Lawsuits & Settlements

Los Angeles -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today obtained a court order preventing Los Angeles-based Total Call International, Inc. from charging “hidden and deceptive” fees for its pre-paid calling cards.

“Total Call International has raked in profits by advertising bargain basement prices then charging exorbitant fees when their cards were used.” Brown said. “Today’s agreement safeguards California’s consumers by forcing this company to fully disclose hidden and deceptive calling card fees.”

Total Call International advertised low per-minute base rates on its calling cards and then charged consumers steep, undisclosed add-on fees and surcharges when consumers used their cards, Brown said. This significantly reduced the amount of calling time available.

Brown and the California Public Utilities Commission launched an investigation and prepared a lawsuit contending that Total Call International violated a California law that specifically requires disclosure of pre-paid calling card fees, as well as California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws.

Brown and the utilities commission today filed a complaint and a stipulated judgment resolving the case. The stipulated judgment requires Total Call International to:

• Disclose all fees, add-ons, and surcharges in a clear and conspicuous manner and include those charges in the marketing of its per-minute rate.

• Maintain records and allow the Attorney General’s office to monitor its activities to determine if Total Call International is in compliance with the settlement and California Law.

• Pay civil penalties of $300,000.

During the course of the investigation, Total Call International agreed to stop charging a “real-time rate surcharges,” costing the company $1.5 million in profits. Total Call International did not admit any wrongdoing.

Calling cards, often sold at newsstands and grocery stores, are meant to be a convenient, affordable tool for users that make frequent international calls and may not have regular access to telephone service.

Calling card users should take the following steps to protect themselves:

1. Make sure you’re getting what you pay for- buy a card for a small denomination first to test out the service.
2. Check with family and friends to find out their experience with calling cards.
3. Ask the retailer if they stand behind the card if the telephone service is unsatisfactory. It’s important to remember that the store where the card is purchased from doesn’t control the quality of the service.
4. Remember that very low rates, particularly for international calls, may indicate poor customer service, or a sign that hidden fees and surcharges apply.
5. Always look for disclosures about surcharges, monthly fees, per-call access, in addition to advertised rate-per-minute.
6. Check the expiration date. Some cards expire after a certain amount of time.
7. Make sure the card comes in a sealed envelope or has a sticker covering the PIN. Otherwise, anyone who copies the PIN can use the phone time you’ve already paid for.

This is the second case that Brown has filed forcing the disclosure of fees. In 2007, Brown forced San Francisco-based Devine Communications, Inc. to disclose all hidden fees. Florida and New Jersey have also been actively prosecuting similar cases.

Today’s settlement, filed in San Francisco Superior Court is attached.

San Francisco -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed suit against three Wells Fargo affiliates to recover $1.5 billion for California investors who purchased auction-rate securities based on “false and deceptive” advice that these financial instruments were “as safe and liquid as cash.”

“Wells Fargo’s affiliates promised investors auction-rate securities were as safe and liquid as cash, when in fact they were not, and now investors are unable to get their money when they need it,” Attorney General Brown said. “This lawsuit seeks to recover $1.5 billion for Californians and holds these companies accountable for giving investors false and deceptive advice.”

Auction-rate securities are investments with long-term maturity dates (e.g., bonds) that Wells Fargo and other banks marketed as short-term investments equivalent to cash. These investments paid a slightly better rate of return than a bank account. And, investors could sell the securities at regular weekly or monthly auctions which provided the promise of liquidity.

In February 2008, these auctions froze up nationwide, and investors were no longer able to redeem their securities for cash, as promised. This left approximately 2,400 Californians who had invested with Wells Fargo without access to more than $1.5 billion. More than 40% of Wells Fargo’s auction-rate security investors were Californians.

In total, 5,687 investors purchased $2.9 billion worth of auction-rate securities from these companies nationwide.

By August 2008, major financial institutions including UBS, Citigroup, Wachovia, and Merrill Lynch met their obligations to investors and restored the cash value of these securities. The three Wells Fargo affiliates, however, have refused to do so.

Consequently, Attorney General Brown filed his complaint in San Francisco Superior Court today to restore the cash value of these securities, force the companies to disgorge any subsequent profits tied to the securities, and obtain civil penalties of $25,000 per violation. This could amount to hundreds of millions in civil penalties.

