Article Type: Investigation

Roundy’s (RNDY) Merger Review

Roundy’s (RNDY) announced it has entered into a definitive agreement with Kroger, Co. under which Kroger, Co will acquire all outstanding shares of Roundy’s for $800 million.

Roundy’s shareholders are entitled to answers to important questions regarding the proposed merger

Does the merger agreement contain unfair termination provisions? Roundy’s shareholders will receive only $3.60 in cash for each share of stock they own.
Does the merger agreement place perhaps an undue burden on the board of directors relating to subsequent offers from third parties?
Did the Roundy’s board of directors obtain a fairness opinion from an independent investment bank?
What did the independent fairness show?
Did the board of directors engage other potential suitors?

Roundy’s merger or takeover shareholder lawsuit investigation

State security laws provide shareholders a no cost means to question a proposed sale of a publicly traded company. This review process is deemed a shareholder class action and affords at times shareholders an avenue to investigate fully the proposed transaction. At minimum, this process often obtains answers to the above questions. If you own the common stock of Roundy’s and if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please fill out the contact form on this web page.

RealD, Inc. (RLD) Merger Review

RealD, Inc. (RLD) announced it has entered into a definitive agreement with Rizvi Traverse Management for $11.00 per share in cash.

RealD, Inc. shareholders are entitled to answers to important questions regarding the proposed merger

Does the merger agreement contain unfair termination provisions? RealD’s shareholders will receive only $11.00 in cash for each share of stock they own.
Does the merger agreement place perhaps an undue burden on the board of directors relating to subsequent offers from third parties?
Did the RealD’s board of directors obtain a fairness opinion from an independent investment bank?
What did the independent fairness show?
Did the board of directors engage other potential suitors?

RealD’s merger or takeover shareholder lawsuit investigation

State security laws provide shareholders a no cost means to question a proposed sale of a publicly traded company. This review process is deemed a shareholder class action and affords at times shareholders an avenue to investigate fully the proposed transaction. At minimum, this process often obtains answers to the above questions. If you own the common stock of RealD, Inc. and if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please fill out the contact form on this web page.

Plum Creek Timber (PCL) Merger Review

Plum Creek Timber (PCL) announced it has entered into a definitive agreement with Weyerhaeuser Company for 1.60 shares of Weyerhaeuser stock per share of PCL common stock relating to the buyout.

Plum Creek Timber shareholders are entitled to answers to important questions regarding the proposed merger

Does the merger agreement contain unfair termination provisions? Plum Creek Timber’s shareholders will receive only 1.6 Weyerhaeuser share for each PCL share of stock they own.
Does the merger agreement place perhaps an undue burden on the board of directors relating to subsequent offers from third parties?
Did the Plum Creek Timber’s board of directors obtain a fairness opinion from an independent investment bank?
What did the independent fairness show?
Did the board of directors engage other potential suitors?

Plum Creek Timber’s merger or takeover shareholder lawsuit investigation

State security laws provide shareholders a no cost means to question a proposed sale of a publicly traded company. This review process is deemed a shareholder class action and affords at times shareholders an avenue to investigate fully the proposed transaction. At minimum, this process often obtains answers to the above questions. If you own the common stock of Plum Creek Timber and if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please fill out the contact form on this web page.

Troy-Bilt Pressure Washer Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

This purpose of this investigation is to explore the possibility of initiating a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers whose Troy-Bilt pressure washers have exhibited serious stalling and other problems which may point to a design and/or manufacturing defect. When they function properly, power washers can prove far superior to the typical garden hose when a dose of strong pressure is required to get a wide range of household jobs done right. From blasting dirt and grime from a backyard deck to stripping paint from the side of a house, a pressure washer can be a savvy do-it-yourselfer’s best friend. Unfortunately, some power washers are currently under fire for failing to work as advertised or designed.

At issue are several models of Troy-Bilt pressure washers which have been the subject of increasing numbers of consumer complaints concerning the machines’ propensity not to start when first engaged and also to lose pressure while in use. It is suspected that the problems may be arising due to issues with the Briggs and Stratton motors within these particular power washers. Attorneys who are exploring the circumstances surrounding these failures believe that the plastic materials used to fabricate certain motor components may result in engine breakdowns within the initial 15-20 hours of operation.

