Article Type: Lawsuit

CaesarStone (CSTE) Securities Fraud CLass Action Lawsuit

CaesarStone manufactures and sells engineered quartz slabs which are used for kitchen countertops, vanity tops, and backsplashes, as well as in other applications.

Shareholders allege that CaesarStone failed to disclose a series of negative news developments and in fact deliberately kept the news from them.

What investors are part of this class action? The class is currently defined as all purchasers of CaesarStone securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”). CaesarStone is based in Israel, and its shares trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “CSTE”.

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, CaesarStone made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose important negative facts, including the following:

That the cost of quartz rose by approximately 20% in 2014, while the company claimed the impact on it was just 4%.
That lab tests showed that CaesarStone’s samples contained less quartz than advertised.
That CaesarStone overstated its consolidated margins, gross margins, and EBITDA.
That CaesarStone has had a growing number of lawsuits filed against it, involving approximately 60 silicosis-related injuries or deaths among its workers and fabricators in Israel, and that Caesarstone did not disclose the extent of and risks posed by these lawsuits.
That recent OSHA warnings about silicosis may have an impact on the opening and costs of a new US facility.
That recent audit reports have revealed audit deficiencies related to revenue and inventory controls.

The above points appeared in an August 19, 2015 report by analyst firm Spruce Point Capital Management. When this information was published, CaesarStone by $3.68 or 7.6%. (ADRs function similarly to shares; they represent a simplified means for Americans to own shares in foreign companies.)

The class action claims that because of these points, CaesarStone’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading.

Procedural Status: The lawsuit was filed on August 25, 2015 and is captioned Tapia-Matos v. CaesarStone Sdot-Yam Ltd. et al. It was filed in the New York Southern District Court. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv06726. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 26, 2015. "

Whole Foods Evaporated Cane Juice Class Action Lawsuit

A class action lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2012 against the grocery chain Whole Foods Market, alleging that the upscale store violated state consumer protection laws in marketing its “365 Everyday” line of goods. The plaintiff, California resident Robert Pratt, claims the arrays of products are knowingly labeled incorrectly in order to lure the health-conscious consumer. Under the law, mislabeled products cannot be legally manufactured, advertised, distributed, held, or sold.

Whole Foods is a company that is generally known as a purveyor of healthy products. It is the largest retailer of natural and organic foods in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company has profited greatly in large part by recognizing its customers’ desire to maintain a healthy diet. The lawsuit alleges that Whole Foods Market knowingly took advantage of the public’s perception of its products as beneficial to one’s health. It has declared itself “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store” that is held to “higher food safety standards” by the consumer.

Thus, the plaintiff asserts the misleading and fraudulent claims on the “365 Everyday” products, which include Organic Chicken Broth, Organic Ketchup, Instant Oatmeal, and various sodas. The labels of all of these products list “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. Yet this substance is not juice at all. It is a misleading term for sugar, the plaintiff contends.

Under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), if one claim on a label is deemed misleading, the product must be deemed misbranded, and thus not able to be legally on the market. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges further misleading information on the “365 Everyday” line, including claims of “natural,” “all-natural,” and “naturale” goods, when artificial ingredients and chemically processed preservatives are components of the foods.

Whole Foods Evaporated Cane Juice Class Action Lawsuit

That’s How We Roll Class Action Suit

Two months after a class action suit was filed, the plaintiff dismissed the case. David Scarola of Florida had issued a class action against That’s How We Roll, LLC, of Delaware. The suit alleged that the snack company, which makes Party’Tizers™ branded chips, knowingly and falsely marketed its products as “all-natural” in violation of consumer protection laws.

That’s How We Roll products include Dippin’ Chips, which are labeled as “uniquely designed” and made with “the finest all-natural ingredients.” These ingredients include white corn, corn oil, and toasted corn germ. According to the initial suit, all of these substances are manufactured in a way that deems them unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified.

However, after the suit was filed, That’s How We Roll expressed to a Florida federal judge that the complaint should not be certified. One of their chief reasons was that Scarola’s attorney’s firm, The Law Offices of Howard W. Rubenstein PA, has been repeatedly suspended, and has filed over sixty nearly identical labeling lawsuits against food companies in California and Florida.