The suit contends that three Wells Fargo’s affiliates – Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC, and Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC – violated California’s Securities Law by:

• Routinely misrepresenting, marketing and selling auction-rate securities as safe, liquid and cash-like investments similar to certificates of deposit or money-market accounts and omitting material facts in violation of California Corporations Code 25401;

• Offering and selling, as a broker-dealer, securities by means of a manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent scheme, device, or contrivance in violation of California Corporations Code 25216(a);

• Marketing and selling auction-rate securities to investors for whom these investments were unsuitable in violation of California Corporations Code 25216(c) and California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 260.218.2; and

• Failing to supervise and adequately train sales agents pushing these investments in violation of California Corporations Code 25216(c) and California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 260.218.4.

In marketing and selling these investments, Wells Fargo’s affiliates ignored clear industry and internal warning about risk and previous auction failure:

• In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the “Big 4” accounting firms, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board all determined that auction-rate securities should not be considered “cash equivalents.”

Despite these warnings, Wells Fargo’s affiliates continued to aggressively sell and falsely market auction-rate securities as safe, liquid, cash-like investments until the nationwide auction markets froze in February 2008.

In marketing and selling these investments, Wells Fargo’s affiliates failed to inform investors about how auction-rate securities or the auction process worked and the risks and consequences of auction failure.

Following the collapse of these auctions, Wells Fargo’s affiliates took advantage of the situation and offered loan programs to those who needed immediate access to the money tied up in these investments.

Investments ranged from $25,000 to millions, and investors included small businesses and small business owners, retirees, married couples, and other hard working Californians. These investors were led to believe they were putting their savings and assets into a safe and accessible place, but instead, they were left without access to their cash, leading to serious hardship. For example:

• A Southern California woman suffering from lung cancer and needing extra funds to help treat her illness sold her home and put the money into a Wells Fargo savings account. A Wells Fargo agent later recommended she put the money into an account with a higher interest rate. When the woman told the agent she needed to access the money and could not afford to lose any of it, she was reassured that her money would be safe like cash. Without disclosing the nature of the investment, the agent invested the funds in auction-rate securities and when the auctions failed, the woman could not access her money.

• A Bay Area company invested $400,000 in a money market account until it was solicited by phone to invest in what was described to them as a liquid, money market-like-account. They were told the only difference was the amount of notice needed to pull the funds (one week vs. one day). The funds were intended to help the business expand, but after the auctions failed, employees were instead laid off. The company was never informed that they were investing in auction-rate securities or that there were substantial risks tied to the investment.

A copy of the complaint is attached.

San Francisco – Responding to a lawsuit that Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and others filed last year, the U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to reconsider the Bush Administration’s “grossly inadequate” home furnace and boiler efficiency regulations.

“The Bush Administration’s grossly inadequate efficiency standards did not do nearly enough to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and consumer costs from boilers and furnaces,” Attorney General Brown said. “Today’s agreement forces reconsideration of the regulations and could lead to much tougher standards.”

In November 2007, the Bush Administration put forward regulations that gave manufacturers eight years to make only minimal increases in the efficiency of home furnaces and boilers.

In February 2008, Attorney General Brown joined the California Energy Commission, the State of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and New York City, Earthjustice and the National Resources Defense Council in challenging the Bush Administration’s efficiency standards on the grounds that the standards violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy filed a motion asking the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to allow it to reopen the rulemaking process and examine key problems with the regulation including: the failure to consider regional standards and whether a more stringent standard would affect natural gas prices.

The Second Circuit granted the U.S. Department of Energy’s motion today. This resolves the 2008 lawsuit and could lead to more stringent standards, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and energy costs.

The original lawsuit contended that the Bush Administration’s regulations were illegal because they:

• Proposed only minimal increases in efficiency, far less than the Department’s own analysis recognized could be achieved. The U.S. Department of Energy standards would increase furnace efficiency by less than 3% and boiler efficiency only 2.5% over 23 years.

• Resulted from a flawed process. The U.S. Department of Energy overstated the economic barriers to adopting a stricter standard and also failed to consider the positive economic impact of more stringent standards.

• Gave manufacturers too much time to meet the new standards. The U.S. Department of Energy would not require furnace and boiler manufacturers to comply with the new standards until 2015, eight years after the standards were originally issued.

