Pet owner unhappy with melamine-tainted petfood lawsuit settlement

A woman whose cat died from eating tainted pet food is unhappy with the settlement pet owners received compared to the compensation lawyers received in a class-action lawsuit related to the 2007 melamine-tainted petfood imported from China, NBC reported.
Kathy Forcier's cat, who died from eating "Special Kitty" food purchased at Walmart, was one of as many as 50,000 dogs and cats sickened or killed by the 2007 melamine-tainted petfood incident, in which as many as 150 pet foods produced by Menu Foods were recalled. Forcier was part of a class-action lawsuit with more than 24,000 people against Menu Foods that settled for US$24 million. Yet, she says she received a settlement check for US$58.76, about half of the cost of her cat's vet bills, while attorneys in the case received US$7.4 million. "It was an absolute insult," said Forcier.  The lead law firm in the case, Wexler Wallace of Chicago, would not disclose a breakdown of payouts or the number of checks that were mailed to claimants in California, USA, where Forcier lives. "Every claimant has the right to expect privacy with respect to their individual claims and I am going to respect that," said attorney Kenneth Wexler, who handled the case. "The range of recovery is not relevant."  "He didn't lose a pet," said Forcier. "He didn't lose a member of his family." 

Appeals court rules in class-action petfood lawsuit

A 3rd District US Court of Appeals ruled that a US$24 million class-action lawsuit settlement over melamine-contaminated petfood was a "fair, reasonable and adequate" deal, but sent the case back to a New Jersey district court judge for more information.
The appeals court sent the case back to New Jersey US District Court Judge Noel Hillman, who originally approved the deal in November 2008, for more information supporting the purchase-claim limit of US$250,000. According to the appellate court decision, 20,550 of the 24,344 claims submitted in the suit were deemed payable for a total estimated amount of US26.4 million, which exceeds the settlement fund by more than US$2 million. Appeals filed by two separate parties previously blocked disbursements from this settlement fund. Lisa Rodriguez, liaison counsel for the multiple class-action suits covered by the settlement, described the appeals court’s concern as minor and said that claimants may seek reimbursement in a number of categories, including purchases, but that the decision generally favors the claimants.
The petfood scandal originated with Chinese suppliers that tried to boost the protein contents of their products by spiking wheat gluten and rice protein with nitrogen-rich melamine, a substance not approved for human consumption. The tainted product was imported by ChemNutra and sold to Menu Foods, a private label petfood manufacturer. It also affected several other petfood makers, including Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Mars Inc., Nestle Purina PetCare Co., The Iams Co., and Procter & Gamble. More information on the settlement and associated legal documents can be found here.

Menu Foods unit holders approve Simmons Pet Food takeover

Unit holders of Menu Foods Income Fund  approved a US$239 million takeover offer from Arkansas USA-based Simmons Pet Food Inc.
According to Menu Foods, 99.94% of its units and special trust units voted to approve the deal, which is expected to close in early November pending regulatory approvals. Following a massive petfood recall three years ago involving Menu Foods, the company put itself up for sale after a strategic review earlier this year. The acquisition of Simmons Pet Food marks the end of Menu's struggle to overcome the tainted petfood recall.

Menu Foods saga coming to an end?

This week started with the announcement that Menu Foods Income Fund, parent company of Menu Foods Ltd., has sold the private label manufacturer to Simmons Pet Food, another manufacturer of private label and co-branded wet petfoods.
The news is not really a surprise; reports that Menu might be for sale had circulated earlier in the year. And in fact, some people have seemingly been waiting for this "shoe to drop" ever since the 2007 petfood recalls that affected mainly products manufactured by Menu. An article on the Calgary Herald website about the acquisition even said, "Menu Foods never recovered after it had to recall 60 million cans of petfood across North America in 2007."
It's true that the recall was a big hit to Menu's finances and reputation--but I'm not sure I agree that the company never recovered at all. It saw some financial rebounds within a year or so after the recalls, and its parent (and some clients) seemed to exercise plenty of patience in riding out the aftermath of the recalls.
I wonder if the lingering recession didn't have at least as much, if not more, impact on the parent company's decision to sell.
In any event, this appears to be a good outcome. Simmons, based in Arkansas, USA, has the capacity and reputation to take on the additional business and clients. And however much blame you believe Menu deserves for an external act of intentional contamination, the 2007 recalls at least had the effect of making every petfood manufacturer pay even greater attention to ingredient sourcing, safety and quality.

