Contact
Robert F. McDougall
Assistant Attorney General
(802) 828-5507

STATE OF VERMONT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
109 STATE STREET
MONTPELIER, VT 05609

Inergy Propane, doing business in Vermont as Pyrofax Energy, has agreed to pay $140,000 in civil penalties to the State of Vermont and $100,000 as a payment to the Vermont LIHEAP program to settle the Attorney General’s claims that Pyrofax violated Vermont’s consumer protection laws when it assessed “minimum usage fees” in the fall of 2010 and delayed refunds following termination or disconnection of services. An additional $75,500 will be paid to former consumers who received late refunds following disconnection of services.

“The Consumer Assistance Program was flooded with calls from consumers in the fall of 2010 after Pyrofax imposed its minimum usage fee,” said Attorney General Sorrell. “While Pyrofax took steps to quickly reverse the minimum usage fee, the effect of that move was a lot of unhappy customers and eventually a change in Vermont law, giving consumers more flexibility in choosing propane dealers and a penalty if the company is late with refunds.”

In the fall of 2010, Pyrofax notified at least 3,950 Vermont consumers that they would be charged a minimum usage fee based on their propane usage since December 1, 2009. Vermont Consumer Fraud Rule 111.20 prohibits the billing or collection of any charge that is not clearly and conspicuously disclosed through contract or writing at least 60 days prior to the charge. As a result of 2011 legislative action, Vermont law now specifically prohibits the assessment of Pyrofax has already sent refunds and penalties to consumers who received late refunds since the new law went into effect. As a result of this settlement, the company will also send checks for $250.00 to each of 302 Vermont consumers who disconnected services between January 1, 2010, and May 25, 2011, and who received late refunds for unused propane fuel.

Consumers can expect to receive those checks in approximately 6 weeks and can call the consumer Assistance Program (1-800-649-2424) with questions.

As a part of the settlement, Pyrofax has also agreed to hire or designate a “Compliance Officer” who will, among other duties, resolve consumer complaints and work as a liaison to the Consumer Assistance Program and Attorney General’s Office.

Related documents:

Assurance of Discontinuance
Consumer Fraud Rule 111

VTDigger

Contact
Robert F. McDougall
Assistant Attorney General
(802) 828-5506

The Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, ordered former junkyard owner Gilbert Rhoades to clean-up the Milton site following its finding of environmental violations earlier this year, including removal of all tires at the site within 90 days. The Court ordered Rhoades to pay$20,000 in civil penalties and Rhoades and his wife, Blanche Rhoades, to reimburse the State $24,857.58 for past investigative costs.

The Court’s ruling follows a May 11th hearing in an environmental enforcement action brought by the Attorney General’s Office based on inspections by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

“This ruling sends a strong message that, although salvage yards can provide valuableservices to the community, owners of such operations must follow Vermont’s environmental laws and operate in a safe manner,” said Attorney General William H. Sorrell. In addition to ordering the removal of all tires at the site within 90 days, the Court ordered: permanently enjoined Rhoades from operating a junkyard or salvage yard at the site without first obtaining all necessary permits and licenses; ordered Rhoades to comply with all statutes and regulations governing the handling of hazardous waste;ordered additional soil sampling and removal of lead contaminated soil; ordered Rhoades and his wife Blanche to reimburse the State for $24,857 in past investigative costs; and ordered Rhoades to pay the State $20,000 in civil penalties.Since November 2009, the Rhoades have been subject to a preliminary injunction prohibiting them from taking in any new junk, including scrap metal, at the site.Related documents: Ruling on DamagesRuling on the Merits (February 9, 2011)Ruling on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (November 20, 2009)Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (November 20, 2009)

VTDigger

Contact
Cathy Norman
Assistant Attorney General
(802) 828-5512

The Vermont Attorney General’s Office announced that, during the process of jury selection yesterday in Vermont Superior Court in Windsor County, Philip Grasso, 58, of Manchester, Connecticut, plead guilty to five charges: sexual assault on a minor; two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child; and two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct.

According to documents filed with the Court, Mr. Grasso sexually assaulted a child under the age of 16 between 1998 and 2003 in Springfield, Vermont. Those documents also indicate that the lewd and lascivious conduct with a child offenses and the lewd and lascivious conduct offenses occurred during weekend visits to Springfield , Peru and Perkinsville, Vermont, over the same five year period.