This agreement is part of Attorney General Brown’s fight for stronger federal action on global warming and energy efficiency.

Last week, Attorney General Brown commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a proposed determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Brown and 14 states urged the Obama Administration to overturn the Bush EPA’s denial of California’s request to enforce its automobile greenhouse gas emissions law.

In 2002, California enacted legislation requiring a 30% reduction in automobile greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. But before the State can enforce its law, EPA must grant a Clean Air Act wavier.

A copy of the Second Circuit’s order is attached.

RIVERSIDE – Fighting to safeguard groundwater supplies threatened by toxic contamination, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed suit against a national gas station chain – TravelCenters of America – to force the corporation to comply with underground fuel storage laws it has “knowingly and repeatedly disregarded” for years.

“TravelCenters of America has knowingly and repeatedly disregarded California’s underground fuel storage laws for years,” Attorney General Brown said. “This has put the Inland Empire’s scarce groundwater supplies at serious risk of contamination.”

On July 10, 2008, Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco filed legal action seeking an injunction against TravelCenters for violating the laws governing the management and handling of underground storage tanks of hazardous materials.

TravelCenters subsequently responded to the suit, offering more than a dozen legal theories as to why the law does not apply. This includes claims that the law is unconstitutional, is pre-empted by federal law, and violates due process.

At the request of the Riverside District Attorney, Attorney General Brown joined the case to enforce California’s health and safety laws, which Travelcenters has consistently violated and ignored. The suit was filed last week and made public today.

Over a number of years, the Riverside Department of Environmental Health conducted inspections at the TravelCenters facility in Riverside County, which revealed numerous, longstanding violations of California’s underground storage tank law. TravelCenters has failed to correct many of the deficiencies, even after repeated warnings.

Given these violations, Brown is seeking a permanent injunction to block TavelCenter’s illegal activities under Chapters 6.5, 6.7, and 6.95 of Division 20 of California’s Health and Safety Code, and section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Codes, which governs unfair competition and business practices.

Brown’s suit contends that TravelCenters:

• Failed to have adequate containment and detection equipment for hazardous materials storage tanks;
• Improperly raised, altered, tampered, or disabled sensors in spill boxes that detect leaks;
• Failed to identify the date the hazardous materials were received;
• Failed to manage hazardous waste containers;
• Failed to maintain documentation of employee training;
• Failed to identify an emergency coordinator;
• Failed to inspect container storage areas;
• Failed to store incompatible wastes in separate containers;
• Failed to remove accumulated liquid or debris from the secondary containment system;
• Failed to have an operational audible/visual alarm system connected for continuous monitoring;
• Failed to have emergency response plans; and
• Failed to maintain a complete hazardous materials business plan.
In addition, the lawsuit seeks up to a statutory maximum of $25,000 in civil penalties for each day of each violation. This could amount to millions of dollars in penalties.

TravelCenters of America operates 234 travel centers, including 188 owned and 46 franchisees along interstate highways of 41 US states and in the province of Ontario, Canada.

A copy of Attorney General Brown’s complaint is attached.

SAN DIEGO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) have finalized an agreement that will stop a massive service and repair scheme that unfairly overcharged thousands of Californians for “shoddy and woefully inadequate” home repair work.

“This massive scheme defrauded thousands of California homeowners who were charged exorbitant fees for shoddy and woefully inadequate home repair work by unlicensed and unskilled contractors,” Attorney General Brown said. “The agreement stops the illegal practices and gives homeowners a chance to recover some of their losses.”

A months-long investigation by the Attorney General’s Office and the Contractors State License Board found that SRVS Charge Inc. and its affiliated companies had been cheating some 6,000 customers each year for overpriced and substandard home repair work since 1989.

To stop the companies’ illegal practices and provide restitution to those who were victimized, Brown and the CSLB reached a settlement with:

• SRVS Charge Inc. and its affiliates,
• Principal owner, Sarkis Terabelian, 43, of Burbank;
• General manager, Zohrab “Rob” Mkhitarian, 40, of Burbank; and
• Associates Marine Metspakyan, 33, Avetik Avo Gyandzhyan, 38, Lilit Lusparyan, 28, Alisa Oganyan, 35, Estine Akopyan, 28, and Vardui Terabelian, 45.

