CVS

Week Adjourned: 8.11.17 – CVS, Nissan, Mesh Implants

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Drug Co-Pays too much? CVS got hit with a proposed consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week, alleging it has engaged in a massive fraudulent scheme with third parties to increase generic prescription drug costs for consumers who buy them using their insurance. The goal of the scheme is allegedly to increase profits. Of course.

According to the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, CVS knowingly colludes with third-party pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to raise the prices of generic drugs, charging consumers what it calls a “co-pay.” However, a significant portion of this amount in fact goes back to PBMs. CVS also earns more money from the transaction compared to customers who don’t use insurance.

Using their leverage with pharmacies, the PBMs negotiate lower prices that the insurance companies have to pay to pharmacies, the complaint asserts. In turn, pharmacies, benefit from having enrollees in the insurance plan come to their stores to have their prescriptions filled.

According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, “when customers go to CVS to fill their prescription, they assume they should use insurance to buy their drugs. In fact, pharmacists often insist on getting customers’ insurance information, even if the customers don’t want to use it. Now we know why – pharmacies are making more money from insurance purchases than cash purchases because of the secret deals they reached with PBMs.”

The CVS pharmacy lawsuit alleges CVS engages in is a two-pronged drug pricing scheme and has done since at least 2010. This scheme allegedly violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and federal ERISA laws.

In the first part of the scheme, customers who use their insurance to fill prescriptions at CVS are actually charged a higher price for the same medication than those who pay with cash or don’t use their insurance, according to the suit. CVS does not informs customers that they can save money by not using insurance, the complaint claims.

Megan Schultz, named plaintiff in the lawsuit, alleges she used her insurance to purchase a certain generic drug at her local CVS. Under her plan she paid $165.68, but if she had paid cash, without using her insurance, she would have paid only $92, a 45 percent difference that CVS never told her about. Seriously?

Further, the second part of the scheme involves CVS overcharging customers by collecting “co-pays” that exceed the pharmacists’ price and profit, again unbeknownst to the customer, according to the complaint. CVS gives this extra cash back to PBMs, again part of an undisclosed agreement between the PBMs and CVS, the complaint alleges.

These contracts between CVS and the PBMs are sealed from public view under strict confidentiality agreements, barring consumers from ever learning the true source of their drug cost.

Customers who used their insurance at CVS or another pharmacy to buy one of the following generic prescriptions may be affected, this list includes some but not all of the affected prescriptions: Acyclovir, Albuterol, Alprazolam, Amoxicillin, Amphetamine, Azithromycin, Cephalexin, Benzoyl Peroxide, Clindamycin, Clonazepam, Clonidine, Diazepam, Flonase, Hydrocodone, Ibuprofen, Lantus, Levocetirizi, Levofloxacin, Levothyroxine, Lexapro, Lorazepam, Oxycodone, Penicillin, Percocet, Prednisone, Restasis, Sertraline, Simvastatin, Singulair, SMZ/TMP, Tamiflu, Viagra, Vitamin D.

The lawsuit states that this hidden fraud violates federal racketing laws. The suit also brings claims of fraudulent concealment, fiduciary conflicts of interest, lack of adequate care and violations of state consumer rights laws.

Under ERISA, CVS has an obligation as a fiduciary to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,” according to the suit. Plaintiffs believe that by engaging in this alleged fraudulent scheme, CVS has failed to uphold this duty. Further, by basing its profits in this collusion with a third party, it has created a blatant conflict of interest that harmed its customers.

Top Settlements

And then there were two… It’s the scandal that keeps on giving. Nissan stepped up this week, agreeing to pay $97.7 million to settle allegations of consumer fraud regarding defective Takata Corp air bags. If this goes through, Nissan will be the fifth automaker to exit the multidistrict litigation (MDL), joining Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and BMW who have jointly ponied up $553.6 million to end their liability in the litigation.

Under the terms of the Nissan airbag deal, $87M would be set aside for the consumers’ settlement fund for reimbursement of all costs, ranging from child care payments and towing fees to lost wages. Nissan would also create a free rental vehicle program.

