DiPirro v. Esico Triton, et al.

On June 14, 1999, the Alameda County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in Michael DiPirro v. Esico-Triton, et al., which resolved citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro's allegations that the Esico-Triton manufactured, distributed, or sold welding, brazing, and soldering products containing lead and lead compounds in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.

The terms of the parties' settlement require Esico-Triton to immediately implement and provide specific and conspicuous Proposition 65 warning labels on its products regarding the types of harm associated with lead in its products. In addition, Esico-Triton agreed to alert its California customers of their duty to transfer the warnings to downstream users of the Products and, 30 days following May 28, 1999, the effective date pursuant to the settlement agreement, Esico-Triton issued a health hazard warning to be provided to customers for products already in the stream of commerce.

The settlement requires settlement payments of $11,200, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower Michael DiPirro and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.