The defendants operated various service and repair companies that employed electricians, plumbers, and heating and air-conditioning technicians in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Sacramento region. These companies routinely targeted elderly Californians.

Exorbitant customer fees enabled Sarkis Terabelian, Mkhitarian, and his associates to purchase two helicopters, a Mercedes-Benz, and real property valued in excess of $1 million. Title to these vehicles and real property were seized by the Attorney General’s Office last year and will be released as a result of the settlement.

SRVS Charge Inc.’s scheme worked like this:

• The company placed millions of dollars in telephone directory advertising, including many full-page ads. The ads, which listed different company names, claimed a 100% satisfaction guarantee and senior discounts. When customers called the numbers listed in any of the ads, they would be directed to a central call center.

• Many times repairmen would be dispatched from a different company than the customer called.

• Often, these workers had not undergone the criminal background check required of all contractors and Home Improvement Salespeople licensed by the Contractors State License Board since January 1, 2005.

• Customers were charged high prices for emergency home service and repair, often unrelated to the actual home repair work. Much of the work was poorly done or never completed.

• If a customer refused to pay, the company would file a lien against the home to force payment.

Because the company used multiple business names, it was difficult, if not impossible, for customers to seek recourse for incompetent workmanship, incomplete work, or any other issue that arose on their project. Customers were often denied refunds, despite the existence of the “100% satisfaction guarantee” promised in the ads.

Over several years, the Attorney General and the CSLB shut down affiliates of SRVS Charge, Inc. But instead of ending their scheme, the defendants continued to run their company under a labyrinth of business names and fraudulent contractor license numbers that were interchangeable. When CSLB either revoked a license or received an excessive number of complaints, the company would establish a new corporate identity and business would continue without interruption.

As part of its investigation, CSLB conducted undercover stings against service technicians suspected of using these fraudulent licenses and referred instances of the illegal activity to the San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and Sacramento County district attorney’s offices. In one instance, the San Diego District Attorney’s Office found that a service technician had also committed burglary and theft and is now being prosecuted for his crimes.

Attorney General Brown entered into a final agreement with the defendants in San Diego Superior Court on March 12, 2009, and the agreement was made public today. The settlement provides for the following.

• A permanent injunction against the defendants’ prior illegal activities. This includes:
o CSLB monitoring of the defendants’ operations for one year;
o Mandatory registration of all company service technicians with CSLB. This requires technicians to undergo a criminal background check;
o Capping the number of business licenses that the defendants can use to a maximum of five;
o Preventing the defendants from charging exorbitant fees or fees that have nothing to do with the actual work that is performed;
o Fully disclosing to CSLB the names of the directors, officers, and employees of their company; and
o Mandatory customer complaint tracking with proper complaint investigation and reasonable efforts to resolve them.
o Prohibiting the defendants from engaging in false advertising.

• $3 million in penalties and restitution to be distributed as follows:
o $1.3 million to be used for consumer restitution;
o $450,000 to be assessed in penalties for state Business and Professions Code violations; and
o The remainder to be used to reimburse CSLB for investigative costs, legal costs, and costs of monitoring future compliance with the judgment.

“This settlement is a victory for California consumers and legitimate contractors, and brings resolution to thousands of hours of investigative work,” said CSLB Registrar Steve Sands. “Victims will now be able to regain some of their money, and CSLB will be able to watch this company closely so others aren’t harmed.”

If the terms of the settlement are violated, the defendants could face jail time.

The following companies are affiliated with the defendants and are included in the settlement:

• American Electric (CSLB #834398)
• American Home Repairs, Inc. (CSLB #834206)
• 59 Minute Service (CSLB #837697)
• Cal Repair Services, Inc., dba Pick Red Plumbing (CSLB #797241)
• Answering Resources, Inc., dba Thrifty Electric (CSLB #723375)
• Orbell Enterprises, Inc., dba Plumbing One (CSLB #713006)
• USA Services, Inc. (CSLB #775863)
• Love My Home, Inc. (CSLB #811361)
• Electric Avenue, formerly A Plus Electric Company (CSLB #569322)
• American Electric 911 Fast Inc. (CSLB #826916)
• Pro Electric Co. (CSLB #670171)
• RG Electric (CSLB #516892)
• Pacific West Heating & Air Conditioning (CSLB #604150)

If you think you have been the victim of fraud by this company and its affiliates, please contact the Contractors State License Board at 1-800-321-CSLB (2752) and press 7.