According to That’s How We Roll, the vagueness of the charges were also questionable. For example, the plaintiff did not define what he deemed “natural,” and what this might mean in light of the FDA’s determination that nearly all food is “genetically modified” to some degree, and that the term itself is misleading.

Additionally, That’s How We Roll contended the motion was filed with no evidence, no way to determine how damages could be proven, and no way to identify class action members. The complaint charged the plaintiff and his attorneys were not adequate.

On December 16, 2014, the final order was processed for David Scarola’s voluntary dismissal of the class action suit with prejudice, which means it is permanently shut once and for all.

BMW Defective Navigation System Malfunction Class Action

This class action alleges that the BMW Navigation System Professional installed in 2012 and 2013 BMW motor vehicles is defective, that BMW has had no fix for the problems, and that BMW concealed this information when marketing and selling the vehicles and navigation system. The lawsuit includes in its class BMW buyers and lessees in Nevada and California.

Plaintiffs claim that, among other problems, the navigation system generates incorrect directions, identifies wrong current locations and points of interest, fails to locate streets and/or addresses, directs drivers to wrong locations, provides length and unnecessary detours and routes, takes the driver in an opposite direction, and suddenly resets.

In vehicle owner manuals, BMW emphasized the reliability of the system, saying, “The navigation system can determine the precise position of the vehicle, with the aid of satellites and vehicle sensors, and can reliably guide you to every entered destination.” However, the plaintiffs claim that the company’s national technical specialists and its various divisions, including sales and after-sales service, knew that the system was defective and that it had no fix for the problems.

Also, almost immediately after the vehicles having this system were released into the market, customers began complaining about the navigation system. The complaint quotes online reviews of the new vehicles praising many features but panning the navigation system. Yet BMW did not inform consumers of the problems with it. When buyers brought their vehicles for repair of the system, BMW failed to fix the problems.

The complaint alleges that the defective navigation system is also a safety hazard. It claims that the system directs drivers to hazardous conditions, distracts or confuses them, directs them to make U-turns in traffic, or otherwise fails to work, placing them at greater risk of accidents.

Plaintiff Morris paid $1,800 for her system, but experienced problems with it the majority of times she used it. On one occasion, the BMW Navigation System led Morris to drive to a wall. Yet BMW refused her request for a refund.

Plaintiff Dutta also has experienced problems the majority of the time that he used the navigation system. On one occasion, it directed him to make a U-turn in the middle of a highway. On another, while the vehicle was sitting in the parking lot of a BMW dealer in North Carolina, Dutta and a BMW service advisor asked the navigation system to find the nearest BMW and were directed to a location in New Jersey. Dutta alleges that his inquiries to BMW have produced no satisfactory replies.

Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Lumber Liquidators knowingly sold indoor flooring that contained unlawful and dangerous amounts of formaldehyde.

According to the complaint, certain types of laminate flooring sold by the company was found to contain harmful amounts of known carcinogen, formaldehyde, a fact of which the company was well aware, despite warranting its products as “Compliant for Formaldehyde.” Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are requesting that Lumber Liquidators be required to replace contaminated flooring sold to American consumers, pay monetary damages and be subject to appropriate injunctive relief. The lawsuit alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices, false advertising and violations of several state consumer protection statutes.

Extremely popular in the home improvement and construction industries, laminate flooring usually takes the form of a fiber or resin board that is topped with a photographic applique made to resemble hardwoods. A transparent layer of protective sealant is added to increase durability. However, it has been found that many such finished products use formaldehyde-containing glue to join the layers.

According to the plaintiffs, testing at multiple laboratories revealed that Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators contained hazardous amounts of formaldehyde, a substance known to cause cancer and exacerbate other conditions such as asthma. In a particularly startling result, 30 of 31 boxes of laminate products were found to have unacceptably high levels of the substance, with certain readings being 20 times higher than is permitted to be sold.

