Archive for the ‘News’ Category

GUIDANT CLASS ACTION

Monday, August 4th, 2008

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker is proud to announce that Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed our co-counsel group, led by Won J. Kim of Kim Orr LLP, and James Newand of Lerners LLP as lead counsel in the Canadian national class action claim. Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker are proud to be Alberta counsel for this matter and we are excited to proceed with seeking certification of a national class action comprising all persons implanted with Guidant Pace Maker and Defibrillator devices throughout Canada.

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker is proud to announce we have joined the national counsel team led by Won J. Kim of Kim Orr LLP in Toronto in the proposed national class action regarding Guidant Defibrillators.

A similar claim in the U.S. resolved on a global basis for approximately $214,000,000.00.

Should you have any inquiries with respect to Guidant Defibrillator claims please contact James Cuming of Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker.

NATIONAL MEDTRONIC CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker, and our class action partners, Kim Orr, Lerners, Rochon Genova (and others) are very, very pleased to announce that Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has declared a certified national class in the case of Peter et al v. Medtronic of Canada.

This matter will now move forward to the notice stage, and then potentially proceed to a trial on the merits of the claim.

The certification was successful in that it was determined there was an identifiable class, the class members have common issues, a national class action was the preferable procedure and, for the first time in Canadian class action jurisprudence history in a pharmaceutical action a waiver of tort was granted to the Plaintiff class. This means that if the Plaintiffs are successful in their class action they will be able to disgorge profits from the Defendant Manufacturer on the conclusion of the claim.

For further inquiries with respect to the Medtronic claim please contact James Cuming of Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker.

The July 2008 Reporter - Cuming Gillespie & Raymaker Newsletter

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008

The latest version of our firm’s newsletter - The Reporter is available here.

May 2, 2008 - Vioxx Case Update

Friday, May 2nd, 2008

The national certification hearing on Vioxx is now set for June 24-27 in Toronto, Canada.

Payday loan firms under scrutiny

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

Kelly Cryderman, Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, April 20, 2008

Minutes after paying $60 in fees for a $300 loan, Terry Hartley just shrugs.
“This one’s not bad,” Hartley, 47, says of the interest on the week-long loan. “It’s not cheap, but it’s better than some of them.”
Hartley, a courier who earns about $600 a week said he’s recently declared bankruptcy — fallout from his divorce and “wasting money.” He has a bank account, but no line of credit.
Two weeks ago, he fell behind on some bills and had to go for an advance at a payday loan company on Macleod Trail.
“You can only get half of what your paycheque is,” he said.
One week later, Hartley went back. This time to take out a loan to pay off almost all of the first loan, which he didn’t have the money to pay off.
The cost of two weeks grace: another $60.
“That’s more or less all it is — convenience,” Hartley said, shrugging once more, adding he hopes he won’t have to get a cash advance again this year.
When a borrower like Hartley takes out another loan to cover the first, with new fees, it’s termed a “rollover” in the payday loan industry. Rollovers have been banned by larger payday loan companies, as they trap some borrowers in a cycle of loans.
Alongside other provinces, the Alberta government is now grappling with rollovers and other contentious issues as it debates how to properly police the rapidly growing payday loan industry. This week will see the end of consultations on new regulations for the industry.
While there has been little attention paid by people not intimately involved, it will be no easy task for the government to come up with rules that please both businesses and consumer advocates.
Some see payday loan companies as shady exploiters of the poor and desperate, or those with bad credit. Others say they provide a much-needed service that banks and credit unions won’t touch, in part due to the high number of defaults on loans.
“The payday loan industry is one that evokes strong opinions from both sides,” said Brock Ketcham, who is leading the Alberta government’s review of the industry in the consumer services branch.
The people who use payday loans are charged $20 to $50 for every $100 they borrow to tide them over until payday. Money Mart, the Cash Store, Western Cash Mart or EZ Cash Advance and numerous others are all firms that provide small, short-term loans with high interest-rates and fees that in some instances add up to 1,000 per cent or more, if calculated on an annual basis.
Whether it be rising consumer costs or an increasingly willing attitude when it comes to taking on debt, Canadians have not shied away from using services offered by the payday loan companies
From just a handful of stores in the early 1990s, Canada now has at least 1,350 payday loan outlets, with more than 250 of those storefronts in Alberta.
“All you have to do is compare a Yellow Pages today with one three or four years ago, and you would see there’s a very significant rise in the number of outlets,” Ketcham said.
The province itself has a strong connection to the industry. The Canadian payday loan industry has its longest histories in B.C. and Alberta, and the two largest providers in the country — Money Mart and Cash Store Financial (formerly known as Rentcash Inc.) — both were founded in Edmonton.
(page 1 of 3) - full article is available here.

Excerpt posted for your convenience from Canada.com, no copyright or ownership of this article is claimed by cuminggillespie.com. The full article is available here.

March 5, 2008 - Vioxx Case Update

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

A Communication to Class Members from the National Counsel Team:

In recent days and months, there has been significant media coverage about developments in Vioxx litigation, both in Canada and in the United States and you may be confused about what these developments mean and how they affect your rights. This update aims to provide you with some explanations and assistance in understanding the current situation with Vioxx litigation in Canada.

In November, 2007, Merck & Co. announced that it had agreed conditionally to settle a significant portion of the Vioxx claims in the U.S., setting aside approximately $4.85 billion to do so. Even though those cases deal with the exact same drug as the Canadian litigation, Merck has, to date, made no effort to establish a parallel settlement for Canadian users of Vioxx and Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has publicly and repeatedly stated its intention to vigorously defend all Vioxx lawsuits in Canada.