The original complaint and settlement terms are attached.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 20, 2009
Contact: Office of the Attorney General - Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy - Niall McCarthy (650) 697-6000

Brown Sues to Recover Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Illegally Diverted from Medi-Cal

LOS ANGELES – Responding to a whistleblower’s allegation of “massive Medi-Cal fraud and kickbacks,” Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. joined legal action against seven private laboratories to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal overcharges to the state’s medical program for the poor.

“In the face of declining state revenues, these medical laboratories have siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars from programs intended for the most vulnerable California families.” Attorney General Brown said. “Such a pattern of massive Medi-Cal fraud and kickbacks cannot be tolerated, and I will take every action the law allows to recover what is owed,” Brown added.

According to whistleblower Chris Riedel, the CEO of Hunter Laboratories, “I confirmed with the California Department of Health Care Services that these practices were illegal. We then had a choice--either join the other labs in violating the law or be unable to compete for business. We choose to suffer the financial consequence, and follow the law.”

The lawsuit, which is pending in San Mateo Superior Court, contends that the 7 medical labs systematically overcharged the Medi-Cal program over the past 15 years.

The defendants include:
• Quest Diagnostics, Inc., based in Madison, NJ; its affiliate Specialty Laboratories, Inc., based in Valencia, CA; and 4 other Quest affiliates.
• Health Line Clinical Laboratories, Inc., now known as Taurus West, Inc., based in Burbank, CA.
• Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc., based in Santa Ana, CA.
• Physicians Immunodiagnostic Laboratory, Inc., based in Burbank, CA.
• Whitefield Medical Laboratory, Inc., based in Pomona, CA.
• Seacliff Diagnostics Medical Group, based in Monterey Park, CA.
• Laboratory Corporation of America, based in Burlington, NC.

California law states that 'no provider shall charge [Medi-Cal] for any service…more than would have been charged for the same service…to other purchasers of comparable services…under comparable circumstances.' Yet, these medical laboratories charged Medi-Cal up to six times as much as they charged some of their other customers for the very same tests. For instance,

• Quest Diagnostics, Inc. charged Medi-Cal $8.59 to perform a complete blood count test (CBC), while it charged some of its other customers $1.43 for the exact same test. This is one of the most frequently requested blood tests.

• Laboratory Corporation of America charged Medi-Cal $30.09 to perform a Hepatitis C Antibody screening, while it charged some of its other customers only $6.44 for the test.

• Health Line Clinical Laboratories charged Medi-Cal $12.65 to perform an HIV Antibody screening, while charging some of its other customers $1.75 for the test.

These are not isolated examples. They are part of a pattern of fraudulent overcharging and kickbacks that developed over the past decade. Here’s how it worked:

• The defendant labs provided deep discounts when they were being paid directly by doctors, patients, or hospitals. Prices were often below the lab’s cost and sometimes free.

• In exchange for these steep discounts, the defendants expected its customers to refer all of their other patients (where the lab was paid by an insurance company, Medicare, and Medi-Cal) to its lab. Under California law, this amounted to providing an illegal kickback.

• These sharply reduced prices, however, were not made available to Medi-Cal. Instead of charging the discounted prices, the defendants charged Medi-Cal up to 6 times more than the defendant charged others for the same tests. In effect, defendants shifted the costs of doing business from the private sector to Medi-Cal.

• Additionally, defendants offered their clients who paid them directly (not through Medi-Cal or other insurance) deeper and deeper discounts in order to get a larger share of the lab testing business. This created an unfair playing field, and laboratories that followed the law could not effectively compete. These law-abiding companies were sometimes forced to sell or go out of business completely.

The case was filed under seal in San Mateo Superior Court under California's False Claims Act by a whistleblower and qui tam plaintiff Hunter Laboratories, which processes blood tests. Hunter Laboratories had found that it could not compete in a significant segment of the marketplace where many of the major players were offering referring doctors, hospitals, and clinics far lower rates than they were charging Medi-Cal.

After the whistleblowers filed the complaint, the Attorney General’s Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse investigated the allegations and Attorney General Brown intervened under seal. The case became public this week.