Though the list is not intended to be exhaustive, the products included in the complaint thus far include:

8 mm Bristol County Cherry Laminate

8mm Dream Home Nirvana French Oak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Antique Bamboo Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Oceanside Plank Bamboo Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Warm Springs Chestnut Laminate

15 mm Dream Home St. James Sky Lakes Pine Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Ispiri Chimney Tops Smoked Oak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Imperial Teak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Vintner's Reserve Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Cape Doctor Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Cumberland Mountain Oak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Ispiri Americas Mission Olive Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Glacier Peak Poplar Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Golden Teak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Handscraped Imperial Teak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Handscraped Summer Retreat Teak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Sandy Hills Hickory Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensginton Manor Tanzanian Wenge Laminate

8 mm Dream Home Nirvana Royal Mahogany Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Blacksburg Barn Board Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Brazilian Koa Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. Jame Golden Acacia Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Ispiri Poplar Forest Oak Laminate

12 mm Dream Home Kensington Manor Fumed African Ironwood Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James African Mahogany Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Chimney Rock Charcoal Laminate

12 mm Dream Home St. James Nantucket Beech Laminate

Old Spice Deodorants Deceptive Packaging Class Action

This class action alleges that Proctor & Gamble violated federal and state consumer protection laws with certain of its deodorant and antiperspirant products because their packaging contained unlawful “slack fill” and was designed to hide the true amount of the product.

The products cited in this case included Gillette® Odor Shield Invisible Solid, Old Spice® High Endurance Invisible Solid, and Old Spice® Classic deodorants and antiperspirants, in various fragrances and sizes.

The plaintiffs allege that the size of the containers make it appear to a reasonable consumer that the products contained are of a more substantial size than they actually are. For example, the 2.6 ounce stick is approximately 2 1/2 inches wide and 2 3/4 inches long, while the packaging is approximately 2 1/2 inches wide and 5 1/4 inches long.

The plaintiffs claim that this packaging violates consumer protection laws at both the federal level and in all fifty states. Federal regulations say that “a food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.” It specifies that “[a] container that does not allow the consumer to fully view its contents shall be considered to be filled as to be misleading if it contains non-functional slack-fill. Slack-fill is the difference between the actual capacity of the container and the volume of product contained therein.”

The complaint includes pictures of the products beside their packaging, showing the differences in size. Through calculations of cubic volume, it alleges that the packaging for the three products contains 48%, 46%, and 36% of slack fill, respectively. It further asserts that very little of the slack fill is needed for the propel/repel mechanism that brings the product to the top of the packaging and that most of the slack fill is therefore simply deceptive.

Purina Beneful Kibble Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Purina Beneful “kibble” pet foods contain toxins harmful to dogs.

Among the most widely-sold pet foods in the country, Nestle Purina Pet Care Company's Beneful kibble dog food is now alleged to contain toxic ingredients able to cause serious harm and even death in animals. In this class action suit, pet owners whose dogs became ill or ultimately died as a result of ingesting these Purina foods are seeking compensation in the form of actual, statutory and punitive damages, restitution and equitable relief.

Plaintiff Frank Lucido alleges that three of his dogs suffered serious harm after eating Purina's Beneful kibble dog food, with his English Bulldog ultimately dying as a result. His German Shepherd and his Labrador continue to suffer from ill health and require ongoing veterinary treatment and testing.

According to the complaint, over the past four years, Purina has received thousands of online complaints about dogs having fallen ill after eating Beneful products. Common issues affecting the dogs include liver malfunction and failure, stomach and other internal bleeding events, dehydration, vomiting, diarrhea, bloat, seizures and kidney failure.

It is alleged that despite Purina's claims that its products provide dogs with “100% Complete and Balanced Nutrition,” the dog food actually contained dangerous amounts of propylene glycol, an automotive antifreeze component that is poisonous to pets as well as mycotoxins, which are harmful substances produced by fungus occurring in stored grains. Purina is accused of failing to engage in appropriate quality control and testing procedures designed to prevent such substances from making their way into pet food placed on the market for sale to consumers.

