Instead of one person taking on a billion dollar business in court, class actions allow an efficient process for hundreds of individuals to have their collective voice heard. It’s the best way individuals can battle powerful companies and their powerful attorneys in a fair fight.

Unfortunately, corporate fraud sometimes goes undetected because it involves only a relatively small amount of money to any one individual. For example, if you were swindled out of $1 by a fraudulent fee, you likely wouldn’t file a lawsuit on your own. But if 5 million other people were also swindled out of the dollar it’s a way to hit the company in the pocketbook. The goal shouldn’t be to get the dollar back; it should be to make the company pay the $5 million they owe consumers to correct deceptive practices.

A class action lawsuit begins when an attorney files a case on behalf of his or her client against a company for committing alleged fraudulent acts. At first the case only involves a handful of plaintiffs, but gradually hundreds or even millions more who were harmed come forward to join the class action. When large numbers join the suit, it encourages wrongdoers to change bad behavior because it affects the company’s bottom line.

It’s important to know that class actions are not filed to get a windfall for the plaintiff. It’s about forcing a company to give up illegally earned profits or get the executives to change fraudulent practices.

Taking part in a class action is easy as filling out a form, or responding to an email. In this way it’s much like voting. One vote probably doesn’t make a difference, but if hundreds of people get together, there is an ability to effect change. An apathetic public is less likely to make a company change its behavior than one that is outraged by fraud. For a company facing a class action, silence is golden. Consumers can break the silence by joining a class action.

To learn more about class actions, visit the Baron and Budd website.

Based on data collected from January 2011 to July 2011, the United States was estimated to collect more than 1,100 tons of asbestos during the calendar year. Data for the entire year has not yet been compiled by the USGS. The 1,100 tons is an increase of 869 tons imported into the United States in 2009 and 820 tons imported in 2010.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen, but United States manufacturers continue to use the deadly mineral in more than 3,000 products, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Manufacturers use asbestos in commercial products including paper, brake linings, floor tiles, insulation and roofing materials.

Asbestos exposure is an occupational and environmental health hazard of epidemic proportions. More than 10,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases including mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer. An estimated 3,000 people are diagnosed annually with mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma develops most often in the membrane surrounding the lungs called the pleura. It can also develop around the abdomen and the heart.

Asbestos has not been mined in the United States since 2002. But foreign countries satiate demand by America’s industrial giants. Most asbestos was shipped from the Canadian mines. Other sources include Brazil and Zimbabwe.

Although the report states that the use of asbestos in 2011 and in the preceding 5 years is the lowest it has been since 1909, it is still way too much. The USGS report also estimates that the United States’ future asbestos consumption will hover around the 1,000-ton level.

According to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, a California-based nonprofit, the asbestos industry has argued that imports of asbestos are decreasing. The USGS figures contradict that claim.

ADAO president and founder, Linda Reinstein, calls on Congress and President Barack Obama to prohibit the importation of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products to protect public health. Reinstein, who lost her husband to mesothelioma, said we are unable to bring back the countless victims to asbestos exposure, but we can prevent exposure by banning asbestos for good.

Baron & Budd, a law firm founded to protect the rights of asbestos exposure victims, supports Reinstein and the ADAO. Our politicians should not wait any longer to ban asbestos. It’s harmed too many people and promises to harm many more if we allow asbestos to cross our borders.

A court decision earlier this month prohibits consumers from filing lawsuits to settle excessive fee disputes if their contracts contained an arbitration clause. Arbitration hearings are out-of-court settlements usually tipped in favor of the company, which hires its own arbiter.

Consumer watchdogs say the decision gives companies more firepower to impose unnecessary fees. And it takes away the consumer’s Constitutional right to a jury trial.

The arbitration clause will no doubt become a popular addition to every cell phone, credit card, bank and insurance contract we sign. And it’s one more way for corporations to keep the moneybags full.

