Settlement

Concurrent with the third partial settlement the United States Department of Justice resolved a criminal case against Volkswagen AG with a plea agreement for the offenses of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and entry of goods by false statement; and the United States Customs and Border Protection resolved civil fraud claims with Volkswagen arising from the illegal importation of affected vehicles. Details on these resolutions are not included on this page.

settlement

Under the CAA 2.0 liter partial settlement, Volkswagen must remove from commerce in the United States or perform an approved emissions modification on at least 85 percent of the affected 2.0 liter vehicles by June 2019. VW must also meet a separate 85 percent recall rate in California. If VW fails to reach the 85 percent recall rate, VW must pay additional funds into the mitigation trust in an amount equal to $85 million for each percentage point by which it fell short of the national recall target, and $13.5 million for each percentage point by which it fell short of the California recall target.

Under two related settlements concurrently approved by the court, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stipulated order and a class action settlement agreement, Volkswagen has also agreed to pay eligible consumers compensation for alleged consumer damages related to marketing and sale of the 2.0 liter vehicles with defeat devices. Volkswagen estimates that the total cost of achieving the 85 percent recall rate required under the CAA 2.0 liter partial settlement, and concurrently satisfying the FTC stipulated order and class action settlement agreement, will be up to $10.033 billion.

Certain consumer notices and the claims administration for the buyback and lease termination program for 2.0 liter vehicles have been coordinated and consolidated with the FTC order and related class action settlement. Further information on those settlements is available for consumers at www.VWCourtSettlement.com and www.AudiCourtSettlement.com

Under two related settlements concurrently approved by the court, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stipulated order and a class action settlement agreement, Volkswagen has also agreed to pay eligible consumers compensation for alleged consumer damages related to marketing and sale of the 3.0 liter vehicles with defeat devices.

The CAA 2.0 liter partial settlement required Volkswagen to fund a $2.7 billion mitigation trust fund. Under the CAA 3.0 liter partial settlement, Volkswagen contributed an additional $225 million in funding to the mitigation trust fund.

There are two mitigation trust agreements created pursuant to the settlement: one for states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia and one for federally recognized Indian tribes. The trusts are being administered by Wilmington Trust, an independent trustee. The purpose of the mitigation trusts is to fund eligible mitigation actions that replace diesel emission sources with cleaner technology, thereby offsetting the excess emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) caused by the violating 2.0 and 3.0 liter vehicles. The settlement is structured to provide the states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and federally recognized Indian tribes with the ability to select and implement appropriate mitigation actions funded by Volkswagen.

The CAA 2.0 liter partial settlement requires Volkswagen to invest $2 billion in ZEV charging infrastructure and in the promotion of ZEVs. The ZEV investments required by the CAA 2.0 liter partial settlement are intended to address the fact that consumers purchased these illegal vehicles under the mistaken belief that such vehicles were lower-emitting than others. Electrify America, LLC, was created by Volkswagen Group of America to implement this requirement.

As part of the settlement, Volkswagen has submitted and will continue to submit as required a series of National ZEV Investment plans to EPA for review and approval based on criteria detailed in the consent decree. The settlement also requires that Volkswagen submit ZEV investment plans to California for the money to be spent in that state. The plans can be found here: -plan.

The State of California, on behalf of its California Air Resource Board and the California Attorney General, joined the United States in both the 2.0 liter partial settlement and the 3.0 liter partial settlement.

As of November 30, 2021, the Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement has become effective. This Allocation Agreement now governs how settlement funds from the Nationwide Settlements and the Purdue and Mallinckrodt Bankruptcies will be allocated. Eligible Local Governments who have not signed on yet still can sign-on to the Allocation Agreement by executing the sign-on form below and emailing it to opioidsettlement@ag.idaho.gov. Now that the Agreement is effective, a Local Government must sign on to the agreement to be eligible to receive opioid settlement funds.

The social networking service Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The proposed settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers' express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established.

The proposed settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers' approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

Top Class Actions has helped law firms across the country successfully find plaintiffs for class action lawsuits & mass torts since 2008, receiving tens of thousands of leads per month. We also can push your legitimate claim rate up to 25%, depending on your settlement, with our various strategies to broadcast your message.

The WTO Analytical Index is a comprehensive guide to the interpretation and application of the WTO agreements by the Appellate Body, dispute settlement panels and other WTO bodies. It contains extracts of key pronouncements and findings from tens of thousands of pages of WTO jurisprudence, including panel reports, Appellate Body reports, arbitral decisions and awards, and decisions of WTO committees, councils and other WTO bodies.

This second settlement offers the nearly 80,000 policyholder class members the opportunity to keep in place their existing long-term care policy and receive a cash payment and a moratorium on premium increases through the end of October 2024, or to receive a premium refund of 80% of all premiums paid (less benefits received) in exchange for surrendering their LTC policy.

Ensuring the future viability of the Long-Term Care insurance program was an important goal of both CalPERS and the plaintiff class. No part of the settlement will be paid by the CalPERS Pension Fund.

During this conference, a deputy labor commissioner will work with you and your employer to reach a settlement agreement to resolve the wage claim. You have the right to speak with the deputy labor commissioner in private at any point during the settlement conference.

A settlement is an official agreement to resolve the wage claim. The employer agrees to pay a certain amount and you agree to resolve the claim. Your employer may offer to settle with you at any point within the wage claim process.

Marianne Sinisi, of Altoona, Pennsylvania, lost her 26-year-old son, Shawn, to an opioid overdose in 2018. She wants the opioid settlement dollars to be spent in ways that help spare other parents similar grief. Nancy Andrews/KHN hide caption

Since last spring, drugmakers and distributors have sent out about $3 billion in opioid settlement funds to thousands of state and local governments. It's a start on paying what the companies agreed to after they were accused of flooding communities around the country with opioid painkillers that have left millions addicted or dead.

The analysis involved scouring hundreds of legal documents, laws, and public statements to determine how each state is divvying up its settlement money among state agencies, city or county governments, and councils that oversee dedicated trusts. The next step was to determine the level and detail of public reporting required. The finding: Few states promise to report in ways that are accessible to the average person, and many are silent on the issue of transparency altogether.

Per most of the settlements, governments are required to report only on the 15% of the money that can be used for things unrelated to the epidemic, like offsetting budget shortfalls or fixing old roads. As of March 28, only three states and counties had filed such reports. Although they listed dollar amounts, none said precisely how the money was spent.

More than 250,000 Americans have died of overdoses from prescription opioids, which were aggressively promoted as painkillers and distributed by a host of health care companies, including Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Walmart. The settlements are meant to compensate and remediate the effects of that corporate behavior. 041b061a72