Saipan Sweat Suit
A federal judge in October gave the go-ahead to a major class action
suit alleging sweatshop conditions on the western Pacific island of Saipan,
a U.S. territory.
The lawsuit alleges that more than 13,000 garment workers in Saipan often
work 12-hour days, seven days a week, in unsafe, unclean conditions that
violate U.S. labor laws and international treaties.
In a 55-page decision, U.S. District Judge Alex R. Munson held that these
allegations, if proven at trial, were sufficient to establish liability
of both the factories employing the workers and the retailers who contract
with them, for engaging in a conspiracy to use indentured
labor in violation of racketeering laws.
One of the lawsuits primary claims is that the Saipan garment industry
employs foreign workers, primarily young women from the Peoples
Republic of China, who were required to sign shadow contracts
waiving their basic human rights. These workers were also allegedly forced
to pay recruitment fees as high as $7,000 just to come to
the U.S., creating an indentured status that has been illegal in the United
States since the Civil War.
In seeking to be dismissed from the suit, the retailers claimed they
could not be legally responsible for the actions of factory owners since
they were just customers. The judge rejected this argument.
Since the case was filed in 1999, 19 retailers have settled the claims against
them and agreed to a rigorous system of independent monitoring at the Saipan
factories of contractors that produce their clothes. But the factory owners,
together with The Gap, Target, JC Penney, Levi Strauss and others, have
blocked the other retailers settlements by using delay tactics in
the courts.
The Cipro Payoff
An agreement between Bayer, Barr Laboratories, and two other generic
drug companies is blocking access to adequate supplies and cheaper, generic
versions of Cipro, one of the leading antibiotics used to treat anthrax,
according to the Prescription Access Litigation (PAL) project, a coalition
of over 60 organizations in 29 states, which has sued to undo the agreement.
The lawsuit asks the court to put aside the agreement, opening the way
for generic forms of Cipro to enter the market.
The plaintiffs charge that Bayer Corporation has unlawfully paid three
of its competitors Barr Laboratories, Rugby, and Hoechst-Marion
Roussel a total of $200 million to date to abandon efforts to bring
cheaper generic versions of Cipro to the market, manipulating the price
and supply of a drug that has suddenly become a crucial weapon in the
fight against bio-terrorism.
Because of these payments, the generic companies abandoned their argument
that Bayers patent was invalid and unenforceable.
This is simply wrong on the face of it, says PAL spokesman
Stephen Rosenfeld. On the one hand you have people throughout the
country worrying that public health officials may not have sufficient
supplies of Cipro available. At the same time Bayer is paying Barr and
two other companies millions of dollars to not produce the drug.
With the lawsuit, the consumer groups have joined an existing federal
lawsuit filed last year in the Eastern District of New York to have Bayers
agreement with the three generic companies declared illegal. In that case,
U.S. District Court Judge Trager has ruled that the plaintiffs antitrust
claim is plausible and deserves to go to trial.
Bayer has marketed Cipro in the United States since October 1987.
In 1991, Barr applied to the Food and Drug Administration to bring ciprofloxacin
to market, asserting that Bayers patent on Cipro was invalid and
unenforceable. In 1995 Barr received tentative FDA approval to manufacture
and market generic Cipro, pending the resolution of the patent litigation.
Beginning in 1997, however, Bayer paid Barr and the two other generic
firms millions of dollars in exchange for their agreement to not manufacture
the generic drug.
Wheels of Misfortune
Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. will pay $51.5 million to settle charges brought
by U.S. state attorneys general over alleged misrepresentations regarding
particular tires that had high rates of separations and alleged misrepresentations
made during the companys tire replacement process.
The payment is in addition to approximately $450 million already spent
by Bridgestone/Firestone to replace tires. Among the practices which Bridgestone/Firestone
agreed to cease in the settlement:
Misrepresenting characteristics, use or durability of tires
by making advertising claims such as Hunting, Fishing,
or camping wherever youre going, these rough, aggressive
tires can take you there but then disallowing warranty
claims because of consumer abuse;
Failing to disclose that its tires are defective or to disclose
secret warranty programs to customers;
Falsely claiming as appropriate a tires use on sport utility
vehicles; and misrepresenting the number of miles or years the tires
would be useful; and
Making misrepresentations about a recall or customer satisfaction
program, such as engaging in bait and switch, and charging consumers
for items promised or promoted as free.
Russell Mokhiber
|