If the settlement does receive court approval, the only two remaining automakers named as defendants in the MDL would be Honda and Ford. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would continue to pursue their case against them.

The first consumer lawsuit was filed in 2014, alleging the Takata airbags, which contained volatile ammonium nitrate inflator, can misfire, especially in humid conditions. This sends shrapnel and fumes into the vehicle cabin at high velocity. Nissan recalled more than 52,000 vehicles as a result of the airbags. At least 11 deaths in the US are linked to the defective airbags, and Takata has faced enormous global recalls.

Under the terms of the agreement, an estimated 4.4 million Nissan vehicles will be covered. Nissan will inform the owners about the dangers of the Takata air bags and provide class members with coverage for repairs, including parts and labor. The plan also opens the possibility of a residual distribution payment of up to $500 per class member. The settlement does not involve claims of personal injury or property damage.

The case is In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:15-md-02599, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Endo seeing the end of AMS litigation… Finally, and end is in sight—at least for the litigation. This week, Endo International PLC announced that it will settle “virtually all known” AMS transvaginal mesh product liability lawsuits. This includes lawsuits in the US and internationally.

In a statement issued by the Irish-based maker of transvaginal surgical mesh, Endo stated it will end the known US claims at “reasonable values” and will make installment payments starting in the fourth quarter of 2017 and continue making payments until the end of 2019. It will set aside $775 million to cover roughly US 22,000 mesh implant claims as well as all known international mesh product liability claims and other related matters.

The company stated that it at this time it isn’t aware of any claims that won’t be covered by the $775 million.

In April 2014, Endo said that it had reached settlements with several of the remaining plaintiffs suing American Medical Systems (AMS) Inc. over allegedly harmful vaginal mesh products, resolving “substantially all” of the claims in the case without admitting any liability or fault.

Then, in March 2016, Endo said it was winding down its Astora Women’s Health unit, formerly AMS Women’s Health, to reduce the potential for product liability claims related to future mesh implants. At that time it was facing numerous lawsuits alleging health complications caused by a number of vaginal mesh devices. AMS, based in Minnesota, was a major manufacturer of transvaginal mesh medical devices, which are support systems designed to correct pelvic organ prolapse, (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 11.4.16 – GMC, CVS, Ulta

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Sierra Dim Lights. General Motors is facing a potential defective automotive class action lawsuit brought by GMC Sierra owners who allege the lack of headlight strength in their vehicles puts them at risk for accidents.

According to the GMC Sierra complaint, which GM argued to have dismissed earlier this year, the GMC Sierra owners are at a greater risk for crashes, have in some cases avoided driving at night and have paid out of their own pockets for brighter headlights.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April and since then more than 62 new complaints have been filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the Sierras. The new complaint states that the volume of the complaints as well as technical bulletins issued by GM, reflects the fact that the automaker is aware of the defective head lights and does nothing.

“This is not a case about speculative future harm or a product defect that has not yet manifested,” the vehicle owners assert. “The inadequate headlights and the dangers associated with them are causing problems right now.”

The lawsuit was brought by Armando Becerra and Guillermo Ruelas brought in October 2015, alleging GM has long known that the 2014 and 2015 GMC Sierra 1500, and the 2015 GMC Sierra 2500HD and 3500HD, have headlights that are not sufficient for their purpose.

Becerra claims that despite taking his Sierra to the dealership to fix the headlights they remain problematic. He claims he spent $400 to $500 for a new headlight assembly to improve illumination. Similar claims are made by Ruelas.

According to the complaint, GM introduced a new headlight system in 2014 that uses one bulb for both high and low beam. Despite allegedly numerous complaints online, GM expanded the new headlight system to all its Sierra models for 2015, the lawsuit notes.

