BPA Polycarbonate Plastic

Click here for more information: www.philipsbpasettlement.com

On January 3, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for an order preliminarily approving a settlement for injunctive and monetary relief with defendant Avent America, Inc./Philips Electronics and allowing for notice to be provided to class members of the proposed settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval to this settlement on January 7, 2011, and scheduled the final approval hearing for May 2, 2011.

For more information about the proposed settlement or to view documents related to it, please view the Settlement Administrator's website at www.philipsbpasettlement.com. You may also contact the Settlement Administrator directly at: Philips BPA Product Settlement, c/o Dahl, Inc., P.O. Box 2061, 410 Central Avenue North, Faribault, MN 55201-2061, or by phone during normal business hours 1-866-730-1621 (Central Standard Time).

BPA Polycarbonate Plastic Consumer Protection Litigation

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed two class action lawsuits in 2008 on behalf of purchasers of plastic baby bottles and trainer “sippy” cups which contained the chemical bisphenol A (“BPA”) from May, 2003, through the present. A case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington was filed against Handi-Craft Company, and a related case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Avent America, Inc.,/Philips Electronics North America Corp., Gerber Products Company, Handi-Craft Company, Nalge Nunc International Corp, and Playtex Products, Inc. These cases were transferred to a Multidistrict Litigation in the Western District of Missouri, Master Case No. 08-1967-MD-W-ODS, where defendants Evenflo Company, Inc., and RC2 Corporation were also added. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith presides over the litigation and appointed Keller Rohrback to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, tested and/or sold hazardous baby products containing BPA, which is an endocrine disruptor and an estrogen receptor which has been linked to a variety of reproductive effects and other health problems in animal lab studies and in initial human studies, without disclosing the presence of BPA in these baby products to consumers, and despite the availability of safe alternative materials. On November 9, 2009, Judge Smith denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. The remaining claims in these consumer cases allege breach of warranty and unjust enrichment by defendants.

On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification against each of the defendants.