Current Events in April 2010

The move to pass the automotive "Right to Repair" bill has picked up another powerful Senate sponsor -- Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

"We want to thank Sen. Dodd for supporting this very important piece of pro-consumer and pro-small business legislation," said Kathleen Schmatz, president and CEO of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, which is championing the measure.

The Right to Repair Bill would require carmakers to provide independent repair shops with the same access to the same safety alerts, technical service bulletins, diagnostic tools and repair information they provide to their dealer network.

The sponsors say the bill protects motoring consumers from a "growing and potentially hazardous vehicle repair monopoly" by requiring that car companies provide full access at a reasonable cost to all service information, tools and safety-related bulletins needed to repair motor vehicles, thus leveling the competitive playing field between dealerships and independent repair shops. They say consumers would benefit because in many cases, independent repair shops provide service at a lower cost than dealerships.

The measure currently has bipartisan support.

"The Right to Repair Act does not cost taxpayers money, does not create a new agency and, more importantly, does not ask taxpayers for a bailout," said Ray Pohlman, president of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality. "This bill keeps motorists in the driver's seat by making sure that they, and not the vehicle manufacturers, have the final say on where a car is taken for service."

'Solution in search of a problem'

Some other automotive groups have a decidedly different view, with one calling the bill "a solution in search of a problem."

"Automakers already provide affordable access to the necessary information to diagnose and service vehicles," said Ron Pyle, president of the Automotive Service Association, a group representing automotive service businesses. "All automakers maintain service information websites and make factory scan tools available to the independent repair community. The information is the same as that provided to franchised dealers and the tools are capable of performing the same functions. By investing in proper equipment and training and subscribing to service information providers, repair shops can gain access to everything they need to repair a motor vehicle of any make or model."

Automakers don't support the legislation either. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says proponents have been pushing for the legislation at both the federal and state levels for nearly a decade.

"The U.S. Congress and all other state legislators have consistently rejected their claims," Alliance President and CEO Dave McCurdy said. "No state has ever adopted the so-called 'Right to Repair' legislation."

The House version of the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act (HR 2057) was introduced by Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and George Miller (D-CA) and currently has 61 cosponsors.

Hanni, Executive Director of FlyersRights.org, said the app will empower passengers by providing real time data on the status of their flights via GPS.

But there's just one problem. You aren't allowed to turn on your cell phone while in flight. The app is also available for PCs, but unless you flight happens to offer WiFi, you won't have a way to access the information when you need it most.

"It is essential that airline passengers are empowered with the latest applications and in-flight technology to ensure that the airlines are accountable and full compliance with the new 3 Hour Tarmac Rule, going into effect today at the Department of Transportation," said Hanni. "Passengers in the U.S. should be allowed to avail themselves of in-flight connectivity and technology to capture, record, and transmit information vital to the enforcement of their new rights."

With the new application, available on FlyersRights.org , the GPS component of the iPhone will be able to pinpoint a passenger's location and the passenger will confirm location.

The passenger will be able to input their airline and flight information into a centralized database and update their status in terms of delays or cancellations while in flight. Passengers also will be able to take photos, video and audio recordings and attach them to the record in real time.

Ban remains in House version of bill

The House of Representatives version of the FAA bill, passed last year, contains language that would ban the use of cellular communications and VoIP on commercial aircraft in U.S. airspace. The recently passed Senate version of the FAA legislation contains no ban. Currently, 20 international air carriers, flying to 72 nations around the world are equipped with in-flight cellular service -- with over 2.3 million passengers a month flying on aircraft with the service. Hanni thinks the U.S. should follow their example.

"The enforcement and protection of rights of people around the globe have become increasingly dependent upon the transmission of data and images in real time thanks to cellular technology," Hanni said. "Rather than ban it outright, Congress should allow the FAA and the FCC to evaluate the use of in-flight voice service and connectivity as a valuable tool for passengers in the U.S. taking into account potential benefits to consumers and the real world experience of its deployment throughout the rest of the world."

Since 2005, the FAA has been considering easing the cell phone ban. The agency told Congress five years ago that each airline would have to demonstrate conclusively that every model cell phone would present no interference on every model aircraft in use.

A New Jersey-based loan modification company has agreed to pay $10 million to settle charges that it defrauded homeowners who were behind on their mortgages. Two of the company's agents also agreed to pay damages, and will have their licenses revoked.

The payment by New Hope Property LLC stemmed from a lawsuit alleging that the company took money from struggling consumers and then failed to deliver on promises that it would help rescue their struggling mortgages. The company charged the money up front, which is illegal in New Jersey.

The company rebuffed consumers who sought refunds once they realized the company was not going to help them, and at one point tried to shut down its website, according to the suit. Additionally, the company allegedly gave consumers the false impression that it was associated with the Hope Now Alliance, the non-profit foreclosure prevention program set up by the government and certain lenders in 2007.