Among the Purina products included in the lawsuit are:

Purina Beneful Healthy Weight

Purina Beneful Original

Purina Beneful Incredibites

Purina Beneful Healthy Growth for Puppies

Purina Beneful Healthy Smile

Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta

Purina Beneful Healthy Radiance

Purina Beneful Playful Life

Plaintiffs are alleging that in its sale and production of Beneful pet food products, Purina breached express and implied warranties, engaged in negligent marketing and manufacturing processes, negligently misrepresented the safety of its products, violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, its Unfair Competition Law, and its False Advertising Law. The class also seeks compensation pursuant to a theory of strict products liability, citing Purina's defective design and manufacture of the products in question.

https://www.purina.com/

https://www.purina.com/products/beneful

Nordstrom Rack Stores False Discount Class Action

This class action alleges that Nordstrom Rack stores in California violate state laws by offering goods at prices they claim are “discounts” to regular retail prices, when in fact the goods were never offered for sale at those prices.

Nordstrom is an upscale American retailer that sells clothing, shoes, and other items. The Nordstrom Rack website describes Nordstrom Rack as “the offprice retail division of Nordstrom Inc.”

Tags on items sold at Nordstrom Rack may show two prices. The “Compare At” price is purported to be the original price at which the product was offered. Below that is the current price, with the percentage of discount from the Compare At price. The plaintiff alleges that customers therefore have the impression that they are buying items that were formerly for sale in Nordstrom’s main line stores, and that they are getting a bargain in proportion to discount shown.

However, the plaintiff alleges, many of the items in Nordstrom Rack stores were never offered for sale in Nordstrom’s main line stores or at the Compare At price. In fact, the plaintiff claims that some of the items were made exclusively for sale at Nordstrom Rack and other outlets. He claims that these products were always intended to be sold at lower prices and that they were typically of lower quality than the products in Nordstrom’s main line stores.

Federal regulations say this about items offered at reduced prices: “If the former price is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered … the bargain being advertised is a true one. If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious … the “bargain” being advertised is a false one; the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects.”

California also prohibits “discounts” based on false former prices. In addition, it requires that the former price be the prevailing market price in the preceding three months.

The plaintiff therefore alleges that Nordstrom Rack has violated federal and California consumer protection laws.

Defective Atlas Chalet Shingles Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that Atlas designed, made, and sold defective shingles for many years in many states, and that even though it was made aware of the defects in the shingles, it did nothing to correct them or to inform prospective customers about them.

The shingles were sold to builders, contractors, and suppliers who installed them in homes and other buildings. In product brochures, marketing materials, and product labels, Atlas claimed that the shingles met building codes and other industry standards. It offered a thirty-year warranty to homeowners on whose buildings the shingles were installed.

Atlas claims to be “an industry leader with 17 plants in North America and worldwide product distribution” and says that its roofing products “are designed to give our customers value, design and long lasting quality.”

However, the plaintiffs, residents of Alabama, believe that the shingles did not conform to Alabama building codes or industry standards.

They allege that the shingles were designed and made in a way that allows moisture to enter the shingle, where it creates a gas bubble. This bubble expands in sunlight and permits blistering and cracking, which cause early granule loss, more moisture absorption, and a shorter useful life for the shingles. The shingles must then be replaced sooner than usual. Also, the plaintiffs claim that the shingles’ early failure causes damage to the underlying structures and other property and permits water leaks.

Atlas claims that its shingles will last for thirty years, and that if they don’t, it will remedy the situation. However, the plaintiffs say that their shingles began to fail after only several years’ use. (Their home was built in 2004, and the complaint was filed in 2014.)

The plaintiffs believe that Atlas has received many complaints similar to theirs and that Atlas has rejected some and settled others in a way that does not meet the terms of its warranty and that does not cover the cost of replacing the shingles. The plaintiffs allege that when they submitted their warranty claim to Atlas, it required that they submit shingle samples and documentation that was burdensome or unavailable. They also say that Atlas claimed the shingles were not defective and blamed the problems on weather damage or the installation.

The plaintiffs claim that they must replace the shingles now to prevent any further damage to their homes’ structures or interiors, but that Atlas’s warranties aren’t adequate to the expense.