The Court ordered a presentence investigation report. Sentencing is expected to take place in Vermont Superior Court in White River Junction in about six weeks.

VTDigger

Contact
Elliot Burg
Assistant Attorney General
(802) 828-5507

Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell and 49 other state attorneys general havesettled allegations of unfair debt collection practices involving consumer accounts at the now-bankrupt Movie Gallery, Inc., also known as Hollywood Video, a video rental chain that oncehad six outlets and over 27,000 members in Vermont.

When Movie Gallery filed for bankruptcy in Virginia in 2010, its accounts receivable were assigned to a debt collection firm called National Credit Solutions (NCS). Consumers around the country began to complain that NCS was reporting negative credit information to credit bureaus without giving them an opportunity to challenge the debt, double-charging them for video replacements and late fees, and seeking to collect amounts that were not owed, among other practices.

Under the settlement, the Trustee in the Movie Gallery bankruptcy will:

• Withdraw all previously submitted credit reports.
• Not submit any future credit reports.
• Not charge collection fees or interest on principal amounts owed by consumers.
• Not collect both late fees and video replacement charges for the same item, but only for the lesser of the two amounts.
• Not collect video replacement charges if they are the only fee owed for that transaction.
• Protect consumers in the future from abusive collection practices.

VTDigger

Contact:
Linda Purdy
Assistant Attorney General
802-828-5332

Attorney General William H. Sorrell announced today that Jodi LaClaire, age 36, has been arrested in Bennington, New Hampshire, on a fugitive from justice charge seeking herreturn to the State of Vermont to face sixteen counts of financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult and attempted financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Bail in the amount of $10,000was set on the arrest warrant.

According to papers filed in court, the charge stems from cash withdrawals and attempted cash withdrawals using the credit card of a resident of The Thompson House Nursing Facility in Brattleboro, Vermont, where LaClaire was employed as a licensed nursing assistant. Over thecourse of ten days, the resident’s credit card was used to withdraw several thousand dollars. Thearrest follows an investigation by the Brattleboro Police Department and the Vermont AttorneyGeneral’s Office Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Unit.

The felony charges each carry a possible sentence of not more than ten yearsimprisonment.

VTDigger

Contact:
Elliot Burg
Assistant Attorney General
802-828-5507

Vermonters should avoid buying or using certain decorative drinking glasses because of high lead in the painted illustrations on the products, according to the Vermont AttorneyGeneral’s Office. The products were imported from overseas by a Salt Lake City-based company called Vandor, LLC, whose name appears on the packaging.

Independent laboratory testing found that 9 glasses out of 15 Vandor glasses and mugs contained lead concentrations of between 14 and 81 times the state limit of 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead for children’s products as defined under Vermont law. The 9 glasses also contained the heavy metal cadmium, although at much lower levels.

Attorney General William H. Sorrell notes that lead is highly toxic, particularly to youngchildren, and exposure to it should be avoided. Even very small amounts of lead over time cancause serious neurological damage, including drops in IQ and long-term behavioral problems.

Here is a description of the illustrations on the high-lead glasses, which were made in China or Indonesia, and the lead concentration for each:

• Gone with the Wind glass no. 1—4, 831 parts per million (ppm)
• Gone with the Wind glass no. 2—4, 191 ppm
• Elvis Presley tumbler—7, 345 ppm
• Elvis Presley glass (white)—1, 443 ppm
• Elvis Presley glass (black)—2, 935 ppm
• Elvis Presley “All Shook Up” glass—4, 216 ppm
• Elvis Presley “Heartbreak Hotel” glass—4, 109 ppm
• Elvis Presley “Love Me Tender” glass—4, 066 ppm
• Elvis Presley “Burning Love” glass—8, 174 ppm

VTDigger

CONTACT:
William H. Sorrell
Attorney General
(802) 828-3166

Wendy Morgan
Assistant Attorney General
(802) 828-5479

Vermont will receive approximately $1.4 million as part of a settlement with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, and AstraZeneca LP, Attorney General William H. Sorrell announced today. The total settlement of $68.5 million, paid to thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia, is the largest payment ever for a multistate drug consumer protection settlement. “Pharmaceutical companies must accept that they can only promote drugs for FDA- approved uses,” said Attorney General Sorrell, “to do otherwise puts some of the most vulnerable Vermonters at risk, including children, the elderly, and those suffering from mental illness.”