Hunter Laboratories' attorney, Niall P. McCarthy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, commented that “At a time when California is laying off teachers and firefighters and is in a massive budget crisis, it is unconscionable that these defendants would bilk the system to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Under California's False Claims Act, anyone who has previously undisclosed information about a fraud, overcharge, or other false claim against the state, can file a sealed lawsuit on behalf of California to recover the losses. They must notify the Attorney General as well.

Such a case is called a 'qui tam' case. If there is money recovery, the law provides that the qui tam plaintiff receives a share of the amount recovered if the requirements of the statute are met.

The lawsuit asks for relief in the amount of triple the amount of California’s damages, civil penalties of $10,000 for each false claim; and recovery of costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses. It is estimated that damages could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The clinical testing field is a $50 billion industry nationwide. The defendants named in the lawsuit include some of the largest clinical laboratories in the country.

Quest Diagnostics is the leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services in the United States, with more than 500 patient service centers in California.

Laboratory Corporation of America performs more than one million tests on approximately 400,000 samples each day and has more than a dozen patient centers in Los Angeles.

To report fraud or abuse, call the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse's hotline at (800) 722-0432.

Ventura -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Ventura District Attorney Gregory D. Totten today clamped down on two companies -- Imergent, Inc. and Stores On Line – that “falsely promised” customers that they could earn full-time income by selling merchandise over the Internet.

“These companies falsely promised customers that they could get rich by selling merchandise over the Internet,” Attorney General Brown said. “In reality, many customers were left in deep debt, paying high up-front costs, and never earning a dime from their websites. This agreement allows these customers to get back some of their losses.”

These two companies sell website-based “stores,” in packages of three or six websites, at a cost of between $2,700 and $6,000. They market their products at seminars, which they advertise through postcards and other mailings often sent to senior citizens with limited Internet experience. They often offer seminar attendees a meal and a free gift such as an MP3 player.

The companies made statements such as:

“Are you ready to claim YOUR share of eBay’s annual $3.2 Billion in revenue? By attending our FREE 90-minute ‘eBay Entrepreneur Training’ Conference you will learn how eBay PowerSellers run successful Internet businesses and how an elite few use additional strategies to boost revenues way beyond the average seller. Learn how nearly half-a-million people create full-time incomes using eBay!”

At the seminars, the companies make tantalizing claims regarding the massive profits that can be earned by consumers who purchase their product. Often, however, these profits are never realized and the customer is left in serious debt.

One victim used the inheritance left by her father to purchase six websites, in hopes that they would help supplement her income after retirement. The victim spent over $10,000 in set up costs. Of the six websites the victim bought, only one has been set up, and it continues to cost more than it brings in.

In August of 2006, the California Attorney General’s Office and the Ventura County District Attorney settled a previous case against Imergent, Inc. and Stores On Line. That settlement barred the defendants from engaging in conduct that violated California’s laws governing Seller Assisted Marketing Plans.

The Attorney General’s office continued to monitor the companies’ business practices and discovered that they were violating the 2006 agreement and were continuing to sell Seller Assisted Marketing Plans without registering with the state.

A new action was brought in 2007 to enforce the prior judgment, and to seek penalties, restitution, and an injunction. Today’s agreement resolves the 2007 action.

The companies have agreed to the following terms:

• Pay $147,600 for full restitution to California consumers who have complained to the Attorney General’s Office, the Ventura County District Attorney, or directly with StoresOnLine.
• Pay $202,400 for restitution to California consumers who submit complaints within 90 days.
• Cancel all outstanding financing contracts for consumers who have complained.
• StoresOnLine will also send a letter to all California purchasers who have bought since January 1, 2008, offering them a 15-day period within which to cancel the transaction and receive a refund.
• Register with the state as a seller of Seller Assisted Marketing Plans
• Provide a 15-day right to cancel for purchasers over the age of 65
• Disclose clearly the circumstances under which StoreOnLine will charge consumers a web site hosting fee, and provide consumers the opportunity to opt out of hosting websites with Imergent, Inc. and Stores On Line.
• Provide the Attorney General’s Office with recordings of sales presentations and notify the Attorney General and Ventura County District Attorney’s Office when sales presentations take place in California, so they can be monitored.

These types of schemes are promoted on TV infomercials, on the Internet, by direct mail, at trade shows, at invitation-only seminars, and through ads that may appear in the classified sections of newspapers or magazines. The ads promise big earnings, and promise that no selling or other experience is necessary.

