YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR YOUR LOSSES AND DAMAGES – WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST YOU IN YOUR RECOVERY

Class Action Lawsuits Filed Or Under Investigation Against Manufacturers of Allegedly Defective HVAC Units – Carrier, Goodman, Lennox, Rheem, Trane and York

Class action lawsuits have been filed against certain manufacturers of HVAC Units alleging defects causing refrigerant leaks, and failure of thermal expansions valves and compressors.

If you purchased or have installed in your home or business an HVAC unit that has a refrigerant leak or has failed because of a defective thermal expansion valve or compressor and have incurred losses or experienced mold problems, you may be entitled to compensation.

• Our firm is vigorously pursuing these matters.
• Our clients have received millions of dollars in defective products lawsuits.
• No Charge or Obligation for Our Experienced Attorney Review.

CONTACT US NOW! Do Not Delay As The Applicable Statute Of Limitations May Result In A Complete Bar To Your Claim Regardless Of Its Merit.

About Defective HVAC Units

Johnson Controls and York International, Goodman, Rheem, and Carrier and United Technologies, have each been named in class action lawsuits in federal court that accuse the companies of selling HVAC units that contain defective evaporator and/or condenser coils which caused refrigerant fluid to leak, defective thermal expansion valves or defective compressors.

The lawsuits contend that the purchasers or owners with these defective units have incurred damage resulting from the costs relating to replacement of the units, including diagnostics and labor, and increased utility costs. In addition, refrigerant leaks could lead to accumulation of mold, which would cause owners to incur substantial property damage and even personal injury, as well as additional costs relating to mold remediation.

Even if the HVAC manufacturers offer to cover the actual cost of the defective part under their parts warranty, these warranties are unconscionable as they purport to exclude the costs to diagnose the problem, cost of labor to replace the part, shipping costs, cost of replacement refrigerant, increased utility costs, as well as costs which may be incurred from mold caused by the leaking, faulty or inoperable units. These additional costs can run thousands of dollars.

Lumber Liquidators Lawsuits

Gilman Law LLP, a leading national law firm with over 40 years of experience protecting the rights of

shareholders and consumers, is continuing its investigation into reports that laminate flooring sold by

Lumber Liquidators and installed in millions of homes across the country is contaminated with

dangerous amounts of formaldehyde. The Firm has already filed a Lumber Liquidators lawsuit that,

among other things, claims the Company’s directors failed to comply with their fiduciary duties in

connection with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to formaldehyde emissions from composite

wood products. Gilman Law LLP is also offering free Lumber Liquidators lawsuit evaluations.

Lumber Liquidators is the nation’s largest retailer of hardwood flooring, the Company and its investors

stand to incur significant damages as a result of the concerns surrounding the Company’s laminate

flooring products. If you are among them, please contact Gilman Law LLP today to learn more about

filing a Lumber Liquidators lawsuit.

Gilman Law Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit

In March 2015, Gilman Law LLP filed a Lumber Liquidators derivative lawsuit against the Company’s

board of directors, including former CEO Robert Lynch, for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties in

connection with their failure to oversee the operations of the Company as they relate to the

manufacture and sale of their wood laminate products, as well as the import and trade of illegally

sourced lumber from the Russian Far East in violation of the Lacey Act. In addition, the complaint

challenges the alleged unlawful insider selling of tens of millions of dollars of Lumber Liquidators stock

by certain members of the Board during a time when the stock was allegedly inflated due to a failure of

the Company’s management to properly disclose the activities of and accurate financial information

regarding the Company. The complaint, which is currently pending in Delaware Court of Chancery,

seeks damages on behalf of the Company arising from and incurred and to be incurred in connection

with pending federal securities lawsuits, consumer product liability lawsuits, and investigations by

various federal agencies, including arms of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lumber Liquidators Products Liability Lawsuits

Lumber Liquidators has been named a defendant in dozens of product liability lawsuits involving its

laminate flooring products. This litigation began to grow after 60 Minutes aired a report focusing on the

excessive formaldehyde levels contained in certain laminate flooring Lumber Liquidators purchased

from manufacturers in China. Among other things, the report noted that certified testing of laminate

wood flooring purchased from Lumber Liquidators locations in Virginia, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New

York revealed levels of formaldehyde that exceed those permitted by the California Air Resources Board

(CARB). In addition, 60 Minutes reported that employees at certain Chinese manufacturers “openly

admitted” that they use materials with higher levels of formaldehyde and falsely label Lumber

Liquidators’ laminate flooring as “CARB Phase 2 Compliant.”