Jury trials and class-action lawsuits are the only way consumers can battle America’s corporate titans in a fair fight. In arbitration, however, chopping Goliath down to David’s size is much tougher. In a jury trial, attorneys have the power to depose people under oath and obtain internal documents that can reveal fraud. Arbitration keeps this fraud hidden, away from public scrutiny, as millions of more dollars fatten the wallets of corporate executives.

Advocates of arbitration will say it’s needed to alleviate overwhelmed courts from frivolous lawsuits. If it weren’t for lawsuits corporations can get away with anything.

Take a case where Baron & Budd attorneys helped consumers collect on overdraft fees imposed by Bank of America. Our attorneys served on the plaintiffs’ steering committee in a class action lawsuit that negotiated a $410 million settlement with the bank. If it weren’t for the lawsuit Bank of America could still impose the same fees today.

Unfortunately, banks, credit card companies and cell phone carriers are getting away with similar outrageous fees. Banks have instituted fees for wire transfers and banking at tellers. Now they charge you if you want to leave. For $25, PNC bank tellers will let you close your account. That’s right, you pay them to walk away.

It became apparent that the tide began shifting against the consumer last year when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of AT&T in a class action lawsuit. In that case, Vincent and Liza Concepcion sued AT&T for deceptive advertising practices. The large cell phone carrier advertised discounted phones but charged sales tax on the full retail price. The Concepcions sued.

But AT&T’s contract called for an arbitration hearing and the Supreme Court ruled that the Concepcions had no right to file a class action.

These recent Supreme Court rulings only embolden corporations to continue taking advantage of loyal customers. Our justices need to take a stand for the consumer and put an end to the fee mongering.

Cleaning up the spill, the largest in United States history, is expected to cost about $42 billion, and the finger pointing is worthy of a sum that large.

In its latest move, London-based BP has asked a court to force its cement contractor, Halliburton, to help pay its share, claiming that Halliburton provided shoddy workmanship in capping the well with cement prior to the blowout.

Not surprisingly, Halliburton attorneys responded by reminding BP of a contract between the two companies that limits Halliburton’s liability against possible cleanup costs.

The “he did, she did” antics began almost immediately after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April 2010, and continue today, with hearings set to begin in New Orleans federal court Feb. 27.

A federal report released last fall clearly placed the blame for the blowout on several companies, including BP, which owned the well; Halliburton, for failing in its effort to divert portions of the well with cement; Transocean, which owned the rig; and Cameron International, which manufactured the blowout preventer. Yet deciding responsibility did not lead to a smooth financial resolution.

The court is expected to decide which party will compensate those affected by the spill and which companies should be held liable for the explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf.

In the meantime the responsible companies face billions of dollars more in Clean Water Act fines and civil claims, but the injured companies and residents face an even longer wait.

You’re not alone.

A class action lawsuit filed by the national firm of Baron and Budd alleges that BMW of North America knew that the transmissions installed in some Mini Cooper models were prone to premature failure. Models include the 2002 through 2006 Mini Cooper Coupes and the 2005 to 2008 Mini Cooper Convertibles. This is the first class action lawsuit filed against the company regarding this issue.

The lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, alleges that the transmission failures present a safety issue and place the vehicle’s occupants at risk of serious harm. Imagine driving down the highway and the transmission fails without warning. You lose power to the drive wheels, and you are exposed to speeding traffic as you try to find a safe place for your Mini to coast to a stop. Or, you’re in a busy intersection waiting to make a left turn. Just as the light turns yellow, you start to turn, but when you press on the gas pedal, nothing happens. Now, stranded in the middle of the intersection, you brace for impact and watch helplessly out the window as cars begin to approach from the opposite direction.

BMW Group concealed the faulty transmissions so that the warranty would expire before owners became aware of the problem, forcing them to repair the defect out of their own pocket, the suit states.

The first Generation Minis were introduced in the United States in 2002. The car had gained popularity in Britain during the 1960s for its unconventional small design. At the time of its American debut, the Mini was heralded as a stylish, affordable compact car under $20,000. An advertising blitz in America hyped the vehicle so much that BMW couldn’t keep up with demand and churned out a substandard, shoddy product, the lawsuit alleges.

