Feb 17, 2022 | Archive
Product Recall & Safety Information For Consumers To Ensure They Are Aware Of Dangerous Or Potentially Unsafe, Hazardous Or Defective Products
To see if a product is unsafe before you buy it, please click: Unsafe Products Report Search.
To search for the latest recall information, to report a dangerous product or to learn about important safety tips, please click: Online Resource for Recalls.
FDA Orders Philips Respironics to Notify Patients Regarding the Recall of Certain Breathing Assistance Machines – The FDA has determined that this order is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the recalled products, because the company’s notification efforts to date have been inadequate. For more information, please CLICK HERE.
Fitbit Recalls Ionic Smartwatches; One Million Sold in the U.S. Hazard: The lithium-ion battery in the Ionic smartwatch can overheat, posing a burn hazard. For more information, please click Recall 22-089.
Lovevery Recalls Drinking Cup With Handle in The Inspector Play Kits Due to Choking Hazard – Hazard: The handle can detach from the steel cup, posing a choking hazard to young children. For more information, please click Recall 22-730.
Yamaha Recalls Golf Cars and Personal Transportation Vehicles Due to Risk of Injury or Death – Hazard: The recalled vehicles can have brake failure, posing a crash hazard that could result in injury or death to the user or bystander. For more information, please click Recall 22-726.
Zeno Recalls Infant Walkers Due to Fall and Entrapment Hazards – Hazard: The infant walkers fail to meet the federal safety standard. They can fit through a standard doorway and are not designed to stop at the edge of a step as required by the federal safety standard. The walkers also have leg openings that allow the child to slip down until the child’s head can become entrapped at the neck. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed. For more information, please click Recall 22-724.
BrushX Hot Air Brushes Recalled Due to Electrocution or Shock Hazard – Hazard: The recalled hot air brushes do not have an immersion protection device, posing an electrocution or shock hazard to the user if it falls into water when plugged in. For more information, please click: Recall 22-725.
Valco Baby Recalls Snap Duo Trend Strollers Due to Fall Hazard – Hazard: The stroller’s front wheels can break off while in use, causing the strollers to fall unexpectedly, posing a fall hazard to children in the stroller. For more information, please click: Recall 22-083.
Viking Range Recalls Freestanding Gas Ranges Due to Risk of Gas Leak and Fire Hazard – Hazard: The rigid gas tubing can separate at the joint to the bake, broil and griddle burners, posing a risk of a gas leak and fire hazard when these burners are in operation. For more information, please click Recall 22-082.
Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Sure and Brut Aerosol Sprays Due to the Presence of Benzene – Hazard: Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen. Exposure to benzene can occur by inhalation, orally, and through the skin and it can result in cancers including leukemia and blood cancer of the bone marrow and blood disorders which can be life-threatening. Benzene is prevalent in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources. To date, no reports of adverse events related to this recall have been reported. This voluntary recall is being conducted out of an abundance of caution. For more information, please click: Sure, Brut.
Individuals Harmed By Defective Or Misleading Consumer Products And/Or Product Recalls
If you have been the victim of a defective or misleading consumer product and/or product recall, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected], for a free, confidential consultation and no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Feb 13, 2022 | Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Owners and Lessees of 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander Vehicles
On February 9, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”) on behalf of past and present owners and lessees of defective 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander vehicles, because the vehicles, allegedly, contain defective hoods that flutter and bounce when driving.
According to the class action complaint, the defective hood poses a safety hazard, because a bouncing and fluttering hood distracts drivers concerned that the hood may be become unlatched and open at any moment, thus drawing attention to the hood defect and away from other members of the motoring public and/or pedestrians.
Despite being notified of the hood defect from, among other things, pre-production testing, numerous consumer complaints (both to the NHTSA and on Mitsubishi enthusiast websites) warranty data, and dealership repair orders, Mitsubishi has not, according to the complaint, recalled the subject vehicles to repair the defect and has not offered a suitable repair or replacement hood that is not defective.
