Turn your settlements into cash now! Each day your clients don’t sign the releases is costing you money.  You worked so hard to get a settlement and now the clients are not responding?  You are there to give them money, and after advancing your money, your time, your extreme effort, they are not responding?

If you were to factor that money because you need it to run your business, it would cost you 6%.  If, for example, you have a $200,000 settlement, for each month you don’t have the signature, then that costs you $12,000! $12,000 you don’t have to invest in other cases!  Is it worth $12,000 per month to try to do this in-house just so you can save a few hundred dollars in expenses for your client?  How many months are you going to wait?

Don’t spend more time, and most importantly, money, chasing your clients to sign the settlements.  We specialize in finding your client and obtaining the signatures on the releases.  There is a big difference between a skip trace —which means finding somebody’s address– and locating somebody to physically sign your settlement.

Just because you have the correct address and phone number does not mean the clients will call you back or answer your letters.  Let us, the experts, do that for you.  Our fees are expenses that are subtracted from the settlement; your in-house department is costing your firm.

Not only do you pay the tens if not hundreds of hours in salaries, but what takes your in-house department weeks if not months takes our firm just a few days!  That alone is thousands of dollars saved by your firm.

Many settlements like TVM are already here. Don’t let unresponsive clients cloud the happy occasion! We will find them and get them to sign the settlement letters, at no risk to you.
With a small retainer, if we don’t find them, you don’t pay.
Are you missing signed retainers? We will get them signed. Don’t give up on those clients just because they didn’t respond in time! There are tons of reasons clients may not respond:

• They are in the hospital.
• They are ill, such as suffering from a stroke.
• They passed away – (in that case, we will find the next-of-kin).
• They divorced, moved, etc.
• They cannot understand the documents.
• Their life got in the way.
  Whether it’s one client or a thousand clients, we can find them at no risk to you. With a small retainer, if they don’t sign, you don’t pay.

We track down your clients and obtain their signatures.

A group of consumers accusing a long list of baby food manufacturers like Gerber Products Co., Campbell Soup Co. and Walmart Inc. of selling baby foods containing high levels of toxic heavy metals want more than 40 similar suits coordinated in New York federal court, according to a motion filed Tuesday.

The consumers allege that they purchased baby foods — like oatmeal and rice cereals, purees and snacks — from manufacturers including Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., Hain Celestial Group Inc., Northern Castle Partners, Nurture Inc. and Plum PBC. They said they were “horrified to learn” that the companies knowingly sold products containing high levels of inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.

The companies label their food as being healthy and nutritious for babies, and not containing any harmful ingredients or chemicals, the consumers alleged.
Many of the suits rely heavily on a report issued by the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy in February that concluded seven major baby food manufacturers allow high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury to make it into finished foods.

The consumers are seeking damages and injunctive relief in their various suits, which are pending in 12 separate district courts.
The suit said by not attaching a warning label, Urban violated California’s Proposition 65 — also called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — which underwent a standards overhaul in 2018 that tightened measures and brought forth a variety of enforcement suits.

Consumer Protection Group, the entity that filed the suit, called itself a “private attorney general” opening the suit for public interest. The group said in its Wednesday complaint that the binder-style planner in question contains carcinogens Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP, and Diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, and claims the fashion company has “knowingly and intentionally” exposed consumers to these chemicals since August 2016. They asked the court to make Urban put Proposition 65 warning labels on the journal for future sales, penalize the company up to $2,500 per day for its alleged violation and make it pay the suit’s costs.

Link: https://www.law360.com/productliability/articles/1361694/urban-outfitters-knowingly-sold-toxic-journals-suit-says

Clients may be unresponsive for a variety of reasons: illness, Alzheimer’s, moving locations, multiple addresses, etc. We can find them all.
Here is an example from the recent Roundup settlements. We received this email yesterday from an unresponsive client’s daughter:

“Your attempts to reach my mother were actually {helpful} because when we finally got ahold of her, we found her care taker was neglecting her needs. (Long story here)
At any rate, we had her removed to the hospital and are now in the process of placing her in long term care.
My mother has been deemed “cognitively impaired” (pending dementia diagnosis with a neurologist).
To that end, she is not in a state of mind where she should sign any legal documents.”

The people we are looking for are ill and need help. The email above shows exactly why we are in business and what our role is.

Gaining clients is very expensive and losing them just because they are unresponsive is wasteful and painful. Don’t let them slip through your hands!
Our job is to locate your unresponsive clients and make sure you get the most return on your investment. We will locate your clients to:

1. Sign your firm’s retainers.
2. Locate non-responsive clients
3. Have them sign the release on settlements.

We persist, even in the most challenging circumstances. Here is one out of 40 cases about our difficult but successful pursuit during the 2011 Avandia settlement.