The case is Becerra et al. v. General Motors LLC et al., case number 3:15-cv-02365, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Top Settlements

Check Your Pay Check! It’s all about the workers this week, particularly in California. A $3 million settlement was agreed between CVS Pharmacy Inc. and store employees this week. The employees claimed they were provided inaccurate itemized wage statements in violation of California labor law.

Brought by Willie Brown, in September 2015, the complaint alleged the health care retailer failed to list the correct amount of total hours worked by its employees in their wage statements by incorrectly including shift differential pay hours. The suit alleged CVS violated California Labor Code.

The CVS settlement, which is awaiting court approval, will cover some 7,784 potential class members who, as store employees, received a shift differential pay on a wage statement between Sept. 29, 2014, and Sept. 1, 2016.

CVS, while denying any wrongdoing, has agreed to change its policy around itemized wage statements to reflect only the regular number of total hours worked.

The case is Willie Brown v. CVS et al., case number 2:15-cv-07631 in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California.

Ulta to Pay Up for Bag Checks. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., also got hit with a preliminary unpaid wages and overtime settlement this week – to the tune of $2.7 million settlement.

The complaint was brought by story employees in California who claimed the company failed to pay them for the time it took to do required bag checks at the end of employee shifts.

The complaint was filed by former Ulta employee Sarah Moore in March 2012 on behalf of a proposed class of non-exempt Ulta employees. It alleged they were subject to required bag checks anytime they had to leave the store for a rest break, meal break or at the end of a shift. The proposed settlement includes an estimated 8,250 store employees who were considered non-exempt workers at the salon and beauty products, which operates about 69 stores in California. They would have worked at the chain from March 2, 2008, to the date the court grants preliminary approval or January 27, 2017, whichever date comes sooner.

If approved, the Ulta settlement would resolve claims brought under the California Labor Code that Ulta failed to pay overtime, compensate for all hours worked, pay wages due upon discharge or provide required meal or rest breaks to workers due to the mandatory exit inspections, also referred to as bag checks and donning and doffing.

According to court papers, some Ulta stores made employees clock out before getting their personal bags inspected. Other workers claimed the time it took to wait for a general manager to walk to the front of the store to perform the check would eat into their meal break time, which in some cases was as little as 30 minutes.

This settlement follows a $3.65 million preliminary class action settlement reached earlier this year, between Ulta and about 230 store managers in California, who alleged they were misclassified as being ineligible for overtime.

The case is Sarah Moore v. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., case number 2:12-cv-03224, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Well, that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned 10.30.15 – Amazon, Anthem Blue Cross, CVS

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Amazon not Ready for Prime Time? Amazon’s Prime Now “Instant gratification market” is great for everyone but the delivery guys, according to a lawsuit filed against the online retailer this week. Amazon got hit with a proposed employment class action lawsuit filed by drivers delivering its products, specifically, drivers delivering goods within two hours of being ordered through Amazon’s “Prime Now” app.

According to the lawsuit, the drivers have been classified by Amazon and the companies providing services to Amazon as independent contractors. Ok—who doesn’t know this one by chapter and verse….Predictably, the drivers allege that have been misclassified.

According to their lawsuit, they deliver tens of thousands of items to Amazon’s Prime Now customers based on orders placed on Amazon’s Prime Now mobile app, which is aimed at what is referred to as the “instant gratification market.” But everything has its price.

So, to cut to the chase, the Amazon Prime driver complaint, filed October 27, 2015, in Los Angeles County Superior Court names Amazon.com, Inc., Scoobeez Inc., and ABT Holdings, Inc. as defendants. The four named plaintiffs asserts that they and others similarly situated to them were hired by Scoobeez, a courier company operated by ABT Holdings, to work exclusively for Amazon.com’s Prime Now two-hour delivery service in Orange County, California.