Sudden drops in pressure, lack of water flow and stalling of the machines are a few of the troubling scenarios included in consumer complaints thus far. In addition, other owners of these power washers have found that if their machine is allowed to sit idle for a period of time, its carburetor becomes so clogged that their equipment will not start at all. Complaints have been stacking up on a number of online forums, on which owners of these power washers have detailed their seemingly futile attempts to restore their machines to full function. Some of the techniques they have tried, to little effect, include:

Replacing the machine’s plug and air filter
Checking oil level
Spraying engine starting fluid into the carburetor
Topping off gas

Now that the number of complaints about Troy-Bilt power washers is continuing to grow, attorneys are reviewing the potential for filing a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of those who have purchased the machines and encountered the aforementioned issues with their operation. If it is ultimately determined that a class action lawsuit is indeed viable, owners of these power washers may be able to secure a refund for the purchase price paid as well as payment for any repair work that has been required along the way.

Under-Sink Water Filter Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

This investigation is intended to explore the possibility of filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers who have purchased under-sink water filters which may be defective, causing them to crack, lose their seal and produce serious flooding and damage to property. When functioning properly, an under-sink water filter can be an effective way to ensure the quality and healthfulness of a household’s drinking water supply. These filters make use of disposable cartridges which work to eliminate impurities from water prior to it reaching the tap. There are numerous designs available, and filters of this type are made by a number of different manufacturers.

Unfortunately, increasing numbers of reports have surfaced in which filters of this type develop serious cracks which produce leaking, dripping as well as substantial flooding of interior spaces. Attorneys who are looking into the concerns suspect that some of the filters at issue have been fabricated pursuant to a design which permits an uneven distribution of stress to fall on polymer components meant to keep the filters in their proper place. It is further thought that the root of the problem lies with the fact that certain manufacturers have not come into alignment with industry-wide standards regarding the proper amount of talc to include in these devices. Talc bolsters the strength of these types of filers and if present in appropriate amounts, it can stop the sort of cracking being exhibited by plastic filter components.

However, when cracking or “creeping” occurs, these under-sink filters can become distorted in their shape, compromising their ability to remain watertight. Once this begins to happen, the devices fail and costly flooding events can take place, resulting in severe water damage to the surrounding area. Consumer complaints have revealed filter failures beginning after just a few months of use, with some comments making specific criticism of the seemingly cheap plastic parts which would quite clearly be required to bear a significant load based on the filter’s design.

While the precise number of consumers affected by the potential defects in these filters remains to be determined, attorneys are hoping more owners of these products will come forward to report their experiences and problems. A complete list of problematic makes and models has yet to be assembled, though companies known to have manufactured filters of this kind include:

General Appliance
Wood Brothers
Whirlpool
Aquasana
General Electric
Emerson Electric
Culligan International
Cuno
Omnipure Filter Company
Clearbrook

The investigation into widespread failure of the types of filters described above remains ongoing. Individual consumers who have had problems related to their use of an under-sink filter may be able to secure financial compensation if a class action lawsuit is ultimately initiated.

Ford F-150 Leaking Sunroof, Moonroof, and Rear Window Investigation

This investigation is looking into allegations that the sunroofs, moonroofs, and rear windows of Ford F-150 trucks leak, potentially causing damage to truck interiors.

In July 2012, CBS46 WGCL Atlanta did a story about a man named Mark Mathis who washed his new Ford F-150 truck three days after buying it, then noticed that his leather seats were wet. Realizing that there was a leak in the rear sliding window, he took it back to the dealer. However, his repair report read, “[T]his is deemed normal by the manufacturer and no repair attempt was made.” Ford Motor Company later told CBS that the leak was not normal and worked with the dealer to remedy the situation, but CBS later learned that other customers have complained of leaks into the cab of their F-150s as well.

Since then, many more reports have been posted on numerous websites complaining of leaking sunroofs, moonroofs, and rear windows. The following are excerpts from these postings:

“I have a 2010 F150 King ranch with 2,500 miles. At 1,000 miles I took it back to the dealer after I went through a car wash and water dripped on the console and myself.…”

“We’ve got a roof leak in ours as well – ’14 Lariat with 502A package that comes with a moonroof and less than 3k miles. In our pitched driveway, it leaked pretty bad in the rear following down the rear seatbelts and left quite a stain on the headliner. I doublechecked the roof and it was closed tight – we haven’t used the roof other than opening the visor to let some light in. Just venting, but I’m so frustrated with the (initial) quality and now the dealer experience… Ugggh.”