At low levels, formaldehyde exposure can cause a number of serious health problems, including

respiratory issues, asthma, and irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Higher levels of formaldehyde

have been linked to various types of cancer, including myeloid leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer. 60

Minutes noted that children may be more susceptible to formaldehyde-related health issues, as they are

more likely to come into close contact with the Lumber Liquidators flooring.

Lumber Liquidator Lawsuit Reviews

For a no-obligation evaluation of your potential case, please fill out our free consultation form or call

Gilman Law LLP direct to speak with one of our attorneys at (888) 252-0048.

Gilman Law LLP Announces Continued Prosecution of Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits and Verdict of $100 Million

Gilman law is continuing to prosecute transvaginal mesh cases for women who have suffered debilitating transvaginal mesh complications following surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress

urinary incontinence.

A state court jury found yesterday that Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle and Advantage Fit inserts, built to

buttress sagging organs and treat incontinence in women, were defectively designed and that Boston

Scientific engaged in fraudulent concealment by failing to alert doctors and patients to the devices’ faulty design. The

jury awarded $100 million to a 51-year-old woman whose mesh eroded after it was implanted leaving

her with a scarred vagina and additional medical problems.

Boston Scientific, a Marlborough, Massachusetts-based company, agreed last month to settle a small amount of claims for

$119 million, based upon systemic damages for claims where inserts damaged women’s organs and

made sexual intercourse painful.

According to Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective medical device plaintiffs’ law firm

that is currently representing women in transvaginal mesh lawsuits, serious settlement talks reportedly are now

underway to resolve this massive litigation.

On June 2, 2015, the Court will convene a joint status conference, as well as individual meetings with six

of the seven defendants – American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Coloplast, Cook

Medical and Ethicon – with the goal of moving closer to resolution.

Women who have received these devices may be at risk for a number of very serious and painful

complications, including:

• Mesh erosion through the vaginal tissue, possibly causing the skin to split
• Mesh extrusion and exposure.
• Perforation or puncture of bladder, intestines, bowels, and/or vaginal wall
• Protrusion or lump in the vaginal opening
• Recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse
• Recurrence of stress urinary incontinence
• Urinary problems
• Vaginal bleeding, pain and discomfort, chronic drainage, discharge, infections, scarring and/or shrinkage
• Painful sexual intercourse

Gilman Law LLP is providing complimentary lawsuit consultations to women who suffered severe

complications, including tremendous pain and suffering, following implantation of transvaginal mesh.

For more information, please contact Gilman Law LLP today by visiting our website, www.gilmanlawllp.com, to fill out a free, no obligation case evaluation form, or call Toll Free at 1-888-

252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective drug law firm, has been recognized for

delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer

product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly

experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s

most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:
Kenneth G. Gilman
Gilman Law LLP
8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite #525
Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208
1-888-252-0048
kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

Gilman Law LLP Investigating Zofran Birth Defect Lawsuits

Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective medical device plaintiffs’ law firm, is now investigating potential Zofran birth defect lawsuits on behalf of children who were born with serious congenital defects, allegedly due to their mothers use of Zofran during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Zofran is not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to treat morning sickness or hyperemesis gravidarum. However, a report published in the August 2014 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that about 1 million pregnant women per year are exposed to Zofran or generic versions of ondansetron for this purpose.

Gilman Law LLP is seeking to hear from parents and caregivers of children who may have sustained any of the following birth defects due to prenatal Zofran exposure:

Zofran Birth Defects Lawsuit

• Heart defects, including septal defects (holes in the heart)
• Cleft lip and cleft palate
• Club foot
• Skull deformities (craniosynostosis)
• Musculoskeletal Defects
• Fetal growth restriction (poor growth in the womb)
• Kidney defects
• Hydronephrosis
• Hypospadia

Alleged victims of Zofran-related birth defects may be entitled to significant financial compensation from GlaxoSmithKline. However, potential claimants should be aware that all personal injury claims, including those involving Zofran, are subject to strict statutes of limitations that vary by state. Individuals seeking to file suit against GlaxoSmithKline are urged to contact Gilman Law LLP today, TOLL FREE at 888-252-0048, to ensure that their right to recovery is not placed in jeopardy.