Under the settlement, two of New Hope's former agents agreed to pay damages and to have their mortgage solicitor's registrations revoked. Brian Mammoccio and Donna Fisher, both New Jersey residents, are on the hook for $1.2 million and $250,000, respectively. Fisher also agreed to have her lender's license revoked, and both are barred from ever again applying for any license from the Department of Banking.

The office of New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow, which brought the suit, said in a statement that New Hope defrauded "thousands of victims nationwide." Dow framed the settlement as a warning shot aimed at other fraudulent loan modification companies.

"This is an important outcome, one that should send a clear message to anyone who may be tempted to seek profit in the financial misery of others during these tough times," Dow said. "This company, and these individuals, made money by selling false hope to trusting people during their darkest financial hour. It is appropriate that their professional licenses are revoked, and that they will never again be permitted to operate in our state."

The suit, filed in March 2009, charged New Hope with violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, state advertising regulations and the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act.

ConsumerAffairs.com has heard from scores of consumers who say they were defrauded by New Hope, several of whom lost their homes as a result. As James of New Castle, Delaware, wrote last June:

"We filed to do a loan modification to get out of a variable rate mortgage. They informed us not to make any payments and the mortgage company also said they would not accept any ... [A]fter calling for months and being told our file was under review by the mortgage company and new hope, all of a sudden I called for 2 weeks straight not getting any return calls and one day finding out they were a scam, by now our mortgage was very behind. and we are out our fee and possibly our home."

Earlier this month, ConsumerAffairs.com reported that many consumers with modified mortgage agreements are still struggling to make their payments. According to a government audit, the number of homeowners with new agreements who have again fallen behind now stands at 2,879, up from around 1,000 in January. All together, around seven million consumers are currently behind on their mortgages, according to government estimates.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against American Mortgage Consultants, its owner, Oliver Paul Maldonado, and its principal employee, Santiago Fabian Pineda, on suspicion of defrauding consumers seeking loan modifications and foreclosure relief.

According to the complaint, filed in Denver District Court, American Mortgage Consultants used deceptive advertisements to attract approximately 170 consumers to the loan modification company from January 2009 through March 2010. The company and Maldonado are suspected of using deceptive telephone marketing, direct mail, radio advertisements and Web marketing to attract consumers.

Federal connection implied

According to the complaint, Maldonado also used video of President Barack Obama and materials from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to give consumers the impression that American Mortgage Consultants was affiliated with or partnering with the federal government.

The company and its owner are suspected of charging these consumers $2,500 in upfront fees for its services, which is illegal under Colorado law. American Mortgage Consultants strands accused of doing little if anything to help its customers renegotiate or modify their home loans beyond shipping off their loan modification applications to an Ohio-based company.

"Consumers should always be suspicious of any guarantees a loan modification company makes about being able to keep you in your home or reduce your loan payments," Suthers said. "American Mortgage Consultants' activities were especially troubling because they did virtually nothing for their 'customers' beyond taking their money."

Proceed with caution

Suthers encouraged consumers facing foreclosure to obtain free help from the Colorado Foreclosure Hotline at 1-877-HOPE (4673) before hiring a company to modify your home loan. If consumers are still interested in hiring a loan modification company, Suthers encourages them to bear in mind:

• It is illegal in Colorado for a loan modification or renegotiation company to charge you an upfront fee. Loan modification companies can only charge you once their services are completed.

• Consumers should be wary of any company that tells you to stop making your loan payments or to stop working with your lender. Failing to make payments could result in a foreclosure.

• Never ignore communication from your lender at the behest of a loan modification firm. Most lenders have loan modification programs that can help you save your home. In some cases, all a borrower has to do is contact his or her lender and provide some current financial information.

• If a company promises to get rid of your debt, they are making a promise they cannot keep.

• Check out any loan modification company you are considering hiring. The Better Business Bureau maintains ratings of businesses. Any company with an "F" rating should be avoided.

Recognizing the problems foreclosure relief and loan modification scams present to consumers, the FTC is working to slam the door on these operations.

The quickest way to become disillusioned with a purchase is to base it on the seller's offer of some attractive perk. The deal hardly ever ends up being as attractive as you think it is.

A case in point is that tempting credit card offer. Consumers have begun to see solicitations from banks offering triple miles and rewards programs with airlines and hotels. How can they be doing that, you ask, since the new credit card law has severely cut into their interest income?

Exactly. The Wall Street Journal recently noted that most of these "high-perk" cards now carry an annual fee. Of course, if the card already has an annual fee, the fee on the new card is higher. For example, Barclays PLC is currently marketing a new "Visa Black" card with 24-hour concierge services. The annual fee is $495.