The company even purchased the first-ever centerfold spread in Playboy magazine to show off the car’s beauty. A Playboy photographer was hired to show off the vehicle’s assets in the pictorial.

The beauty, however, was only skin deep. Owners of the first generation of Minis were duped into believing that their vehicles were not only beautiful but well-crafted. Instead, BMW left the owners of these faulty cars to foot the bill.

When the transmissions fail, Mini enthusiasts are required to spend $6,000 to $9,000 (a third to half of the Mini’s purchase price) to repair or replace the transmissions.

Not long after its American debut, BMW issued several technical service bulletins on the faulty transmissions. Instead of disclosing the problem to its loyal customers, BMW attempted to resolve the issue by simply replacing the transmission oil.

When more Mini owners began bringing their broken vehicles back to the dealership for service, BMW told its mechanics to only replace certain parts. The company knew about the problem, didn’t tell its customers and failed to replace shoddy workmanship that should’ve never come off the assembly line.

Contact Baron and Budd at 1.866.844.4556 or via email here to learn more about the Mini Cooper lawsuit.

"We" were attorneys and concerned staffers from Baron & Budd, construction workers, nearby residents and a representative from a union that had been hit hard by asbestos. Standing next to an apartment complex as it was being readied for demolition, we held signs, spoke to a few reporters and handed out flyers to neighbors.

But as hard as we tried, we could not stop the experimental demolition of the asbestos-filled Oak Hollow apartments on Boca Raton Boulevard. In fact, we couldn’t get most residents to come to their doors (could it have been that this experiment was carried out in a low income area and people were busy surviving?) — and we sure couldn’t get the city council to pay attention (Baron & Budd, including this writer, attended the meeting).

Of course, the party line back then was that this was a safe demolition. Never mind that this was the first actual demolition using the wet method in an urban area. All safety required was a heavy spray of water prior to demolition, then those asbestos fibers were going to miraculously dissipate without becoming airborne.

Huh?

It has been known for decades that the microscopic fibers of asbestos, if disturbed, are easily airborne and that millions of fibers exist in an area as small as a penny. That’s the reason asbestos is so dangerous – once it is inhaled or ingested, it can slip through your body’s protective systems and head straight to the lungs or stomach where it manages, over a period of decades, to do maximum damage.

We knew that back in December 2007; we fought back in 2007; the large apartment complex was demolished in 2007. And now, in 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an Early Warning Report stating that, indeed, asbestos fibers were released during the Fort Worth demolition and that public health may have been threatened.

But even this admission has not been without a fight. Public Justice, a national public advocacy group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get the underlying data about the experiments, yet the EPA did not release most of the documents — more than 26,000 pages — until after the groups sued to force disclosure.

Unfortunately, no one can undo the asbestos exposure that occurred in Fort Worth when unsuspecting people happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. There is no magic pill that erases asbestos in your body, just as there is no magic water that will cause asbestos to somehow safely dissipate.

That is why adherence to safe methods of asbestos removal is absolutely critical. And why we need to heed, once and for all, what we already know: asbestos kills.

But for the first time, a report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that may not be the case.

The report released on Dec. 8 shows that chemicals from “fracking,” the controversial process of withdrawing natural gas from the ground, have been found in a rural Wyoming aquifer. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and other chemicals into the ground to crack the shale rock that holds trapped gas inside.

“The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers … and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field,” the EPA wrote it its report.

The EPA first began investigating when in 2008 residents near Pavillion, Wyo., began complaining about bad smells and tastes in their water wells. The EPA responded by testing two wells in the Wyoming aquifer near where the natural gas drilling company Encana has drilled.

Studies found high levels of synthetic chemicals and methane and benzene levels that exceed the minimum standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Department of Health and Human Services told residents to use alternative water sources for drinking and cooking and to vent away potential chemicals when showering.

