Brimer v. Wells Manufacturing USA Inc,; Wells Manufacturing, Inc., et al.

In the case Brimer v. Wells Manufacturing USA Inc.; et al., the Honorable James L. Warren entered a Consent Judgment on January 12, 2006. In this matter, citizen enforcer Russell Brimer alleged that the defendants Wells Manufacturing USA Inc.; Wells Manufacturing, Inc.; and the May Department Stores Company (collectively "Wells") sold glassware with colored artwork that contains the heavy metal lead and/or cadmium in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.

As part of the settlement, Wells agreed not to sell the specific glassware identified in Exhibit A to the Consent Judgment in California after September 1, 2005, unless the glassware has Proposition 65 warnings provided or complies with the reformulation standards when analyzed using state or federally approved testing methodologies. Wells commits that as a continuing matter of corporate policy, they intend to undertake good faith efforts to ensure that as much glassware as reasonably possible sold in California shall qualify as reformulated, with the commitment to reach 80% or more reformulated by July 1, 2006, and the commitment to make commercially reasonable efforts thereafter to reach 100% reformulated glassware.

The Consent Judgment requires settlement payments of $106,700, to be divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower Brimer and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.