Keeping in mind that businesses don't become profitable by giving things away will usually help a consumer avoid a bad decision such as falling for a "free" of "trial" offer. The offer always comes with multiple strings attached and usually enrolls the consumer in an on-going "membership" program that will hit his credit or debit card each month.

Be especially leery, for example, of a company that says it will give you one of its products free because it is so confident you will like it, that you will buy more of the product.

Quick way to go out of business

No enterprise could stay in business very long doing that. Odds are they would attract only people who want something for free and have no intention of ever buying a product.

The marketer's real motive becomes apparent when you discover the product isn't really free. You are required to pay a small fee -- sometimes just $2 -- to cover shipping and handling. And of course, you must pay the small fee with your credit or debit card.

Once the company has your credit or debit card, they can place other charges on it at will, leaving it to you to dispute them. Even if they explain to you that you are enrolling in a "trial" program, they are ultimately in control because you've turned over access to your credit or bank account. If you cancel the trial in a timely manner, they can always say you didn't cancel quickly enough.

One way to test whether a product is really "free" is to tell the marketer that, instead of paying by plastic, you will send them a money order for the amount requested. No marketer would accept that, since it would prevent him or her from charging you more later on.

In the midst of a recession it's tempting to be swayed by promises of something for free, since everyone is trying to save money as much as possible. But recognizing the truth in the cliche's "there's no free lunch" and "you get what you pay for" will help you stay out of trouble.

Gansler has charged MALMILVENTURES, LLC, d/b/a Associated National Medical Academy, with unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with their offer of nursing training services to consumers.

Associated National Medical Academy offers consumers who are interested in becoming either a licensed practical nurse or a registered nurse a "10 Month Accelerated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Program" and a "12 Month Registered Nurse (RN) BSN Bridge Program."

However, according to the state's charges, Associated National Medical Academy has not obtained the necessary approvals from the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) and the Maryland State Board of Nursing to offer such services in the State of Maryland. The Division further alleges that Associated National Medical Academy's nursing programs will not qualify consumers to become licensed in Maryland as either a LPN or RN.

On June 26, 2009, the MHEC sent the company a letter directing it to "immediately cease and desist offering training in Maryland" and to refund payments that the company had collected from Maryland consumers. Despite receiving that letter, according to the charges, the company continued to offer and sell nursing programs to Maryland consumers and has not refunded any of the payments received from consumers.

"We charged this company and its owners with taking advantage of consumers looking to become licensed nurses in Maryland," Gansler said. "Consumers should always check with state licensing boards to verify licensing requirements of educational institutions prior to paying any fees up front to a training school."

Maryland's Consumer Protection Division's Statement of Charges seeks an injunction, restitution for consumers harmed by the business practices, investigation costs, and a civil penalty.

A Colorado man has been sentenced to 32 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $5 million in restitution for his role in a multi-state Ponzi scheme.

The Statewide Grand Jury indicted 31-year-old sentenced Jason T. Brooks in June 2009 on suspicion that he accepted more than $10 million from investors in Boulder, Broomfield, Larimer and Weld counties and residents in 15 states outside of Colorado as part of a Ponzi scheme.

Brooks took in the money allegedly to invest in an electronics resale business, but used new investors' money to pay "interest" to other investors. He also used the money for personal expenses, including $1.5 million for personal gambling.

"This sentence underlines not only the severity of this Ponzi scheme, but also my office's dedication to vigorously prosecute white collar crime in Colorado," said Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. "The severity of Mr. Brooks' scheme also should serve as a warning sign for Colorado consumers who might find themselves faced with unusual or strange-sounding investments."

Suthers encouraged consumers to be aware of several red flags that, according to SaveAndInvest.org and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), should tip them off that an investment opportunity could be a scam:

• Consumers should beware of investment opportunities offered for a limited time only. Legitimate investment opportunities should not require a decision in a matter of hours.

• If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is: Investments offering large returns with virtually no risk do not exist. There are no sure things in the investment world.

• If the person pitching you on an investment is unregistered with FINRA that should send up a red flag.

• When a broker or person pitching you on an investment cannot describe how a fund or investment product works, that, too, should be a warning sign. Someone selling you an investment product or opportunity should be able to give you a clear description of how it works and the associated risks.

• An investment should always have accompanying documentation. If an investment product or opportunity does not have documentation or a stock ticker symbol, it might be a scam.

We learned over the past couple of years exactly how financially devastating Ponzi schemes can be as we followed the Bernie Madoff saga, which saw investors drained of billions of dollars.

If you believe you have been defrauded in a securities scam, contact the Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (1-800-732-0330 or 202-772-9295).