OWNERS AND LESSEES OF 2022 MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER VEHICLES WITH A MALFUNCTIONING HOOD ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE THE FORM ON THE RIGHT OR CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C., [email protected], FOR A FREE, CONFIDENTIAL CONSULTATION AND NO-OBLIGATION EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
Feb 10, 2022 | Archive
SEC Proposes Changes To Two Whistleblower Program Rules
On February 10, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that it has proposed two amendments to the rules governing its whistleblower program. The first proposed amendment concerns award claims for related actions that would be otherwise covered by an alternative whistleblower program. The second proposed amendment affirms the SEC’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the limited purpose of increasing an award, but not to lower an award.
Specifically, the SEC is proposing two amendments to Exchange Act Rules 21F-3 and 6, the rules governing its whistleblower program:
● The first proposed amendment addresses instances when a whistleblower from the SEC’s program receives an award from another, non-SEC, whistleblower program.
● The second affirms the SEC’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the limited purpose of increasing an award, but not to lower an award.
Why This Is Important
Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act added Section 21F to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, establishing the SEC’s whistleblower program. Among other things, Section 21 authorizes the SEC to make monetary awards to eligible individuals who voluntarily provide original information that leads to successful SEC enforcement actions resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million and certain successful related actions. Awards must be made in an amount equal to 10-30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected.
Since the program’s inception, the SEC has ordered more than $1.2 billion to 245 individuals whose information and cooperation assisted the SEC in bringing successful enforcement actions.
How This Rule Applies
Related Action Claims Covered By Another Whistleblower Program
● Under Exchange Act Section 21F(b) and Rule 21F-11, a whistleblower who obtains an award based on an SEC covered action also may be eligible for an award based on monetary sanctions that are collected in an action brought by other statutorily-identified authorities.
● The proposing rule would allow the SEC to make an award for a related action that might otherwise be covered by an alternative whistleblower program, even where the alternative whistleblower program has the more direct or relevant connection to the related action in certain circumstances. The proposing rule offers multiple potential approaches:
Comparability: Under this approach, if a claimant files a related-action award application, and the alternative award program is not comparable to the SEC’s program, because the statutory award range is more limited, awards are subject to an award cap, or the other award program is discretionary and not mandatory, the SEC would treat the non-SEC action as “related” for purposes of the SEC’s award program, regardless of whether the alternative award program has a more direct or relevant connection to the action. The SEC also would make an award on a potential related action without regard to which program had the more direct and relevant connection to the action if the maximum award that the SEC could pay on the action would not exceed $5 million.
Whistleblower Choice: The proposed release offers an alternative option that would allow a meritorious whistleblower to decide whether to receive a related-action award from the SEC or the authority administering the other award program. The whistleblower would not be required to select which program to receive the award from until both programs had determined the award amount they would pay.
Offset Approach: The SEC would determine the award percentage it would pay on the related action but offset from the SEC’s total award payment by the dollar amount the whistleblower received for the related action from the other award program.
Topping Off Approach: The SEC would have the discretion to increase the award on the SEC covered action (up to 30 percent) if the SEC concludes that the other whistleblower program’s award for the related action was inadequate for any reason.
● Under the Comparability or Whistleblower Choice approach, the whistleblower would be required to make an irrevocable waiver of any claim to an award from the other whistleblower award program.
Discretion To Consider The Dollar Amount Of The Award
● In 2020, amendments added language to Rule 21F-6 stating that the SEC has discretion to consider the dollar amount of a potential award when making an award determination.
● The proposed changes would affirm the SEC’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the limited purpose of increasing the award amount, but would eliminate the SEC’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the purpose of decreasing an award.
The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposing release on the SEC’s website or 30 days following publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register, whichever period is longer.
Source: SEC.gov
Questions Or Concerns About Voluntarily Providing Information To The SEC And Whistleblower Award Eligibility?
Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide the SEC with original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action. SEC whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million.
If you have questions or concerns about voluntarily providing information to the SEC regarding violations of the federal securities laws, including questions about whistleblower award eligibility, or the form and manner in which the information is required to be provided to the SEC, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. by completing the form above on the right, sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by contacting either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801.