The specific allegations are that the app suggests a $5.00 tip for drivers (which they claim they have not received in whole or in part); that the drivers receive multiple days of training in making Amazon Prime Now deliveries; that they are scheduled to work fixed shifts, arrive at a designated warehouse ahead of the shift time and check in with a dispatcher; that they are sent home if there is not enough work for them; that they cannot reject work assignments or request particular geographical areas; that they must follow specific rules or instructions and are subject to discipline or termination if they do not; that they are required to deliver packages in a set sequence determined by the defendants; that the Prime Now app generates routes and directions; that they cannot deliver packages either two minutes too early or too late; that they are required to ask customers to fill out customer surveys; that the rates are unilaterally determined by the defendants, who reserve the right to change the compensation terms at any time; and that the delivery drivers are required to use their own vehicles and pay for their own vehicle and transportation expenses.

The plaintiffs claim violation of an array of state laws governing employees, including those requiring the payment of minimum wages, overtime, reporting pay, expense reimbursement, and meal periods, all of which they claim entitlement to because they are allegedly employees and not actually independent contractors.

The case is Truong v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. BC598993 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Los Angeles County, Oct. 27, 2015).

Top Settlements

Anthem Blue Cross caught with their pants down… has agreed to an $8.3 million settlement ending a bad faith insurance class action. The settlement could affect some 50,000 California customers.

The Anthem Blue Cross settlement will resolve two lawsuits that were filed by Anthem policy holders in 2011, alleging the state’s largest for-profit health insurer increased annual deductibles and other yearly out-of-pocket costs on individual policies in the middle of the year, which was a breach of contract and represented unfair business practices.

The lawsuit states that, in the case of plaintiff Dave Jacobson, the rate hikes amounted to a yearly out-of-pocket maximum increase from $5,000 to $5,850. His annual prescription drug deductible increased to $275 from $250.

According to the terms of the settlement, Anthem Blue Cross will mail notices to affected customers and to post information about the agreement on a public website. Only consumers affected by the midyear policy changes will receive settlement checks, but all Californians enrolled in individual Anthem health plans will be subject to the agreement that prevents such cost increases in the future.

Checks will be mailed in December to 50,000 consumers. The average amount will be $167. The four named plaintiffs in the court case will receive an additional $10,000, subject to court approval. So, watch the mail folks.

A fair shake for Pharmacists… in the guise of a $7.46 million settlement recently agreed in an unpaid overtime lawsuit pending against CVS Pharmacy. The settlement will end claims made in three separate but related class action lawsuits that CVS failed to pay overtime wages; failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements; failed to pay earned wages upon discharge; conversion; and unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California labor law.

The CVS lawsuit asserts that pharmacists who work more than six days in a row are entitled to overtime pay for work beyond the sixth day, regardless of how CVS defines its work week.

The CVS settlement effects all persons who are or were employed by CVS as non-exempt pharmacists in Regions 54, 65 and/or 74 in the State of California, and who worked more than six consecutive days of work without overtime pay from October 2, 2009 through April 30, 2015 (Connell, Region 65), October 4, 2009 through April 30, 2015 (Paksy, Region 54), and October 29, 2009 through April 30, 2015 (Bystrom, Region 75).

A separate settlement was reached in a similar class action lawsuit (Rimanpreet Uppal v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.) involving California’s Region 73.

Class Members will be paid based on the number of “Compensable Workweeks” in which they worked more than six consecutive days without overtime pay.

Despite denying the allegations, CVS agreed to settle the class action lawsuits to avoid the risk and expense of proceeding to trial. KA-Ching… better to pay your staff… right? Now that’s money well spent.

Ok – That’s a wrap folks… See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.31.15 – CVS, Hip Implants, Fiat Chrysler

Top Class Action Lawsuits

How much did you Pay for Generic Drugs at CVS? There’s a potentially $65 million dollar question, which pharmacy customers of CVS Health Corporation (CVS) are looking to get answered. They filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that CVS employed a fraudulent scheme to overcharge millions of customers across the country for generic prescription drugs.

CVS is alleged to have implemented and maintained a false and deceptive pricing scheme affecting more than 400 generic drugs, forcing customers with health insurance to pay CVS copayments far higher than the usual and customary price CVS charged its cash-paying customers.