“Every time it rained, the rear window leaked and it was starting to smell pretty moldy.… I was amazed that there are so many postings by truck owners who have had this same leak problem, yet, none of the various shops (including the dealer) showed any indication of ever having heard of this problem.”

“Had a hard rain the other day here, went to work next morning and parked my truck in garage as would be away overnight, came back and opened the door and could smell moldy wet smell in truck.. look and rear seat, top of seat and above the window (rear) fabric has water stains…looks to be coming in from the passenger rear somewhere. Did some research and seems that Ford has acknowledged this problem, but wont do a damn thing. …”

“The leak that occurs is at the corners on both sides in the rear seating area starting at the ceiling. this is ruining the upholstery on the ceiling and leaking down toward the headrest area. What a mess….”

This investigation is looking into the sunroofs, moonroofs, and rear windows on Ford F-150 trucks to determine if they are defective.

Health Club Billing & Cancellation Investigation

This class action investigation focuses on the sales and billing practices of health clubs, gyms, and fitness studios, including the following practices:

When you buy a package of fitness classes (for example, yoga, spin, barre, pilates, crossfit, HIIT classes) at a discounted rate, the package expires within a few months.

When you sign up for a gym membership, the gym fails to disclose the early termination fee.

When you cancel a gym membership, the cancelation fee is excessive in comparison to your monthly dues.

When you sign up for a gym membership, the club tells you that you can cancel your contract for a number of reasons, such as losing a job, becoming disabled, or moving 25 miles away from a club. However, the sales representative does not tell you that the club requires you to give at least 30 days notice before canceling your membership and that the gym will continue to charge you monthly dues even after you have canceled the membership.

When you sign up for a gym membership, the sales representative tells you that you can cancel your contract anytime, but does not tell you that you must give at least 30 days notice before canceling your membership and that the gym will continue to charge you monthly dues even after you have canceled the membership.

When you sign up for a gym membership, the membership agreement fails to inform you of your rights under state law to cancel the contract.

Depending on the state in which you live or workout, these practices may be illegal, unfair, and fraudulent and may be suitable for a class action.

Johnson Health Tech Matrix Fitness Trainer Investigation

This investigation focuses on the safety of certain fitness trainers manufactured and marketed by Johnson Health Tech after the company entered into a $3 million civil penalty agreement with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in response to multiple product reports of machine fires or other defects.

Overview of Johnson Health Tech Trainer Investigation

Following Johnson Health’s August 2015 settlement of multiple product safety complaints with the CPSC, an investigation into two elliptical trainers sold by Johnson Health Tech North America Inc. (Johnson Health), the Wisconsin based subsidiary of Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd, of Taiwan, has been initiated.

The agreement settles charges that Johnson Health knowingly failed to immediately report to the CPSC a defect and an unreasonable risk of serious injury with their Matrix Fitness Ascent Trainers and Matrix Fitness Elliptical Trainers. These exercise machines defect involved a build-up of moisture in the power sockets of the units from perspiration or cleaning liquids, which caused the machines to short circuit. Between March 2012 and October 2013, Johnson Health received multiple reports of smoking, sparking or melted power components as well as reports of trainer fires. Although Johnson Health redesigned two elements of the machines to remedy the problem, the company failed to provide required notification of the problem to regulatory authorities within 24 hours of detection, which put users at an unreasonable risk for serious injury and/or death. Johnson recalled both trainers in January 2014, after manufacturing, importing and selling more than 3,000 units in the U.S. from September 2011 to December 2012 for prices ranging from $6,000 and $11,000 each. In addition to the $3 million civil penalty assessed to the company, the agreement terms require Johnson Health to institute a corporation wide compliance program that includes a system of internal controls and procedures to ensure compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Johnson Health has a history of CPSC enforcement issues commencing in 2004 when a $500,000 penalty was assessed for “runaway” treadmills that could suddenly accelerate to nearly 17 mph. In 2013, Johnson Health also recalled thousands of “Krankcycles” exercise bicycles for a seat defect that could detach and cause riders to fall off the machines. In 2014, the company also recalled about 1,100 strength-training towers related to a plastic connector defect that could loosen or break.

Individuals who own a Matrix Fitness Ascent Trainer or Matrix Fitness Elliptical Trainer that caught fire, melted, sparked or smoked may have a legal claim against Johnson Health.

Bottom Freezer Refrigerator Design Defect Investigation Follows Multiple Consumer Complaints of Water Leaks

This investigation involves consumer complaints regarding bottom mounted freezer leaks in a range of refrigerator models sold by several leading manufacturers.

