche's motion to dismiss Amgen's patent-infringement lawsuit.

Roche is asking for U.S. regulatory approval to sell its anemia drug, but Sharer said, "We are very confident Roche infringes our patent."

He said he can't answer questions he has been asked about whether Roche will launch its drug at risk, if it receives Food and Drug Administration approval, or whether Amgen will seek a preliminary injunction.

"But you can rest assured we will be very, very vigorous on all fronts in defending our franchise and making sure patients get the right product," Sharer said.

Kansas City Car Accident Attorneys

If you have been injured in a car wreck, semi-truck crash, or any other motor vehicle accident, http://www.attorney.netbestfor.com can assist you in receiving compensation for your injuries, lost wages, and other damages. Serious accidents, such as rollovers, result in serious injuries, including brain injuries and paralysis, and are the leading case of accidental death in the United States. These collisions may involve negligence on the part of drivers and operators, including drunk driving and reckless behavior. If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, the personal injury attorneys at DeZube Miller can assist you in receiving compensation for your injuries, lost wages, and other damages.

If you have been injured in an automobile accident caused by another person’s negligence you can file a lawsuit to recover the monetary expenses associated with the damage to your vehicle (auto, truck or motorcycle). You may also be entitled to a settlement that covers your medical costs, economic damages, and emotional and physical pain and suffering. If you have been injured, you are already overwhelmed with pain and coping with disability. It is important to retain a car accident attorney with a track record of success in representing motor vehicle accident victims, in order to place you in the best position to receive the monetary recovery that you deserve.

At DeZube Miller we accept all car accident and wrongful death cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning if we are unable to recover a settlement in your case, you will not be charged an attorney fee. Your initial consultation with a lawyer is always free of charge.

Proving Fault for Defective Product Injuries

Proving Fault for Defective Product Injuries
If you've been injured by a dangerous consumer product, you may have an easier time recovering compensation for your injuries than those who are injured in other ways. Here's why.

A lot of people have heard tell of exploding car tires or soda bottles, and while most product defects do not make their appearance quite so dramatically, defective or dangerous products are the cause of many thousands of injuries every year. "Product liability" -- the legal rules concerning who is responsible for defective or dangerous products -- is different from ordinary injury liability law, and this set of rules sometimes makes it easier for an injured person to recover damages.

Strict Liability Defined
Ordinarily, to hold someone liable for your injuries, you must show that they were careless -- that is, negligent -- and that their carelessness led to the accident. With products sold to the general public, however, it would be extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive for one individual to have to show how and when a manufacturer was careless in making a particular product. Neither can the consumer be expected to prove whether the seller or renter of the product had a proper system for checking for manufacturer's defects, or whether the seller was the cause of the defect after receiving the product from the maker. Nor, finally, can a consumer be expected to check each product before using it to see if it is defective or dangerous.

For all these reasons, the law has developed a set of rules known as "strict liability" that allows a person injured by a defective or unexpectedly dangerous product to recover compensation from the maker or seller of the product - without showing that the manufacturer or seller was actually negligent.

Here's how strict liability works: If you have been injured by a consumer product, you are entitled to compensation from the manufacturer or from the business that sold or rented the product directly to you. Strict liability operates against a non-manufacturer who sold or rented a product only if it is in the business of regularly selling or renting those particular kinds of products. In other words, if you bought something at a flea market stall, garage sale or thrift store that sells all kinds of things but not any one type of item on a regular basis, strict liability may not apply.

Rules of Strict Liability
Regardless of what steps a manufacturer or seller says it takes in making and handling a consumer product, you can make a strict liability claim -- without showing any carelessness on the part of the manufacturer or seller -- if all three of the following conditions exist:

The product had an "unreasonably dangerous" defect that injured you as a user or consumer of the product. The defect can come into existence either in the design of the product, during manufacture, or during handling or shipment.
The defect caused an injury while the product was being used in a way that it was intended to be used.

The product had not been substantially changed from the condition in which it was originally sold. "Substantially" means in a way that affects how the product performs.

States With a Slightly Different Rule
To recover compensation for your injuries in Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina or Virginia, you are theoretically required to show that the manufacturer or seller was negligent in making or selling a defective or dangerous product.

However, these states have an additional rule that has the same practical effect as strict liability and makes the injury claim process proceed in virtually the same way. This rule is called by the Latin name "res ipsa loquitur" which means "the thing speaks for itself." It holds that if a product that has a dangerous defect is sold or rented, the defect speaks for itself that someone in the manufacturing , selling or renting process must have been negligent - or else the defect would not be there.

In these states, as in all others, you must show that a defect existed and that it caused an accident. If you can do so, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries.



If You Were Aware of the Defect
Manufacturers and sellers have a defense to claims of strict liability that may be particularly important if you have owned the product for a while. That is, you may not be able to claim strict liability if you knew about the defect but continued to use the product. If it appears -- either from the condition of the product (which the manufacturer's or seller's insurance company will have a right to examine) or from your description of your use of the product -- that you were aware of the defect before the accident but used the product anyway, you may have given up your right to claim injury damages.

Neutrogena, J&J Unit Sue L'Oreal Over Sunscreen Ads

Neutrogena Corp. and a unit of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) filed a false advertising lawsuit Wednesday against L'Oreal SA's (12032.FR) U.S. unit over promotional materials for its new sunscreen moisturizer, Anthelios SX.

