Jump to content

FREE $25.00 or $50.00 in Tuna


Jimmy Hoffa
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 4 months later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Here is why we haven't received the cash or tuna.

 

 federal judge on Friday refused to grant final approval to a $12 million class action settlement over allegations that StarKist Co. underfills its tuna cans, calling the deal unfair for consumers.

The StarKist tuna settlement was supposed to provide $8 million in cash and $4 million in vouchers redeemable for StarKist tuna products. Individual consumers could claim either a cash payment of $25 or $50 in product vouchers if they purchased 5 oz. cans of StarKist tuna between Feb. 19 2009 and Oct. 31, 2014.

Sounds reasonable, right? Well, it was not the proposed award to consumers that halted the deal, but rather what legal rights they would be giving up if they filed a claim.

In his Feb. 19 Order, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam said he denied final approval of the StarKist tuna settlement due to an amended “release of claims” that was entered after he preliminarily approved the deal and after class notice was distributed.

The original notice informed Class Members that by submitting a Claim Form, Class Members would give up rights to sue StarKist on “the same legal claims” in this lawsuit, which would be the alleged underfilling of tuna cans.

The amended release, however, specified new claims under federal and state antitrust laws — even though consumers never accused StarKist of conspiring with competitors to underfill its cans.

“The amended release does not track the breadth of allegations in the complaint, instead releasing claims under antitrust laws mentioned nowhere in the complaint,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “That the underlying fact of underfilling could play some part in both this lawsuit and a possible future antitrust action does not compel the conclusion that the two actions are based on an identical factual predicate.”

Gilliam said the amended deal not only too broadly released StarKist from future claims, but also failed to notify Class Members.

“Having not received the amended release, potential Class Members did not have any notice of the rights they are actually giving up with regard to these new claims,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “Under these circumstances, a change in the scope of the settlement’s release constitutes a substantive change in the settlement’s terms and is a change that affects class members’ rights under the agreement. Given that class members did not receive notice of the amended release, the parties cannot establish that Class Members have been informed of the consequences of remaining in the class or opting out.”

Gilliam said that in light of these reservations (all of which were raised by objectors), he could not conclude that the StarKist tuna settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • 5 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...