The settlement is the result of a three-year multistate investigation into AstraZeneca’s sales and marketing practices. It resolves allegations that AstraZeneca promoted its atypical antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, for off-label usage, failed to adequately disclose the drug’s potential side effects to health care providers, and withheld negative information contained in scientific studies concerning the safety and efficacy of Seroquel.

Seroquel was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use only by adults (prior to 2009), primarily to treat conditions related to schizophrenia and bipolar mania. While it is legal for physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, it is a violation of federal law and Vermont’s Consumer Fraud Act to market or promote pharmaceuticals for off-label uses. In a complaint filed today, Vermont alleges that despite the limitations on the FDA’s approval, AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel’s use in children and adolescents before establishing with the FDA that it was safe or effective to do so. AstraZeneca also promoted Seroquel to treat dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly even though Seroquel has never been approved for that treatment. In addition, AstraZeneca failed to fully disclose information about Seroquel’s side effects and risks, including weight gain, hyperglycemia, diabetes, cardiovascular complications, and an increased risk of mortality in elderly patients with dementia and other severe conditions.

In addition to the monetary component, the settlement prohibits AstraZeneca from promoting Seroquel for off-label uses. The settlement contains additional injunctive relief as well, including requiring AstraZeneca to publicly post its payments to physicians on a website; to have policies in place to ensure that financial incentives are not given to marketing and sales personnel for off-label marketing; and to have policies that ensure AstraZeneca sales personnel do not promote to individual health care providers who are unlikely to prescribe Seroquel for an FDA-approved use. This is the third multistate settlement to address off-label marketing of atypical antipsychotics. In September 2009, Vermont received $432,000 as its share of a multistate settlement with Pfizer Inc. relating off-label marketing of Geodon, and in October 2008, Vermont settled with Eli Lilly and Company for $1.5 million relating to its off-label marketing of Zyprexa.

VTDigger

CONTACT:
Jason Duquette-Hoffman
Consumer Assistance Program
(802) 656-8755
(800) 649-2424 Toll Free VT

Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell is reminding Vermonters to be wary of free trial offers because often they contain hidden fees and other subscription obligations.

Attached to promotions from online merchants or associated with health-related or other products advertised on television and in print media, these free trial offers usually include inflated shipping or handling charges and an automatic subscription and monthly charge if the consumer does not cancel. “Companies hide recurring fees behind free trial offers and make cancelling membership plans hard in the hopes that consumers will forget or give up. They then continue to charge consumers monthly for services and products they don’t need or want,” says Sorrell. When consumers finally cancel they may be charged cancellation or restocking fees. Many consumers may miss the small monthly charges on their credit card, checking account or telephone statements.

Protect yourself from hidden fees and recurring charges

Avoid or be wary of free trial offers and other similar promotions

Read the disclosure! Often by clicking YES, you are agreeing for your credit card number and other personal information to be forwarded to a promotion company running the free offer. Free trials, discount codes at the checkout of online merchants and low-cost initial purchases are all tricks used to get consumers to agree to something in the hope of saving money. Read the fine print, decline the promotional offers or get good information first about what it will take to cancel or stop any membership. Know where your financial information is going.

Review your bank account, credit card and telephone statements carefully

Companies rely on the fact that many consumers do not review their statements line by line, and will likely miss a small charge. Small charges add up quickly over time and it is the consumer who is responsible for monitoring their statements.

Dispute unauthorized charges right away

You are often able to contest a charge on your bill, but only within a certain amount of time. Contact your bank, credit card company or telephone service provider as soon as you notice a questionable charge and request that it be removed. You may have to provide some additional information, but in some cases these charges can be reversed if caught soon enough.

Having trouble resolving unauthorized charges? Contact CAP for help! Contact the Attorney General’s Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) toll free in Vermont with questions at (800) 649-2424 or (802) 656-3183, or visit CAP on the web at www.uvm.edu/consumer for more information or to file a complaint.

VTDigger

CONTACT:
Crystal Grewe
Consumer Assistance Program
(802) 656-3864
(800) 649-2424 Toll Free VT

Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell is cautioning Vermonters to be wary of fake collection calls that threaten consumers with dire consequences for failing to pay on a supposed debt. “These calls violate Vermont law. Collection agents may not threaten arrest, garnishments of wages, loss of personal property or other consequences they cannot enforce without a court order,” says Sorrell.