Overview of Bottom Freezer Leaks Investigation

A multitude of complaints have been reported to refrigerator manufacturers over an extended period that allege similar bottom mounted freezer product failure. Freezers commonly have a heating element that turns on several times a day to melt any frost that has collected on the evaporator. The water that is melted off the evaporator then drains through a line and is collected in a pan on the bottom of the freezer. If the drainage line clogs, the water can back up inside the drain tube line and freeze, which blocks the water from draining. The excess water then flows over the accumulated water in the bottom of the freezer, resulting in water leaking onto the floor. A layer of ice at the bottom of the freezer can also indicate a blocked drainage tube.

Many bottom freezer refrigerator model owners have posted complaints detailing their product failure issues, such as:

“Recently water was dripping from the door.” 10/2/15

“ About 2 month age water was forming and freezing on the bottom of the freezer compartment and leaking on the floor. It appears that this is a common design flaw recognized by Maytag with an updated part available that is intended to correct this problem.” 7/21/15

“Like so many other people reviewing Maytag refrigerators with bottom freezers, I am dealing with water on the floor.” 6/25/15

“We have had nothing but problems. First it was the water leaking all over the floor.” 6/10/15

“I have had this refrigerator for less than 3 years. It recently started leaking water on the floor and all over the bottom of the freezer.” 6/7/15

Refrigerator Brands Included in Investigation

Refrigerator manufacturers that are currently being investigated for faulty bottom freezer design include:

Amana
Kenmore (several leading brands sold under this name)
Jenn-Air
KitchenAid
Maytag
Whirlpool

Owners of bottom freezer design refrigerators who have experienced water leaks from their freezer that required product repair may have a claim against the manufacturer.

Hyundai Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata Models Defective Body Paint Investigation

This investigation seeks to identify Hyundai owners whose automobiles have experienced body paint peeling and cracking issues.

Hyundai Corporation is Korea’s leading trading entity, providing a wide variety of export and import services, including marine vessels, plants and machinery, automobiles, steel and chemical products, electrical systems, renewable energy products and general commodities.

Overview of Hyundai Automobile Body Paint Investigation

Many Hyundai owners have complained of significant body paint defects. The complaints typically detail cracks to the paint on the vehicles that progress to bubbling, peeling and, in some cases, the body paint eventually completely delaminating from the cars. The vehicles reported to experience body paint defects are the Hyundai Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata models.

According to the owners who have complaints about their Hyundai, repair shops often advise them that the paint, as well as the paint process used by Hyundai, was flawed. Sample complaints include:

“I have a 2009 Hyundai Sonata. It has about 140,000 miles on it and is admittedly well outside of any warranty. However, I believe this case requires an exception. About a year ago, the paint started chipping off my car. Not little scratches but fairly large spots. I contacted Hyundai who said it was outside the warranty, and I let it go. Last Saturday, during a hard rain, the paint literally fell off my car. My husband drove to Columbus that day, and when he arrived, the paint had vanished from the entire roof. Patches came off of the hood as well. And the trunk is beginning to peel. I am told this is a delamination issue related to metal paint preparation.” 6/26/15

“I have a paint problem on a new 2103 Sonata Hybrid. I have owned the car for 3 months and the Hyper Silver Metallic paint is defective because the paint is striped on all four doors. The dealer and the area factory rep both viewed the car in person and both agree that the problem is real.” 11/8/13

“My 2009 white Santa fe is peeling on the hood and roof. It is very extensive. Cost to fix exceeds 7000. Took it to 2 auto body shops. Both said vehicle wasn’t primed prior to painting.” 4/15

“My 2009 Sage Green Santa Fe has been peeling for a few years now. Mostly on the hood and around the windshield. The paint doesn’t stick to the primer at all.” 7/29/15

Hyundai describes changes to its paint process as follows:

We believe there’s room for innovation everywhere. Even in a paint job. We pay attention to every detail. Including the ones we can’t control, like road debris, hailstones and runaway grocery carts. That’s why we’ve developed a revolutionary new paint process that protects against corrosion, rust and scratches. We dip all our cars in an ecoat bath that prevents corrosion and provides 100% coverage. Then we use an elastic chemical compound called Scratch Recovery Clear to help scratches heal. Together, they do a better job of protecting your vehicle, making for one of the highest quality paint jobs in the industry.

Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata owners with complaints regarding defects in the body paint on their autos may have a legal claim against the Hyundai Corp.