CVS generates approximately $67 billion in annual revenues from its retail pharmacy business, and plaintiffs allege that CVS’ wrongful overcharging is a significant percentage of those revenues.

According to the complaint, for seven years CVS has systematically been overcharging their insured consumers for prescriptions. The alleged scheme is especially harmful to those people with low or fixed incomes who use medications on a regular basis. Plaintiffs assert that the drug chain wrongfully has charged insured consumers inflated copayments on more than 400 generic medications, including some of the most commonly used drugs on the market today. According to the complaint, millions of people have been affected by this misconduct.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all consumers who were participants in third-party healthcare plans and who filled their prescriptions for certain generic drugs at CVS between November 2008 and the present, and paid more than prices available under the CVS Health Savings Pass program.

Top Settlements

Hip Implant Defect Award for Plaintiff. A first this week—with a jury in Los Angeles awarding $9.1 million to man who received a Durum Cup hip implant made by Zimmer. The defective products lawsuit alleged that Zimmer was aware of the design defect in its hip implant and was therefore negligent in designing it. The Durum cup implant allegedly causes bone and tissue damage that may lead to pain and replacement surgeries. This is the first such lawsuit to go against Zimmer, reportedly.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was implanted in some 13,000 patients before it was removed from the US market in 2008. Fifty-nine year old Gary Kline, from California, received the defective product in 2007 only to have it removed 15 months later. According to his lawsuit, he endured two “traumatic surgeries” in 15 months that caused scar tissue and muscle damage.

Finding in the plaintiff’s favor, the jury hearing Kline’s case found Zimmer negligent in the design of the Durom Cup and that the company failed to warn about the product’s defect.

The verdict includes about $153,000 in medical bills and $9 million in past and future non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Although Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue had denied a request for punitive damages, Kline’s lawyer said the jury awarded $3 million more than his client had asked.

Big Automotive News this Week… Fiat Chrysler is looking at ponying up a record $105 million in fines to the US government for violating laws in a series of vehicle safety recalls. Additionally, Fiat Chrysler will have to buy back 500,000 Ram pickup trucks and other vehicles in order to take them off the roads, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said.

The fines were prompted by Fiat Chrysler’s failure to act quickly enough on safety recalls. The fines are the biggest of their kind in US history.

According to media reports, owners of 1.54 million recalled older model jeeps with receive payments from the automaker. The jeeps have gas tanks behind the rear axle and are vulnerable and leak gasoline if damaged during a collision. Customers can bring them to dealers to install trailer hitches to help protect the tanks. FC is not buying back the Jeeps because it maintains those vehicles are as safe as comparable vehicles built at the time.

The NHSTA’s actions come less than a month after it held a public hearing into problems with 23 Fiat Chrysler recalls which affect over 11 million cars and trucks. At the hearing, NHTSA cited a long list of serious shortfalls, specifically, failure to notify customers of recalls; delays in making and distributing repair parts; and, in some cases, failing to come up with repairs that fix the problems. Some of the recalls date to 2013.

Ok – That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar folks!

Week Adjourned: 5.9.14 – CVS, Google, FiveFingers, Medtronic

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include CVS, Google, FiveFingersand Medtronic

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Caremark to get healthy over vitamin E advertising claims? That’s right folks, the pharmacy chain is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the labeling on the pharmacy chain’s vitamin E pills state that they have heart health benefits.

Filed by plaintiff Ronda Kauffman, on behalf a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased vitamin E pills from the major pharmacy chain, and subclasses for customers in Rhode Island and New York, the CVS/Caremark complaint alleges that the CVS labels are misleading to customers, making them think the vitamins could reduce the risk of heart disease.

“The overwhelming majority of scientific studies find no ‘heart health’ benefit to taking vitamin E supplements,” the lawsuit states. Hey – what about the placebo effect?

7,600 CVS pharmacies nationwide carried the vitamins, which retail for approximately $8 to $20 per bottle, the lawsuit states. Kaufman alleges she bought vitamin E tablets from a CVS store in New York after reading the label and lost money on the purchase, which she wouldn’t have made if not for the heart health claims.