A new rule takes effect Thursday that will put a halt to lengthy tarmac delays on domestic flights and provide additional consumer protections to the flying public. "Airline passengers deserve to be treated fairly," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, "and this new rule will require airlines to respect the rights of their customers."

Under the new rule, U.S. airlines operating domestic flights may not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at large and medium hub airports for more than three hours without deplaning passengers. The only exceptions are for safety or security reasons or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify -- in advance -- their own time limits for deplaning passengers, with the same exceptions applicable.

Carriers are required to provide adequate food and potable drinking water for passengers within two hours of the aircraft being delayed on the tarmac and to maintain operable lavatories and, if necessary, provide medical attention.

While some have said the new rule could lead to large increases in the number of canceled flights, the Department of Transportation (DOT) doesn't expect that to be the case. "Everyone knows the rules going in -- the passengers and the airlines," LaHood said. "We expect carriers to take steps to avoid tarmac delays and cancellations by adjusting their schedules and providing timely information to passengers. A little extra planning will minimize disruptions while ensuring that passengers are not trapped aboard airplanes indefinitely."

The rule limiting tarmac delays was adopted in response to a series of incidents in which passengers were stranded on the ground aboard aircraft for lengthy periods.

Stories of delays have taken on legendary proportions.

Bethany of Kingwood, TX, wrote ConsumerAffairs.com of being stuck on a Continental Airlines flight going from Houston to New York LaGuardia. "Because of weather problems in NYC, traffic was diverted to Dulles in Washington, D.C. Of course, the airlines assume no responsibility for weather delays; however, our plane also had mechanical difficulties. Long after other planes were back in the air, we sat first on the plane for nearly four hours and then in the terminal."

And then there was the straw that broke the camel's back.

To prevent further occurrences, the rule also:

• Prohibits the largest U.S. airlines from scheduling chronically delayed flights, subjecting those that do to DOT enforcement action for unfair and deceptive practices;

• Requires U.S. airlines to designate an airline employee to monitor the effects of flight delays and cancellations, respond in a timely and substantive fashion to consumer complaints and provide information to consumers on where to file complaints;

• Requires U.S. airlines to adopt customer service plans and audit their own compliance with their plans; and

• Prohibits U.S. airlines from retroactively applying material changes to their contracts of carriage that could have a negative impact on consumers who already have purchased tickets.

In addition, beginning at the end of July, airlines will be required to display on their website flight delay information for each domestic flight they operate.

DOT says plans further protections for air travelers in the coming months. Among the areas under consideration are relating to disclosure of baggage and other fees, and full-fare advertising.

Toyota, which has already recalled the Lexus GX 460 SUVs sold in the U.S. to fix a stability-control issue, is now recalling 50,000 2003 Toyota Sequoias to address a stability issue.

The recall comes a couple of weeks after the Lexus recall, but nearly a year and a half after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened a probe, in response to 50 complaints about unexpected braking.

Toyota says the VSC system can help control a loss of traction in turns as a result of front or rear tire slippage during cornering. In vehicles without the upgrade, the VSC system could, in limited situations, activate at low speed for a few seconds after acceleration from a stopped position and, as a result, the vehicle may not accelerate as quickly as the driver expects.

There have been no reported injuries or accidents as a result of this condition, according to Toyota.

Toyota said it instituted a running production change during the 2003 model year and published a Technical Service Bulletin to address this issue when it was first identified in fall 2003. Since that time, Toyota said it has been responding to individual owner concerns by replacing the Skid Control Engine Control Unit (ECU) in Sequoias impacted by this condition. Of the approximately 50,000 vehicles included in this recall, approximately half have already been serviced under warranty.

Investigating complaints

"Toyota is committed to investigating customer complaints more aggressively and to responding quickly to issues we identify in our vehicles," said Steve St. Angelo, Toyota chief quality officer for North America. "As a result, we are voluntarily launching this recall to ensure that as many 2003 Sequoias as possible are serviced to the full satisfaction of our customers."

Starting in late May, Toyota will begin mailing letters to all 2003 Model-Year Sequoia owners included in this recall, including owners of vehicles that have been previously serviced.

If a customer has previously paid to replace the Skid Control ECU for this specific condition prior to receiving a letter, Toyota says the customer should mail a copy of their repair order, to the following address for reimbursement consideration: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Customer Experience, WC 10, 19001 South Western Avenue, Torrance, CA 90509.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new type of medical device to treat asthma in certain adults, the first device to use radiofrequency energy as part of the therapy.

The Alair Bronchial Thermoplasty System is intended for patients ages 18 and older whose severe and persistent asthma is not well-controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonist medications.

The device is composed of a catheter with an electrode tip that delivers a form of electromagnetic energy, called radiofrequency energy, directly to the airways. A controller unit generates and controls the energy.

