Advocate for Consumer Rights
eins
Mills & Olson has successfully represented consumers injured by
violations of deceptive trade practices and consumer protection
laws, or by defective and unsafe products.
We have prosecuted actions on behalf of consumers who have
purchased a wide variety of products and services, including
prescription drugs, implantable defibrillators, long distance
telephone service, air compressors, smoke detectors and hearing
aids.
Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., et al.
The firm recently filed a class action on behalf of financial
advisors (Platform 1 and Platform 2 Branded Advisors) for Ameriprise
Financial, Inc. (formerly American Express Financial Corp.) and
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (formerly American Express
Financial Advisors, Inc.) who sold shares of Real Estate Insurance
Trusts (REITs) and/or tax credit limited partnerships from March 22,
2000 to the present. The
action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota and assigned to the Honorable Donovan W. Frank, seeks
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the
defendants’ continuing failure to pay the advisors agreed-upon
commissions relating to sales of these investment products.
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights and
interests concerning this lawsuit or wish to discuss this action
with us, please contact one of the following attorneys:
□_Barbara
J. Felt,
Esq. (bfelt@heinsmills.com)
□_Lori
A. Johnson, Esq. (ljohnson@heinsmills.com)
Other
Other examples of some of
the diverse consumer and other complex litigation in which Heins
Mills & Olson serves as lead counsel are In re Universal Service
Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation, and In re
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation.
Heins Mills & Olson is co-lead counsel in In re Universal Service
Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation, which is a
consolidation of dozens of cases from around the country, now before
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
These cases are brought against AT&T Corp. and Sprint
Communications Company, L.P. on behalf of business and residential
customers who purchased long distance telephone services.
The suits allege that the defendants combined and conspired
to fix the percentages at which they set Universal Service Fund
("USF") program surcharges, collected and retained USF surcharges in
unreasonable amounts, discriminated in the collection of the USF
surcharges, and misrepresented the nature of the USF surcharges they
imposed on their customers.
