Labaton Sucharow LLP Secures Settlement on Behalf of Lawncare Professionals and Property Owners Impacted by DuPont's Imprelis® Herbicide

Class Action Settlement reached after herbicide damages trees across the country


NEW YORK (October 23, 2012) — Labaton Sucharow LLP, along with its Co-Lead Counsel, announced a settlement agreement today in the class action lawsuit In re Imprelis Herbicide Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The Firm filed the first federal lawsuit in the country to address these allegations on behalf of purchasers and users of DuPont's Imprelis® herbicide between August 31, 2010 and August 21, 2011. The action charges DuPont with consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, product liability and damage to land under both Delaware and Michigan law.

Based on the settlement agreement, DuPont agreed to arrange for the removal and replacement of damaged trees at no cost, and to provide additional compensation to members of the class.

Background

Imprelis® was marketed and sold to professionals treating residential and commercial lawns, golf courses, and sod farms nationwide as a product that would control broadleaf weeds on lawns, including dandelion, clover, wild violet, and ground ivy, among others. In August 2011, the EPA banned the sale or use of Imprelis® because of the damage it caused to trees, shrubs, and other foliage, and because DuPont allegedly withheld information about these damaging side effects when it registered Imprelis® with the EPA.

Forty-six class action lawsuits were filed in seventeen federal courts nationwide against DuPont regarding Imprelis® damage. All of these cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs alleged that DuPont misrepresented the safety of Imprelis® to consumers, and concealed or omitted its knowledge that Imprelis® caused serious lethal damage to mature trees. Plaintiffs also alleged that DuPont had a duty to ensure its product's safety, and in failing to do so, plaintiffs incurred severe damage to their property as a result of DuPont's negligent conduct. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that DuPont was unjustly enriched by receiving compensation for plaintiffs' purchases of Imprelis®, and it should be divested of such enrichment with damages awarded to plaintiffs.