Inflammation causes the airways of people who have asthma to swell and narrow, making breathing difficult. The Alair system treats asthma symptoms by using radiofrequency energy to heat the lung tissue in a controlled manner, reducing the thickness of smooth muscle in the airways and improving a patient's ability to breathe. To benefit, patients will require multiple sessions targeting different areas in the lungs.

"The approval of the Alair system provides adult patients suffering from severe and persistent asthma with an additional treatment option for a disease that is often difficult to manage," said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

The FDA based its approval on data from a clinical trial of 297 patients with severe and persistent asthma. The trial showed a reduction of severe asthma attacks with use of the Alair system.

Follow-up study

The FDA is requiring a five-year post-approval study of the device to study its long-term safety and effectiveness. The device manufacturer, Asthmatx, will follow many of the patients who were enrolled in the clinical trial and enroll 300 new patients at several medical centers across the United States.

Possible side effects during the course of treatment may include asthma attacks, wheezing, chest tightness or pain, partially collapsed lung, coughing up blood, anxiety, headaches, and nausea. The Alair system is designed to reduce the number of severe asthma attacks on a long-term basis. However, there is a risk of immediate asthma attacks during the course of the treatment.

The Alair system is not for use in asthma patients with a pacemaker, internal defibrillator, or other implantable electronic device. Also, those patients with known sensitivities to lidocaine, atropine, or benzodiazepines should not use the device. Alair has not been studied for success in retreatment of the same area of the lung. Currently, patients should not be retreated with the Alair system in the same area of the lung.

The email that arrives in you inbox looks very official. It carries the familiar Yahoo! Mail logo and has a heading that warns, "Your Account Will Be Blocked."

If you're one of the millions of people who have a Yahoo! Mail account, you might be inclined to take the message seriously.

"Due to the congestion in all Yahoo! users accounts, Yahoo! would be shutting down all unused accounts," the message warns. "In order to avoid the deactivation of your account, you will have to confirm your e-mail by filling out your Login info below."

The message then asks for the user name, password, date of birth and country of residence. The request for such sensitive information, along with the not-quite-right grammar, is a tip off the very real-looking document is a fake.

"You should assume that any unsolicited message asking for your Yahoo! ID and password, security key, or other sensitive information is part of a scam to gain unauthorized access to your account," Yahoo! security told ConsumerAffairs.com in an email.

If you have already entered your information into a suspicious message, Yahoo! Security advises users to immediately change their password and update any other information you provided.

If you find that you are no longer able to access your Yahoo! Mail account, contact Yahoo! Security and select the link "I gave my password to someone and am now unable to access my account."

If scammers gain access to your mail account, they also gain access to sensitive emails that you may be keeping. By hijacking your account, they can also use it to send out millions of spam email messages.

By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com

April 28, 2010
The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the green light to a securities fraud suit alleging that Merck made misleading statements about the safety of the now-defunct arthritis drug Vioxx, causing financial harm to the company's shareholders.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood applauded the decision, which resulted from a case brought by the Public Employees Retirement System (MPERS) of Mississippi and other plaintiffs.

"Rather than rewarding defendants for concealing their wrongful conduct, the Court's decision today will help ensure that defrauded investors will get their day in court, and have their claims decided on the merits," Hood said.

Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after it was linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The suit, brought by Merck shareholders, accuses the pharmaceutical giant of making false statements suggesting that the drug was safe, setting the stage for a plunge in stock prices when it was pulled off the market. Merck shares fell 27% on the day the withdrawal was announced, and continued to decrease for several months afterwards.

The court's decision focused on whether the suit was timely filed within the statute of limitations. Most civil cases can only be brought for a certain amount of time; after that, the litigation window shuts and lawsuits are no longer an option.

The law says that shareholders have two years to bring an action alleging that they lost money due to a company's false or misleading statements. Merck initially argued that the statute of limitations had already run, pointing out that the complaint was filed in November 2003, and that the plaintiffs should have been aware of Vioxx's blooming troubles in September 2001. That was when the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first warnings that Vioxx potentially posed serious risks.

That argument held water with a federal judge in New Jersey, who dismissed the suit in 2007. But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that the two-year period begins only when the plaintiffs have actual knowledge that the company was misleading shareholders.

Court upheld Third Circuit

The Supreme Court agreed with that view, holding that the statute begins to run when the plaintiffs did in fact discover, or when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered 'the facts constituting the violation' -- whichever comes first. The court further said that the 'facts constituting the violation' include the fact of scienter, 'a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.'

Many statutes of limitations are tolled -- or stopped -- when the plaintiffs can demonstrate that the defendant fraudulently concealed the behavior for which they are being sued. Thus, for example, a medical malpractice plaintiff may be able to extend the statute of limitations if he can show that his doctor was aware of the alleged negligence and actively tried to conceal it from the patient. The elements necessary to satisfy the fraudulent concealment exception vary, and many statutes of limitations are governed by state law.