Still, a spokesman for Encana told CNNMoney that the drilling company’s fracking process is likely not responsible because the test wells were far below the depth of regular drinking water wells.

Although the latest environmental concerns about the natural gas drilling is restricted to the Wyoming aquifer, it will fuel more debate in other areas of the nation where drilling for natural gas is prevalent. In the last decade, drilling has rapidly swept across 31 states including Texas, New York and Pennsylvania.

Gas well drilling has long been suspected to pollute the air with toxic chemicals and noise and has even been linked to causing earthquakes. Studies continue to determine whether those claims are accurate.

Nevertheless, “fracking” watchdogs have taken notice of the Wyoming report and are calling on politicians and drilling companies alike to improve the situation.

Doesn’t exactly sound appetizing, does it?

Quorn has become a controversial product because it contains a microscopic fungus, called mycoprotein, known to cause violent allergic reactions, vomiting and diarrhea, according to a report by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit has asked in a letter to the FDA to either take the Quorn off the market or place a warning label on its products.

Mycoprotein, the main Quorn ingredient, is a fermented fungus mixed with vegetable flavoring, egg whites and other ingredients that is then shaped into patties and frozen.

This is the third time the nonprofit has asked the FDA to place regulations on Quorn. In 2002, CSPI asked the agency to take the product off the market. The agency even launched a website (www.quorncomplaints.com) to collect information from consumers affected by the product. In February 2002, CSPI first complained about deceptive labeling of Quorn and the inadequate testing of the fungal product.

Since CSPI launched the complaint website nearly a decade ago, it says it has collected 500 reports from Americans and 1,200 more from European and Australian consumers. Many of those complaints include claims of negative reactions including vomiting and diarrhea, fainting or blood appearing in stool, vomit, or eyes. A smaller percentage of complaints involved hives or potentially fatal allergic reactions.

A 22-year-old Massachusetts man told CSPI that he vomited several hours after eating Quorn Tenders—and eight days later after eating Quorn Nuggets. A 35-year-old Maryland woman reported severe vomiting and diarrhea several hours after eating Quorn tenders.

Quorn Foods Inc., owned by London-based Exponent Private Equity, has been sold in the United Kingdom since 1985. It launched in the United States in 2002. The company claims that it is the top selling retail brand of meat-free foods in the world.

If the FDA keeps the product on the market, CSPI said it would like the following to appear prominently on its labels:

"Warning: This product might cause severe diarrhea or vomiting, or a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction; an allergy might develop only after consuming the product several times."  

Unfortunately, Quorn isn’t the first –or only –food product that has caused adverse reactions or that hasn’t been completely honest with consumers. A surprising number of products on the shelf don’t tell the truth and are ultimately misrepresented to consumers. Some products, for example, may have promised to contain certain ingredients or that they qualify as "natural" under FDA standards –when they don’t.

Always proud to be on the cutting-edge of new and meaningful litigation that protects consumers, Baron and Budd is currently investigating numerous food products for misleading consumers.

Some of these products include:

Country of Origin Labeling and Honey:

• Market Pantry (Target’s private label brand) Pure Honey – You may have recently heard about concerns about where America’s honey comes from. Target’s Market Pantry honey says it is "grade A," a USDA quality designation, but contrary to federal laws and regulations, Target’s honey does not identify the country of origin.

Pet Products:

• Hill’s Science Diet Healthy Mobility – Hill’s claims that its Healthy Mobility dog food will treat your dog’s joint diseases and arthritis, with statements like, "improves flexibility in 30 days," "improves your dog’s mobility in just 30 days," and claims that its Healthy Mobility food provides "tested nutrition to enhance active mobility in just 30 days." The FDA recently concluded, however, that "experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of animal drugs" have not recognized the product as effective for the labeled conditions, and that as a result, the product is "unsafe" and "adulterated" under federal laws and regulations.