Menu Foods reports increased net income

The Menu Foods Income Fund reported net income for its fiscal year 2009 as US$13.7 million, a substantial improvement compared to a loss of US$6.8 million in 2008. In addition, the pet industry fund reported EBITDA of US$33.3 million for 2009, which is an increase of 46% from 2008.
"Our strong performance in 2009 marks the first time since 2006 that the fund has been profitable in each quarter of the year and results in 2009 being the third most profitable year since the fund went public in 2002," stated Paul Henderson, president and chief executive officer, Menu Foods GenPar Limited.

Menu Foods sees positive third quarter

Menu Foods Income Fund announced results for the third quarter that ended September 30, including EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of CA$7.4 million (US$7.07 million), a 93% increase over the same quarter last year.
"Our strong third quarter performance continues the trend begun in the first quarter of 2009 and marks the first time since 2006 that Menu has had three consecutive profitable quarters," stated Paul Henderson, president and CEO of Menu Foods GenPar Ltd.
The petfood company also generated almost CA$10 million (US$9.55 million) in cash from operations and was able to reduce its bank indebtedness by CA$8.5 million (US$8.12 million) and finance CA$1.5 million (US$1.43 million) of capital expenditures undertaken during the third quarter.

Menu Foods stocks, sales increase

Menu Foods Income Fund reported its first gain in profits since its petfood contamination lawsuit in 2007, according to a Canadian Press article.
The company’s stocks increased by 25% in the first quarter of 2009 to a 52-week high of CAN$1.68 (US$1.44) on the TSX.
Sales also increased from CAN $55.6 million (US $47.75 million) to CAN $84.1 million (US $72.2 million), which the company attributed to three price increases as well as a 6.7% rise in the volume of can and pouch sales, according to the article.

Evidence destruction claim rejected in Menu Foods case

Allegations that Menu Foods destroyed evidence are the basis of motions in several court cases, according to an article on www.consumeraffairs.com.
Menu Foods settled a $24 million lawsuit last year that grew from the largest petfood recall in US history. The case was heard in New Jersey, and parties are still wrapping up various items on the docket, but now a Washington state litigant is charging that the company illegally destroyed thousands of samples of food, potentially leaving him without evidence to pursue his claim.
During discovery for the New Jersey suit, the defendants collected thousands of cases of petfood — both recalled and non-recalled — in their warehouse. In December 2007, the defendants claimed that preserving all of these samples was an unnecessary waste of time and money. The court agreed, and allowed the defendants to destroy all but 500 units of recalled petfood.
Donald Earl, a plaintiff in a Washington state suit, filed a motion objecting to the orders in January 2008. Earl’s suit involved “cake style” cat food, which does not contain gluten and was not implicated in the March 2007 recall.
Laboratory tests of Earl’s food showed that it was contaminated with acetaminophen and cyanuric acid, nitrogen-based chemicals often used to artificially boost a food’s apparent protein content. Neither chemical was discovered in the recalled food. Despite his allegations, the court dismissed Earl’s objection without comment in February 2008.
Earl also filed a motion in Washington state court, where his own suit was pending. That court rejected his claim in February 2008.
Undeterred, Earl filed a second objection and motion to intervene in January 2009.
In a two-page order issued in February, Judge Noel Hillman denied Earl’s motion to intervene, holding that Earl “has not demonstrated that he has an interest in the ‘unorganized inventory’ requiring that this Court vacate its prior orders regarding that inventory.”