The unanimous opinion, already a rare sight, was especially remarkable given the subject matter of the case. Six of the current nine justices were appointed by Republicans, typically not viewed as a party with a special fondness for class action lawsuits.

A statement by Merck Executive Vice President and General Counsel Bruce Kuhlik describes the company as disappointed in today's decision but said it believes that the allegations in the complaint are unfounded and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

Merck has good reason to fight the suit as aggressively as possible. The company already paid nearly $5 billion into a settlement fund for patients who say they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of taking Vioxx.

Merck, the world's second-largest drug company by sales, has reported around $40 billion in revenue since last November.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is not related to reporter Jon Hood.

BRP has received three reports of projectiles flying off of the snowmobiles, including one report of a minor foot injury.

The recall involves Ski-Doo model year 2009-2010 SKANDIC SWT V-800 and model year 2010 GSX 1200, GTX 1200, MXZ 1200, and Renegade 1200 Snowmobiles. The model name and number are displayed on the engine compartment and the serial number is on the right side of the vehicle below the seat on the frame.

The snowmobiles were sold at Ski-Doo dealerships nationwide from July 2008 through February 2010 for between $8,000 and $9,000. They were made in Canada and Finland.

Consumers should stop using these snowmobiles immediately and contact their local Ski-Doo snowmobile dealer to schedule a free repair. All known owners of the recalled snowmobiles have been directly notified about this recall by mail.

For additional information, call BRP at (800) 366-6992 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firms Web site at www.brp.com.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

If you should get an email from the governor of your state, asking if you could lend him some money to help him deal with an overseas emergency, trust us, it's not really the governor sending the email.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood reports email scammers are "hijacking" email addresses of well-known public officials and using it to con consumers.

"It's not a new scam, but of course these con artists continually tweak their techniques in order to fool even the most astute consumers," Hood said. "In several recent reports, the cons have spoofed the email addresses of some of Mississippi's elected officials who reported the crime to our office. We are looking into these specific instances, but our immediate best reaction is to warn consumers that it is going on and urge them to be cautious."

In the recent reports, the spam email claims that the public official is overseas and is in need of money because the official has lost his through some sort of accident. The recipient is then instructed to send money immediately to Western Union in London.

Most disturbing, says Hood, these emails aren't being sent to people at random. They are going to people who seem to have some connection to the official, suggesting the scammer has penetrated the official's computer security.

"We are looking into it, but we do know that somehow these criminals have also accessed the official's email address book, so the victims don't necessarily consider it out of the ordinary to be receiving email correspondence from the official," said Hood.

The scam, in its traditional form is known as the "emergency scam" because the criminal always tries to use the scare of an emergency situation to force the victim to respond quickly. It has also developed the nickname of the "grandparent scam" as the cons often target grandparents while pretending to be their grandchild in the middle of a crisis, perhaps a car accident or needing bail money. The grandparent is told to act quickly and to keep the correspondence a secret.

"Everyone should look with suspicion at any unsolicited emails that seek to play on your emotions and your pocketbook," said Hood. "Always protect your personal information and keep your anti-virus software up-to-date."

The office of New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo says the dealerships, without telling customers, sold cars that had been used principally as rental vehicles. As a result, those customers will be receiving more than $100,000 in restitution.

Additionally, Cuomo's office says it reached an agreement with a now-closed Centereach dealership that failed to refund thousands of dollars in deposits for vehicles that were never ultimately sold.

In the first case, an agreement with Cuomo's office calls for JM Hyundai in New Rochelle and Legacy Infiniti of Lynbrook to refund ten percent of the purchase price to 75 customers who unknowingly bought cars that had previously been used as rental vehicles, which is a violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law.

JM Hyundai paid $90,246.40 and Legacy Infiniti paid $19,254.30 in restitution. The checks were sent to customers April 23. Additionally, the two dealerships paid penalties and costs to the state (JM Hyundai: $22,500; Legacy Infiniti: $5,000).

Cuomo's office also has reached an agreement with Centereach's now-defunct Middle Country Motors and its owner Keith Chaikin, after the dealership failed to refund thousands of dollars in deposits for vehicles that were never ultimately sold.

An investigation found that the dealer required substantial deposits from customers who sought financing. In instances where the consumer's financing was denied, the dealership illegally kept the deposits or failed to return the money in a timely manner. The dealership closed in January 2010.

The agreement requires Middle Country and Chaikin to refund deposits that have not yet been returned and pay $12,000 in penalties and costs to the state. Consumers who believe they are owed a deposit from Middle Country Motors have until May 26, 2010 to file a complaint and may do so by contacting the Attorney General's Suffolk Regional Office at 631-231-2424 or Nassau Regional Office at 516-248-3300.