Many of the calls claim to be collecting on an unpaid “payday” or short-term loan. In some cases, consumers had received short term loans, but had paid them in full. Payday loans are unlawful in Vermont, as the interest rates far exceed the rates allowable under Vermont banking law.

What you can do if you are targeted by shady collectors:

Don’t engage with the caller

The hostile and threatening tactics employed by these callers is intended to scare you into paying. Politely request information in writing and end the call. DO NOT make payment arrangements or agree to terms over the telephone, as such agreements are difficult to prove or enforce.

Do not provide or verify any personal information:

Do not give or verify your social security number, bank account information or date of birth, even if it appears the caller may know the information. Do not acknowledge you may owe a debt. Request the information be sent to you – the caller should have your address and then end the call.

Request information on the debt and the collection agency:

Under debt collection practices law, you have the right to know the full name and contact information for any collection agency that contacts you, as well as to request proof of the debt in writing.

Respond in writing to any written notification of a debt:

If a collection agency sends you a notice in writing that you have a debt, but does not provide the specifics of the debt, respond in writing and request all the information about the debt be sent to you, including a copy of their right to collect the debt. Do not verify any personal information. Send your response by certified or registered mail. Under debt collection practices law, the collection agency must furnish proof in writing that you owe the debt upon your request and provide their authority to collect on the debt, or cease collection of the debt. Tell the collection agency how they may contact you: You have the right to request that any collection agency contact you only in the manner that you choose (such as by mail or through your attorney), or not contact you at all (called a cease-contact request).

Your request must be in writing and should be sent by certified or registered mail so you have proof of receipt.

Report harassing, threatening or bogus collection calls:

If you receive bogus, threatening or harassing calls, you may report the calls to authorities. Violations of fair debt collection practices laws can be reported to the Attorney General’s Consumer Assistance Program. You may find more information about your debt collection rights or file a complaint online or contact CAP by phone toll free in Vermont at (800) 649-2424 or (802) 656-3183. Threats of physical harm should be immediately reported to your local law enforcement agency.

VTDigger

CONTACT:
Cindy Maguire
Assistant Attorney General
802-828-5514

Attorney General William Sorrell announced today that his office has completed an independent review of the police-shooting incident that occurred on September 28, 2010, in Brattleboro, Vermont. After this review, the Attorney General’s Office concluded that Brattleboro Police Officer Amy Hamilton was legally justified in the use of deadly force when she shot at Brendan Houston.

As a result of the shooting Houston received a non-life-threatening injury. The legal standard for the use of deadly force is whether the officer reasonably believed that she or a third party was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that deadly force was necessary to respond to that threat. According to the investigation conducted by the Vermont State Police, the incident started when Officer Hamilton responded to a 911 call stating that a male subject, later identified as Brendan Houston, had eloped from a nearby mental health facility carrying a large knife and was headed towards downtown Brattleboro. Hamilton was the first officer to encounter Houston near the parking lot for the Brattleboro municipal buildings. According to the police investigation when Hamilton arrived, she ordered Houston to drop his knife and get down on the ground. Houston did not comply and instead raised the knife over his head, started making a stabbing motion, advanced towards Hamilton, and verbally threatened to kill her. Hamilton continued to order Houston to put down the knife and warned him that she would deploy her Taser if he did not comply. Houston did not comply, continued to advance, and Officer Hamilton deployed her Taser which did not make clean contact with Houston. Houston pulled the Taser prongs out and continued to advance towards Officer Hamilton. Hamilton then drew her hand gun and again ordered Houston to put down the knife. Houston did not comply and continued to advance towards Hamilton with the knife over his head. In response, Hamilton fired one round hitting Houston in his left hand.

At some point during the encounter with Houston, Officer John Frechette arrived on scene. Despite being shot by Officer Hamilton, Houston continued to hold on to the knife. Officer Frechette ordered Houston to put down the knife and when he refused to comply Officer Frechette successfully deployed his Taser. Houston was then restrained and transported to the hospital where he received medical treatment.

Under the facts of this case, the Attorney General’s Office has concluded that Officer Hamilton was reasonable in her belief that she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury when she fired at Brendan Houston who was threatening to kill her with a large knife. Given the seriousness of the threat, Officer Hamilton’s response of using deadly force was reasonable and justified.

VTDigger