Kent Nutrition’s World’s Best Cat Litter – In violation of the Federal Trade Commission’s "Guides for Use of Environmental Marketing Claims", Kent Nutrition inaccurately claims that its World’s Best Cat Litter is biodegradable (without any qualification or discussion about the narrow conditions under which the product actually may be biodegradable). The Federal Trade Commission also raised concerns about the company’s claims that World’s Best Cat Litter is safe for septic systems.

Contact us at 1.866.844.4556 or via email at info@baronbudd.com to take action.

Then why are our eyes still watering?

It’s because it took nearly two years for Johnson & Johnson to react after leading health and parents’ groups asked the company to remove the chemicals 1.4-dioxane and quaternium-15. The company only made the decision after the nonprofit group Campaign for Safe Cosmetics threatened to boycott its products.

Quarternium-15 prevents products from spoiling and contamination by releasing formaldehyde to kill bacteria. The other chemical, 1.4-dioxane, is considered a likely carcinogen.

Johnson & Johnson had eliminated the chemicals in products in several other countries, including the U.K., Scandinavia and South Africa. But in the U.S. and China, the products still contain trace amounts.

Johnson & Johnson has faced similar scrutiny over its product quality the last two years, having issued two dozen product recalls. Problems included glass and metal shards found in liquid medicines; nauseating odors in product bottles; and painful, defective hip implants.

It’s scary to consider whether if the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics hadn’t released its report, Johnson & Johnson would have made the changes itself. Johnson & Johnson chief executive officer, William Weldon, said the company is already working on safer alternatives. It has requested that global suppliers limit traces of 1.4-dioxane to less than four parts per million.

The company, which also makes Band-Aids, medical devices and biologic drugs, has said formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are safe. However, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and experts say that the chemicals irritate a baby’s sensitive skin and are a health risk.

It’s now time for America and its consumers to step up and challenge Johnson & Johnson.

The Chinese government has already criticized the company after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics released its report.

The same holds true in America and the world over where the company should ensure that a baby’s bathwater isn’t filled with toxins. Only then can we shed "No More Tears."

Now you are ready for all the perks and nuisances that come with full time employment. You can finally get that cracked tooth fixed, you can add at least a dozen friends to your Facebook profile and well, you’ll figure out a way to deal with the guy who wanted your job to go to his old college roommate. Not to mention that your paycheck will be automatically deposited and you won’t have to worry about all the financial stuff you were dealing with when you were a part-timer.

You can focus on the job to be done, knowing that your employer will handle the rest. And it will never cross your mind that they won’t. Because you are a hard worker –- just the sort of all-American employee that corporations rely upon to build solid profits, even if that means taking advantage of you here and there to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

But how can that be? We all know that there is a minimum wage and somebody, somewhere in the government keeps tabs on who pays what to whom.

Well, true. There are plenty of acronyms responsible for fair pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets minimum wage, overtime pay, record-keeping, and child labor standards for just about everybody. And, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) puts teeth in the FLSA by enforcing it in private employment, state and local government employment, and with federal employees of the Library of Congress, U.S. Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

But even with all of this oversight there are people who are doing an honest day’s work without an honest day’s pay. And we’re not talking small numbers. In fact, the Employment Standards Administration’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recovered in excess of $185 million in back wages for over 228,000 employees in fiscal year 2008 alone.

Some back pay goes to people who were not compensated properly for very obvious overtime situations. But a surprising amount goes to people in the medical field, where hospitals nationwide have paid millions to settle claims by the government, and hospital employees who have been forced to choose between caring for patients (and therefore working without overtime pay) or “clocking out” in chronically understaffed situations.

Another twist is payment for oil field workers overseas.

Americans who worked at least five years in for a U.S. oilfield company or defense contractor in the Middle East are due “end of tour” compensation when they return to the United States. However, many oilfield companies and defense contractors rely on their workers’ ignorance about the law and deliberately skip these payments – even though they are required by law.

Given the all-time high profits of the oil companies, someone is getting paid – and we’d like it to be the employees.