"Buying a car is a major purchase and consumers should expect honesty and integrity, not fraud and deception, from these dealerships," said Cuomo.

Artificial trans fat is not dead -- not completely anyway.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the heart-stopping substance has come staggering "zombie-like out of the culinary graveyard" and points out that Bob Evans, White Castle, and Long John Silver's are all still using artificial trans fat in French fries, onion rings, hotcakes, and other foods.

The largest fast-food chains have dropped the powerful promoter of heart disease; it has been forced out of restaurants in New York City, California, and other jurisdictions; and has been increasingly hard to find in supermarkets since trans fat labeling went into effect in 2006.

But while McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Starbucks, and other big chains have phased out their use of partially hydrogenated oil (the source of artificial trans fat), CSPI says other America's chain-restaurants have yet to get the memo.

"Bob Evans, White Castle, and Long John Silver's are now the roguish outliers among the restaurant industry," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Many Americans might have thought that the era of artificial trans fat was over. At these chains, it lives tragically on." The three chains, with total sales of $3 billion a year, range between the 39th- and 51st-biggest in the country.

Trans fat promotes heart disease by raising one's LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, which clogs arteries, while lowering one's HDL, the "good" cholesterol that guards against heart attacks.

The Institute of Medicine recommends consuming as little trans fat as possible, while still eating a healthy diet, and the American Heart Association advises people to limit trans fat to no more than 2 grams per day. Since small amounts of trans fat occur naturally in milk and beef, that doesn't leave much room for trans fat from artificial sources, according to CSPI.

At Bob Evans, the fries aren't the problem; it's the pancakes: An order of Stacked & Stuffed Caramel Banana Pecan Hotcakes has seven grams of trans fat; a standard order of three unadorned Bob Evans Buttermilk Hotcakes has nine grams.

At White Castle, even Harold and Kumar might look askance at the French fries, onion chips, and onion rings, which have between two and 10 grams of trans fat per order, depending on the product and the size, says CSPI.

CSPI said it was particularly disappointed to find that trans fat still lurks at Long John Silver's. That chain, owned by Yum! Brands, the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, knows better, according to the group. KFC phased trans fat out of its fried foods in 2006, four months after CSPI filed a lawsuit against the chain. Taco Bell also phased out artificial trans fat several years ago.

Nevertheless, at LJS, battered fish and shrimp has between 2.5 and 4.5 grams of trans fat; a side order of cryptic "Crumblies" has four grams; and every single meal on the chain's Dollar Stretcher menu has artificial trans fat, ranging from the Small Golden Fries (2.5 grams) to the Two Jr. Fish and Fries (seven grams), CSPI charges.

"The FDA has all the scientific evidence and legal authority it needs to send partially hydrogenated oil to the chemical boneyard quickly and permanently, but it has failed to do so," Jacobson said. "Banning it would save thousands of lives annually."

Eight states and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits against a pair of extended auto warranty companies, alleging an array of deceptive advertising, marketing, and sales practices used to mislead consumers into purchasing motor vehicle service contracts.

The filings allege US Fidelis, formerly National Auto Warranty Service, of St. Louis, MO, and Credexx Corporation of Irvine, CA, dba Auto One Warranty Specialists (Auto One), made false and misleading statements in connection with the sale of extended auto warranty plans in violation of several state statutes, including state and federal no-call laws.

Consumers have filed hundreds of complaints against the companies, saying the consumers did not actually need the service contracts for their vehicles, the contracts did not cover needed repairs and/or that the consumers wanted to cancel their contracts but were unable to get refunds.

"These companies misled consumers by marketing and selling 'extended warranties' that were actually service contracts," Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said. "Service contracts are not warranties as defined by law and do not have to meet the same standards. Consumers spent hundreds and thousands of dollars under the false belief that they were buying comprehensive warranties, when that was not the case."

According to the lawsuits, the companies represented to consumers they were selling extended warranties to cover just about anything mechanical that can go wrong, when in fact they offered and sold service contracts covering only certain repairs. The suits also allege the companies falsely represented themselves as offering products on behalf of the manufacturer of the consumers vehicle and falsely indicated the consumers existing warranty was about to expire.

Every time a company tricks consumers into purchasing a phony product, it sheds a negative light on the business community, said Kansas Attorney General Steve Six. The Attorney Generals office is committed to protecting consumers and giving Kansans confidence in knowing they are dealing only with reputable firms. If youre breaking the law in the name of making the sale, we will come after you.

In addition to the multi-state cases, Attorney General Cordray filed a lawsuit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas charging Auto Repair Warranty, Inc. (ARW), a Cleveland-based company, with misrepresenting its products.