Zofran is currently approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, radiation treatments and surgery. The drug is listed by the agency in Pregnancy Category B, which indicates it has not been well studied for use in pregnancy.

In 2012, Glaxo resolved criminal and civil charges over the marketing of several drugs, including Zofran, and paid $3 billion as part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. Among other things, the company had been accused of promoting the use of Zofran as a treatment for morning sickness, even though it had not been approved for this purpose by the FDA.

Court documents indicate that more than a half dozen Zofran birth defect lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts since February, all of which accuse GlaxoSmithKline of fraudulently marketing the medication as a safe and effective treatment for morning sickness. Most recently, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on behalf of a child who was born with a partial cleft lip after his mother took Zofran to control nausea and vomiting during her first trimester. Like similar complaints filed in recent months, the lawsuit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of concealing hundreds of reports linking Zofran to birth defects from regulators, doctors and patients. The complaint also notes that a number of studies have suggested that exposure to Zofran during the first trimester of pregnancy increases the likelihood for birth defects, including a 2.37 times increased risk of cleft palate; 2 times increased risk of a heart defect; and 20 percent increased risk of any birth defect. (Case No. 15-284)

Gilman Law LLP is providing complimentary Zofran lawsuit consultations to families who believe their baby was harmed by this drug. For more information, please contact Gilman Law LLP today by visiting our website, www.gilmanlawllp.com, to fill out a free, no obligation case evaluation form, or call Toll Free at 1-888-252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP
Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective drug law firm, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 40 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:

Gilman Law LLP

8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite #525

Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208

1-888-252-0048

kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

Woman Awarded $100 Million by Jury In Mesh Lawsuit

Gilman Law LLP reports that a Delaware court jury has awarded a woman $100 million for her claims against Boston Scientific relating to the company’s transvaginal mesh inserts, a device that is the subject of more than 25,000 lawsuits against the company. The Delaware jury found that Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle and Advantage Fit inserts were negligently and defectively designed, that Boston Scientific had engaged in fraud, and that the company’s executives hid the defects from the plaintiff, who had alleged that the inserts eroded once they were implanted, causing great pain and scarring.

The jury awarded $25 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. The jury award is the largest thus far against Boston Scientific relating its vaginal-mesh inserts, and the first since the company agreed to pay $119 million to resolve approximately 3,000 lawsuits in the first wave of settlements of claims that the inserts caused damage to various women’s organs and resulted in painful sexual
intercourse.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Attorneys at Gilman Law LLP Urge Victims of Pelvic Mesh Complications to Come Forward Now, As Serious Settlement Talks Reportedly Are Currently Underway

Women who have suffered debilitating transvaginal mesh complications following surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence are urged to seek legal advice today if they have not already done so. According to Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmacy law and defective medical device plaintiffs’ law firm that is currently representing women in transvaginal mesh lawsuits, serious settlement talks reportedly are now underway to resolve this massive litigation. Court documents indicate that more than 75,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in the various litigations pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, including:

• In Re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2405)
• In Re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2406)
• In Re: C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2187)
• In Re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2387)
• In Re: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2440)
• In Re: Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2407)
• In Re: Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2511)

On June 2^nd, the Court will convene a joint status conference, as well as individual meetings with six of the seven defendants – American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Coloplast, Cook Medical and Ethicon – with the goal of moving closer to resolution.

Transvaginal Mesh Settlements

Several defendants involved in the transvaginal mesh litigations have already reached settlements in a small number of claims. Most recently, Boston Scientific disclosed that it had resolved some 2,900 of the nearly 15,000 cases involving its pelvic mesh products. According to the company, the settlements will cost it around $119 million. In January, Ethicon announced that it had reached transvaginal mesh settlements in four cases for undisclosed amounts. The company still faces nearly 23,000 claims in state and federal courts. In March 2014, Coloplast entered into an agreement to settle 400 claims for a total of $16 million. C.R. Bard, which has been named as a defendant in more than 10,000 vaginal mesh lawsuits, announced last October that it had resolved about 500 claims for a total of $21 million, or an average of $43,000 per case. That same month, Endo International PLC, the parent company of American Medical Systems, reached an agreement to settle nearly all of the claims involving its pelvic mesh products for more than $400 million. In reaching these transvaginal mesh lawsuit settlements, none of the defendants have admitted any liability for patients’ alleged injuries.