If you believe you are a victim and have not yet made a complaint to the Attorney General’s Office, you may be entitled to restitution if you submit a complaint within 90 days.

To submit a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office, please file a complaint online at http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php or call the Public Inquiry Unit at 1-800-952-5225.

San Diego -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a lawsuit to stop the Contractors Asset Protection Association, Inc. from engaging in a “sophisticated and fraudulent scheme” to cheat the state workers compensation system.

“This company falsely promised its clients that if they gave their employees empty titles and worthless shares of stock they could avoid tens of thousands of dollars in workers compensation premiums,” Attorney General Brown said. “But you can’t simply call a security guard a vice president and avoid complying with the law through a sophisticated and fraudulent scheme.”

This lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction barring Contractors Asset Protection Association, Inc. (ConAPA) and its founder-president, Eugene Magre from engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of sections 17200 and 17500 of the California code. The lawsuit also seeks restitution and civil penalties of no less than $300,000.

The lawsuit alleges that ConAPA sought to cynically exploit a legal exception to the workers compensation law, where directors of a corporation who are also the sole shareholders can exempt themselves from workers’ compensation coverage.

Under this scheme, ConAPA marketed and advertised an unlawful business plan urging employers to misclassify rank-and-file employees as “corporate officers” and issue them nominal shares of company stock so as to avoid paying workers’ compensation insurance premiums. For example, housekeepers, cooks, security guards, maintenance men, roofers, and construction laborers were named as “vice-presidents” and issued worthless shares of non-negotiable stock.

Despite the titles, many workers were not assigned any managerial or administrative duties and performed the same rank-and-file duties for the same pay that they performed prior to their “promotion.”

ConAPA ensured that its clients were able to prevent their new “officer-shareholders” from gaining control over the business. Employees were also required to sell their shares back to the company if they left the company.

Some ConAPA clients created “dummy” corporations populated by rank-and-file “officer-shareholders” that held no real assets, and existed solely for the purpose of offering their officers back to the original client company as rank-and-file workers who were ostensibly exempt from workers’ compensation.

ConAPA told its clients that this business model was legal, and implied that the program had been scrutinized and approved by several state authorities, which it had not.

The company has approximately 40 active clients, and has had as many as 200 clients in the past that employed their business model.

A copy of the complaint is attached.

###

SACRAMENTO- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced an agreement requiring Bayer Corporation to stop a “deceptive ad campaign” regarding an oral contraceptive, “Yaz,” and obligating the company to spend $20 million publicly correcting misleading assertions about the product.

“Bayer’s deceptive ad campaign led young women to believe that its oral contraceptive would cure symptoms for which it was not approved for use,” Attorney General Brown said. “This judgment modification forces the company to stop making those claims and spend $20 million correcting misleading assertions about the product.”

Bayer claimed the drug could treat symptoms related to premenstrual syndrome (PMS), and acne, in addition to anxiety, tension, irritability, moodiness, fatigue, headaches, and muscle aches. None of these claims have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In a television ad, for instance, Bayer claimed that Yaz “can help keep your skin clear,” despite the fact that clinical studies have not concluded that taking Yaz results in acne-free skin.

The Attorney General’s Office contends that the advertisements for Yaz violated a 2007 agreement with Bayer after the company failed to adequately disclose safety risks associated with the use of Baycol, a drug used to lower cholesterol, which was pulled from the market in August 2001. The agreement required future marketing, sale, and promotion of pharmaceutical and biological products to comply with all legal requirements, and prohibited Bayer from making false or misleading claims relating to any products sold in the United States.

In addition to adhering to the 2007 judgment, the company agreed to:
• Conduct a $20 million corrective advertising campaign consisting of a television advertisement and a print advertisement that have been approved by the FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) and reviewed by the Attorneys General involved in the suit.
• The television ad must be broadcast on national cable and network television.
• The print ad must be published in magazines with national distribution.
• Submit all new Direct to Consumer television ad campaigns for Yaz to FDA for pre-review.
• Cease any and all claims about the drug that are not FDA-approved.
• Submit an annual report to each participating attorney general’s office.

The States joining California’s agreement are; Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The Modification of Judgment and the October 2008 Warning Letter are attached.