Class Action Filed Against German Automakers Alleging Decades-Long Collusion
BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION
By now the Volkswagen emissions scandal is old news, but a putative class action has been brought against German automotive manufacturers alleging a two-decade long conspiracy to collude on dozens of technology-related matters, ultimately resulting in consumers in the Commonwealth paying inflated prices on vehicles purchased or leased from the defendants. The Defendants include the manufacturers of Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Bentley, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz vehicles. (In case you were wondering how Bentley made the list, it is a Volkswagen subsidiary), The complaint follows a report in the German publication Der Spiegel finding that German automakers had formed a secret cartel over 20 years ago, and have since then met and conspired to fix prices through "at least 60 working groups, and thousands of meetings, involving more than 200 employees."
Suit Filed Seeking Declaration of Coverage of Claim for Spoiled Applesauce
BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION
Scholle IPN, which manufactures packaging components for food and beverage items, is seeking a declaratory judgment against several insurers who provided commercial liability insurance coverage from October 2014 until October 2015. The policies includes coverage for property damage. Just in time for apple-picking season, Scholle asks for a declaration that the insurers are obligated to provide it with coverage for a $45 million claim made in international arbitration by Materne North America Corporation that spout/cap fitments Scholle supplied it with were the source of mold contamination in its GoGo squeeZ® squeezable applesauce pouches.
Provider of Drug Tests Seeks Declaration It Is Not Obligated to Indemnify Boston in Defense of Drug Testing Case Filed in 2005
BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION
Psychmedics Corp., is seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to indemnify the City of Boston or the Boston Police Department in connection with a lawsuit filed in 2005 by various police officers who were fired after testing positive for drugs on tests furnished by Psychmedics. Psychmedics developed a hair test used to test for illicit drug use, and the tests were purchased (and continue to be purchased) by the Boston Police Department. According to the complaint, the science behind the drug test has never been questioned, and any positive result is referred to a Medical Review Officer to determine if the positive test result could be the result of something other than illicit drug use. After several police officers filed suit claiming their terminations were the result of civil rights violations, the defendants requested that Psychmedics contribute financially to the defense of the action, but did not request that Psychmedics assume defense of the action. Psychmedics declined to pay costs of defense, but offered to provide scientific and legal assistance, which the defendants accepted. Psychmedics asserts that is has provided more than $1.5 million worth of such assistance, which is continuing. Now, more than a decade after the underlying actions were filed and after the City had moved for leave to file a third-complaint for indemnification or contribution that was denied, the defendants have again requested financial contribution, prompting this action.