ARW charged consumers up to $2,500 for its service contracts, which it claimed included "bumper to bumper" coverage. But the company failed to explain that certain repairs were excluded and denied claims for repairs that should have been covered. ARW has since gone out of business, leaving consumers with service contracts that they have paid for, but which have no value.

States suing US Fidelis include Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. The attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina and Washington filed lawsuits against Auto One.

Kansas is also alleging US Fidelis and Credexx violated the Kansas No Call act with aggressive telemarketing techniques and robo-calling. In addition, the US Fidelis suit alleges US Fidelis instructed consumers to push 8 to be removed from our lists but would instead simply disconnect the call.

Violations of our No Call act demonstrate how important it is to strengthen this law, said AG Six. That is why my office introduced the Robo-Call Privacy Act this year to establish a comprehensive restriction on robo-calls in Kansas, including both commercial and political calls. Unfortunately, the Legislature has failed to act on this much needed bill.

The Attorney Generals Office is asking for restitution for all Kansas consumers, investigative fees and over $75,000.00 in civil penalties for violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The cases were filed in Shawnee County District Court. As many as nine states filed lawsuits today, and more states are expected to file in the near future.

An intramural dispute between two plaintiffs' attorneys caused a Louisiana state court to toss a $35 million settlement reached on behalf of victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, leaving some of those plaintiffs without compensation for the time being.

The unanimous decision from the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concerned the settlement of cases brought against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance. The suits accused the company of failing to cover hurricane victims settlement offers within 30 days of receiving a claim, as required by law.

According to the court, the settlement constituted an unacceptable "end-run" against a second class action, to the potential detriment of that suit's plaintiffs.

The decision grew out of an increasingly heated feud between attorneys on both cases, Orrill v. AIG and Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens. Orrill was brought on behalf of Katrina victims whose claims weren't addressed on time, while Oubre covered victims of both Katrina and Rita. The suits' overlapping class definitions mean Katrina victims could potentially take part in both.

But in October 2008, with the Oubre case set to go to trial, the Orrill plaintiffs reached an agreement with Louisiana Citizens. The settlement was approved in March 2009, and the Orrill class was expanded to include victims of both Katrina and Rita -- essentially swallowing the entire Oubre class, in effect nullifying that suit.

The Oubre lawyers, upset about having their class snatched out from under them, cried foul, and said the Orrill agreement was a raw deal. Although that settlement was nominally for $35 million, only $13 million of that amount was actually expected to be distributed to the class. Five million would go to class counsel, and the remaining $18 million would go back to Louisiana Citizens.

Despite its relatively dull factual foundation -- this is about two insurance class actions, after all -- the increasingly bitter legal standoff had a distinctly Louisiana flare, to the point that, in late 2008, a fight broke out in an Orleans Parish court.

The appeals court noted that the Orrill lawyers essentially reached a settlement for clients they never represented, since the case was originally brought only on behalf of Hurricane Katrina.

"This Court ... finds it curious that Citizens negotiated with Orrill counsel to settle all outstanding claims, when, at the time of the settlement negotiations, Orrill counsel did not represent all outstanding claimants," the court wrote.

John Wortman, Citizens' CEO, said the company is "kind of looking at our options at this time, but we'll most likely appeal."

In the meantime, the Oubre case netted a $92.8 million settlement, which works out to $5,000 per plaintiff. An appeal on that case is set for May 3.

The best advice, says the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is to just hang up, saying most of these offers are scams. And consumers are being inundated with them, according to the FTC.

In a new consumer alert, Credit Card Interest Rate Reduction Scams, the FTC says consumers have just as much clout with their credit card issuers as these companies do. It urges consumers to avoid paying middlemen, and negotiate directly with the credit card companies.

The companies behind the sales pitches claim to have special relationships with credit card issuers. They guarantee that the reduced rates they offer will save you thousands of dollars in interest and finance charges, and will allow you to pay off your credit card debt three to five times faster. They claim that the lower interest rates are available for a limited time and that you need to act now. Some even use money-back guarantees as further enticement.

The FTC says the companies behind these robocalls can't do anything for you that you can't do for yourself -- for free. You have just as much clout with your credit card issuer as these companies, and you are just as likely to get turned down for a rate reduction regardless of their promises or supposed efforts to negotiate on your behalf. Indeed, FTC investigators found that people who pay for these services don't get the touted interest rate reductions, don't save the promised amounts, don't pay off their credit card debt three to five times faster, and struggle to get refunds.

Protect Yourself

The FTC says that if you're looking to reduce the interest rate you're paying on your credit card purchases, your best bet is to handle it yourself for free: call the customer service phone number on the back of your credit card and ask for a reduced rate. Be calm, patient and persistent. And if you are tempted by the promises in a rate reduction robocall, the FTC says hold off -- and hang up.