In their lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Neutrogena and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc. allege that L'Oreal's promotional materials and a letter to physicians for Anthelios SX falsely understate the scores for protection against ultraviolet light of their competing sunscreen products.

The companies are seeking at least $1 million in damages. They also have asked the court to order L'Oreal to stop running the offending advertising and issue corrective advertising.

A L'Oreal spokeswoman in New York didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment late Wednesday.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Guidant For Defective Heart Defibrillator

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., filed a wrongful death and products liability lawsuit against Guidant Corporation of Indianapolis, and its subsidiary Cardiac Pacemakers, Incorporated, based in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The complaint, filed in the Ramsey County District Court in St. Paul on March 21, is on behalf of the wife of Allan Gohde of Birchwood, Wisconsin, who died of sudden cardiac arrest in July 2005.

Tara D. Sutton, the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. representing Mrs. Gohde, said, 'Guidant has an ethical responsibility and duty to its patients and their physicians for ensuring the safety of their implantable heart defibrillators'.

Also representing Mrs. Gohde is Chris Messerly, partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Three-Year-Old Girl Struck and Killed by Ambulance

A three-year-old Summit girl died on March 8 after being hit by an ambulance turning into a driveway.

Alyssa Wilbur and her twin brother had been running ahead of their mother on Beauvoir Avenue just outside of Overlook Hospital, when the children's mother shouted for them to stop. Alyssa stopped and then turned to head back to her mother, when she was hit by ambulance turning into the emergency department's driveway.

Judith Wilbur, a hospital employee, had just picked the twins up from daycare and was headed to their nearby home, when the incident occurred. The ambulance, driven by Alexander W. Mendk, Jr., did not have its lights on because it was not on a call. Alyssa fell beneath the ambulance, suffering massive head trauma and dying a half hour later in Overlook's Emergency Department.

No criminal charges will be filed against the driver, and the incident has been declared an accident, although it still remains under investigation. Authorities are waiting for blood test results, which will likely be negative, and would like to determine how Alyssa ended up beneath the vehicle. One possibility is that the area was still icy and slippery from recent bad weather.

Wrongful Death Attorney

Court Weighs MedImmune Bid To Sue Genentech

A Justice Department lawyer urged the Supreme Court to allow MedImmune Inc. to sue Genentech Inc. over the validity of a patent without first violating a licensing agreement between the two companies, a position several justices appeared to support.

MedImmune, a Gaithersburg, Md., biotech company, has been fighting patent claims by Genentech, of South San Francisco, Calif., over methods MedImmune uses to make Synagis, a drug designed to prevent respiratory-tract infections in infants. MedImmune, which says it signed the licensing agreement to reduce its exposure to patent-infringement claims, was barred from challenging the patent in lower courts.

The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a special patent court, ruled a company can't sue at the same time it has agreed to make royalty payments.

Deanne Maynard, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, part of the Justice Department, urged the justices to strike down the Federal Circuit's ruling, arguing MedImmune was wrongly being denied a legal avenue to challenge Genentech's claims. "The parties here actually have a concrete dispute about the validity of the patent," she said.

The outcome of the case is important for companies that rely on few products or patents for revenue because it will determine how far companies can go in limiting their risks when challenging a patent. If MedImmune wins its appeal, companies will be able to pay royalties under protest until a court rules under federal declaratory-judgment laws on the validity of the patent. If Genentech wins, companies will have to refuse to pay royalties before they can challenge a patent, exposing themselves to patent-infringement claims.

The high court closely questioned both sides in the case with an eye toward the practicalities of licensing contracts, and a majority of justices sounded skeptical of arguments made by Genentech's attorney, Maureen Mahoney.

"The argument you just made really isn't relevant for us," Justice Anthony Kennedy told Ms. Mahoney after she said the licensing agreement was a compromise settlement that precluded court action.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the outcome of the appeal became clearer to him when he realized the licensing agreement between the two companies turned in part on whether the patent was determined to be valid.

Throughout the litigation brought by MedImmune, Genentech has maintained that one of several patent applications it licensed to MedImmune was approved in 2001 and required royalty payment on sales of Synagis.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed MedImmune's case in 2004, saying it couldn't proceed because MedImmune was making royalty payments. The Federal Circuit upheld that decision in October 2005.

US Appeals Court Reinstates Rezulin Suit Vs Warner-Lambert

A federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit against Warner-Lambert Co. by a group of Michigan residents who claim they suffered injuries as a result of their use of the diabetes drug Rezulin.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court's ruling that tossed out the case last year.

In February 2005, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in Manhattan threw out the lawsuit by the Michigan plaintiffs, citing a Michigan law that shields pharmaceutical companies from product liability claims unless there is evidence that the drug company misrepresented or withheld material information in obtaining approval for the drug from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the time, the judge found that the Michigan claims couldn't be distinguished from other state "fraud-on-the-FDA" claims that have previously found to be preempted by federal law.

On Thursday, the appellate court disagreed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Warner-Lambert, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc. (PFE) in June 2000, pulled Rezulin from the market in March 2000 at the FDA's request. The FDA initially approved the drug in 1997.