The CVS lawsuit mentions several studies that allegedly show vitamin E provides no heart health benefits. Further, it cites data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which show heart disease to be the leading cause of death in the US.

“Defendants have preyed upon these legitimate health concerns by misrepresenting to consumers that its vitamin E products have a ‘heart health’ benefit when they do not,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit claims CVS has violated deceptive business practice laws in New York and Rhode Island.

So, it’s back to eating your veggies.

Do no evil? Isn’t that it? Well, Google Inc. is facing a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit alleging the company is trying to monopolize the search engine feature on Android smartphones and tablets in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

The Google lawsuit, Feitelson et al v. Google Inc., case number 5:14-cv-02007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that Google engages is anticompetitive behavior by allowing Android device manufacturers to preload its popular applications, such as Youtube and Google Maps, only if the companies agree to make Google’s search application the default search engine on their devices. Is that evil—or convenient?

The lawsuit states: “By way of Google’s coercive and exclusionary practice with Android OS device manufacturers … Google restrains and quashes competition for default search engine status before it even can begin. Google’s practice is a pure power play designed to maintain and extend its monopoly in handheld general search.”

Further, the plaintiffs claim that Google’s alleged conduct results in consumers overpaying for certain Android phones and tablets, as the price for the devices may have been lowered if rivals had been given a chance to compete for default search engine status, potentially by paying manufacturers.

“Such payments … would lower the bottom-line cost associated with production of the covered devices, which in turn would lead to lower consumer prices for smartphones and tablets,” the lawsuit states.

The class action seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers of Android phones and tablets made by manufacturers who have entered into an alleged agreements with Google requiring its search engine to be the default search tool on their devices. The suit seeks an injunction on these alleged practices, as well as monetary damages.

Could this end up like Microsoft?

Top Settlements

Can you sue for ugliness, too? Vibram’s set to fork over for false health claims about FiveFingers..Turns out reinventing the wheel may be costly afterall. Vibram, the maker of a glovelike running shoe that purported to have health benefits such as reducing foot injuries and strengthening foot muscles—has agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action lawsuit.

The FiveFingers lawsuit alleges the company’s health claims regarding its FiveFingers running shoes were false and misleading. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the claims were“deceptive” and stated “that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot.” The complaint also stated that the company misrepresented research on barefoot running, claiming “there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers’ claims.”

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Vibram would pay $94 per pair of shoes bought. More than two dozen models of Vibram shoes will qualify for refund.

Further, Vibram has agreed to discontinue some aspects of its advertising and marketing campaigns and, in the absence of verifiable scientific evidence, will make no other statements about the health benefits of FiveFingers.

Medtronic, the maker of a spinal bone graft product called Infuse Bone Graft, has said it will pay $22 million to settle about 1,000 lawsuits stemming from claims of adverse health outcomes related to the product and claims that the manufacturer illegally promoted the Medtronic bone product for off-label uses. Medtronic is also reportedly preparing a further $140 million to settle an even larger number of anticipated claims.

Medtronic allegedly encouraged physicians to use its Infuse bone stimulator off-label in the cervical spine, which helped generate sales of more than $3 billion for the manufacturer. As of September of 2008, about 680,000 units of Infuse Bone Grafts had been used in the US, according to Medtronic. According to a report by the Senate committee investigating the product, the company’s undisclosed manipulation of information through the medical literature included overstating its benefits and downplaying concerns about serious complications. According to MedPage Today, during the past 15 years, Medtronic has paid $210 million in royalties and other payments to a group of 13 doctors and two corporations linked to doctors. Many of the lawsuits claim that it was by paying spinal surgeons the company was able to promote the off-label use of Infuse.

According to a press release Medtronic issued Tuesday, the $22 million will resolve the claims of some 950 people. A further 750 cases brought by 1,200 people are pending across the use, and there could be another 2,600 claims yet to be brought.

Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!