In 2011, GlaxoSmithKline set aside $3.4 billion to settle over its Type 2 diabetes drug, Avandia. Patients who took the drug blame the manufacturer for not warning them that Avandia increased the risk of heart attacks and cardiac death.

Our client, a law firm, had a portion of the settlement, but they needed at least 200 clients who were diagnosed with myocardial infarction (MI) or heart attack as a proof of use of Avandia. The firm had about 140 MI cases, so they needed a minimum of 60 people.

The law firm’s attempts of finding certain records for their cases posed a variety of different barriers: for some cases, the medical records were in, but they did not prove that the patient had MI; some cases did not have the right documents from the right health care providers; the records could not be obtained because the doctor was retired or the pharmacy permanently closed; and some clients were completely unresponsive.

Despite these barriers, were able to track down these clients and complete the required 60 people minimum, with an additional of five more people. We also finished the additional cases that proved heart related injuries (though those with other heart injuries may receive less than those with MI, the victim could still receive a handsome amount).

One of our toughest MI cases was that of Mr. Theler (name changed to protect identity) of Alabama.

According to the records, the address listed for Mr. Theler was correct, but no one responded from that address. According to a neighbor, Mr. Theler owned the house, but it had been abandoned for months. We were still unable to locate the client or any family member. We did learn that he had been married several times, but as far as we found, he did not have any children. We were able to track down his latest wife and tried to contact her, but she never returned our calls. According to her neighbors, the woman lived alone so no one could answer the calls for her.

After more research, another neighbor told us that Mr. Theler’s last wife shot him on New Year’s Eve and they last saw him riding in an ambulance. We contacted serval police personnel in that jurisdiction until we found a detective who was involved in the case and willing to talk to us. The detective gave us the name of the hospital where our subject passed away. There were two challenges presented that made this discovery a difficult one: one, the case was too recent to be in local databases; and two, it turned out the subject lived in Alabama but died at a Navy hospital in Florida.

The settlement deadline was fast approaching. The hospital was unable to give us any records and going through official channels may push us past it. We finally convinced a clerk to go through the records and give us the name of the person who signed the death certificate. We then contacted all people in Alabama and Florida with the same name as the death certificate signer.

We finally found Mr. Theler’s only next of kin! He was the son of our subject’s third wife, and our subject had adopted him more than 30 years ago! Despite this, the son had no information on any of the doctors or clinics his father may have visite throughout his life. He did, however, obtain the death certificate. According to the death certificate, his cause of death was a heart attack. This gave us the Proof of Injury, but there were no records of Avandia use. This pushed us a step back.

We were finally able to find the woman who shot him. She was not in jail because the shooting did not cause his death—it was cardiac arrest that took his life. We convinced her to give us the name of the Alabama doctor that originally prescribed Mr. Theler Avandia. We finally contacted that doctor, and with that doctor’s records, finally received a proof of use!

Not all cases are this difficult. However, we are willing to go far to get your cases settled, and this is one of many stories that illustrates our dedication.

Hundreds of attorneys and several consumer and legal advocacy organizations on Friday joined dozens of putative class members in the Roundup product liability case in urging a California federal judge not to approve a proposed $2 billion deal to settle claims that the weedkiller causes cancer, saying the “anemic” settlement benefits Monsanto and its parent company Bayer AG more than sick plaintiffs. 

The proposed $2 billion class settlement follows last June’s separate announcement that Bayer would pay $9.6 billion to resolve most of the approximately 125,000 claims in the sprawling multidistrict litigation that the chemical glyphosate in the weedkiller Roundup made by Monsanto causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. 

On Friday, 93 law firms and 167 lawyers collectively asked the court for permission to file an amici curiae brief opposing the proposed deal. Similar briefs from legal advocacy organizations Public Justice and American Association for Justice and consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen Foundation were also filed on Friday. They followed nine filings from proposed class members on Wednesday and Thursday, asking the judge not to give the deal the green light because it doesn’t benefit the landscapers, groundskeepers and homeowners who now suffer from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The 167 attorneys said the deal must be killed because it stays all litigation for four years and prohibits class members from seeking punitive damages forever but allows Monsanto to keep selling Roundup. Monsanto and Bayer assert that Roundup doesn’t cause cancer, and they have not stopped selling it. Plaintiffs want a warning label on the product about a risk of cancer, but Monsanto states the EPA has found that exposure to Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, does not cause cancer in humans and no cancer warning is appropriate.

Law360: https://www.law360.com/productliability/articles/1361861/roundup-claimants-slam-frankenstein-ian-2b-bayer-deal