The defendants have raised various procedural hurdles which have slowed the progress of the litigation. As a result, all Vioxx lawsuits in Canada remain in various stages of litigation. In Ontario, there is a proposed national class action which has been brought on behalf of all Canadian users of Vioxx and their family members. A consortium of 19 eminent law firms from all across Canada has come together to collectively represent Canadians in this lawsuit and advance the strongest case possible. At this stage, all Canadians who took Vioxx (and their family members) are covered by this lawsuit, whether they take any active steps to contact counsel or not.

The Ontario action was originally scheduled to proceed to its certification hearing in October, 2007. This hearing is a mandatory step in the litigation process and decides whether or not the action should be allowed to proceed as a single class action lawsuit, for the benefit of all class members. Shortly before the Ontario hearing was scheduled to proceed, the defendants sought and were granted an adjournment in order to conduct cross-examinations of various witnesses. The rescheduled hearing was set to commence on February 13, 2008, but only several days before the certification hearing, the defendants sought to have Mr. Allan Rock, Q.C., the firm of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and the National Counsel Team disqualified as a result of Mr. Rock’s previous political career, during which he served, among other things, as the federal Minister of Health. As a result of this last minute motion, the certification hearing was, once again, adjourned.

Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard the removal motion on February 15, 2008. In a decision released on February 26, 2008, his Honour decided that Mr. Rock would have no further involvement in this case; however, Sutts, Strosberg LLP and the rest of the National Counsel Team remain as counsel in this action and strongly believe that the certification hearing should be rescheduled as soon as possible, and hopefully no later than April, 2008.

On November 9, 2006, Justice Andre Denis of the Quebec Superior Court authorized a class action for Quebec residents who suffered damages caused by the use of Vioxx. That case pertains to residents of Quebec only and is also continuing to work its way through the legal system.

In further recent Canadian Vioxx news, a separate case launched in Saskatchewan was certified as a class action in a decision released on February 20, 2008. We welcome the decision of Mr. Justice John Klebuc in determining that litigation related to Vioxx is an appropriate case for certification; however, we note also that Merck has already indicated its intention to appeal that decision which will likely stay the certification decision and any related certification order. Practically speaking, this means that this case will be on hold until Merck’s appeal rights are exhausted.

We should also note that the decision allows Canadians who do not reside in Saskatchewan to participate in the class action on an “opt in” basis. If you do not reside in Saskatchewan but choose to “opt in” to this action, you may be precluded from participating in the Ontario action or be represented by the National Counsel Team. It will be very important to consider how your rights will be affected before deciding whether or not to opt in to the Saskatchewan class action. Again, in view of Merck’s intention to appeal Mr. Justice Klebuk’s decision, it is likely that this aspect of the case will be on hold pending the appeals process as well.

Because Merck has not, to date, indicated any willingness to make any settlement proposal for Canadian Vioxx users, in spite of their multi-billion dollar settlement proposal in the US, the current strategy of the National Counsel Team is to drive the Ontario litigation forward and deal with the case on the merits. The time for class members to make any necessary decisions about how to advance their individual claims will arise after these various proceedings have been finally determined following a common issues trial. It is unfortunately not possible to predict with certainty how long this process may take; however updates will be provided as they become available.

As members of the National Counsel Team, we wish to express our appreciation to all class members for their patience to date with this complex litigation and we wish to assure you all that everything is being done to ensure that you receive the justice you so rightly deserve.

Accutane National Counsel Team Expanded

Monday, February 25th, 2008

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker are very happy to announce the addition of Lerners LLP of London, Ontario to the National Class Action Team for the Accutane litigation. Lerners LLP brings a wealth of experience and talent to the class action which will be proceeding shortly through the Ontario Superior Court. James Cuming of Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker is one of the primary counsel on the national class action claim.

We will continue to keep our clients apprised as to the progress of the Accutane National Class Action which will be proceeding on Ontario.

VIOXX Claim set for Certification

Monday, February 18th, 2008

The Canadian National Class Action has been set for a Certification hearing in Ontario on February 13, and 14 2008. Lead Counsel on the matter will be Siskens LLP, Sutts Strosberg and Rochon Genova LLP, all of Ontario.

We will keep our clients apprised through the website at the determination of the certification hearing.

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker Resolve Polytrauma Case

Monday, February 11th, 2008

James D. Cuming and Craig G. Gillespie of Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker are very pleased to announce that in December, 2007, a claim for a motorcyclist who was struck by a left turning driver was resolved for a high six figure settlement. The motorcyclist suffered significant orthopedic and neurological injuries, and resolved very well from his significant injuries. Our client is currently employed with a voluntary organization and is able to assist others who have suffered significant loss and injury similar to his own. The matter was resolved through an independent mediation with the assistance of David Stark of Calgary as a mediator. We thank Mr. Stark for his commitment and involvement to the matter as well.

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker Successfully Resolve Paraplegic Claim

Monday, February 4th, 2008

Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker are proud to announce that they have successfully resolved a claim for a paraplegic woman who was struck in a crosswalk for the full insurance policy limits of the Defendant driver. The case, which was handled by James D. Cuming and Craig G. Gillespie, was resolved in 25 months from the date of the incident for the full amount of the Defendant’s insurance policy plus costs. The individual and her family were extremely happy with the expedient resolution of the claim and that level at which it resolved.