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first communication regarding the dangers associated with transvaginal mesh in October 2008, and followed up with a second public warning in July 2011. According to the FDA, transvaginal mesh complications following pelvic organ prolapse repair are not rare. What’s more, the agency also stated that it is “not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is any more effective than traditional [transvaginal surgery without mesh] … and may expose patients to greater risk.” Women who have received these devices may be at risk for a number of very serious and painful complications, including:

• Mesh erosion through the vaginal tissue, possibly causing the skin to split
• Mesh extrusion and exposure.
• Perforation or puncture of bladder, intestines, bowels, and/or vaginal wall
• Protrusion or lump in the vaginal opening
• Recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse
• Recurrence of stress urinary incontinence
• Urinary problems
• Vaginal bleeding, pain and discomfort, chronic drainage, discharge, infections, scarring and/or shrinkage
• Painful sexual intercourse

Gilman Law LLP is providing complimentary lawsuit consultations to women who suffered severe complications, including tremendous pain and suffering, following implantation of transvaginal mesh. For more information, please contact Gilman Law LLP today by visiting our website, www.gilmanlawllp.com, to fill out a free, no obligation case evaluation form, or call Toll Free at 1-888-252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective drug law firm, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 40 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:
Gilman Law LLP
8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite #525
Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208
1-888-252-0048
kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

Gilman Law LLP is pursuing a securities class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (“Lumber Liquidators” or the “Company”) and certain officers and/or directors of the Company.

According to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 4:13-cv-00157) (“Virginia Case”) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lumber Liquidators common stock (NYSE:LL) between February 22, 2012 and July 9, 2014, certain false and/or misleading statements were made by Lumber Liquidators in violation of federal law.

According to Lumber Liquidators’ website, the Company is headquartered in Toano, Virginia, has stores in 46 states, and is the nation’s largest retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Virginia Case against Lumber Liquidators is generally focused on two key areas of alleged misconduct. First, the plaintiff alleges that Lumber Liquidators made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that certain of Lumber Liquidators’ products did not comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Second, the Wall Street Journal  previously reported, and the Company confirms in its securities filings, that federal authorities, including agents from the Department of Homeland Security Investigations and the Department of Justice, executed search warrants at the headquarters of Lumber Liquidators on September 26, 2013 looking for information relating to the importation of certain of its wood flooring products.  The Virginia Case alleges that Lumber Liquidators violated the Lacey Act, which bans the import and trade of illegally sourced wood products.  The Company notes in a recent securities filing that the Department of Justice is contemplating seeking criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators under the Lacey Act.

On March 1, 2015, 60 Minutes ran a story focusing on the excessive formaldehyde levels contained in certain laminate flooring Lumber Liquidators purchased from manufacturers in China.  As reported by 60 Minutes, certain of those manufacturers admitted that certain flooring manufactured for Lumber Liquidators was not CARB Phase 2 compliant even though it was labeled as such. CARB Phase 2 compliant refers to compliance with certain California formaldehyde emissions standards.

If you are an investor who purchased Lumber Liquidators common stock on or after January 1, 2011, and continues to hold any of the stock purchased as of the present date, and suffered a loss or would like more information concerning Lumber Liquidators’ products, then please contact Gilman Law LLP today, at 1-888-252-0048 or www.investment-losses.com, to ensure your legal rights are not forfeited.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading financial law firm, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from securities class actions and derivative actions to consumer product injury lawsuits.  For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact: Kenneth G. Gilman

1-888-252-0048

Gilman Law, LLP recently initiated a nationwide class action against The Home Depot, Inc. in connection with its much publicized data breach.  The suit seeks to remedy Home Depot customers’ exposure to potential damages due to identity theft and invokes provisions of both state and federal law.  If your personal or financial information has been exposed in connection with the Home Depot data breach, we encourage you to contact our Consumer Protection Attorneys for a free consultation by calling Toll free at (888) 252-0048 or complete our Free Consultation Form.