We just have one problem with all of this; the quote global settlement only identified about one in twenty homeowners, or investors involved, or impacted, and the Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall global settlement does not address health issues
(PRWEB) February 25, 2013
The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center spoke with the clerk of the judge that handed down the quote global settlement on Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese Drywall on Wednesday February 6th 2013. In the conversation the federal judge's clerk indicated the judge was aware many homeowners stuck with Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall had not yet been identified in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. According to the Miami Herald, "On February 7th 2013 the federal court in New Orleans approved the Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall global settlement." The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center says, "It's been four years, we get the part about the law firms wanting to get paid, and to move on. Our only problem is too many completely innocent homeowners, or taxpayers just got left holding the bag, and we are now urging the court to allow for another six months, so this global settlement does not look like your typical New Orleans back room deal. We have been hearing from homeowners in the extreme US Southeast for months, they literally just found out their home contains Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall, they are the original owner, they meet all of the court's criteria, the problem-they never heard of the Knauf Tianjin litigation, and we're convinced there are 1000s of them. Where is the justice for them, or is it just us?" http://ChineseDrywallComplaintCenter.Com
The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center says, "For four years we have been indicating one of the best indicators for toxic Chinese drywall homes in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Virginia, are coils on air conditioning units turning black, and then developing leaks. The gasses being off gassed by the toxic Chinese drywall will eat holes in the impacted home's copper air conditioning coils. How good does that sound for the health for a homeowner, or for the health of a homeowner's children? In ten years we think cable TV networks will be running law firm ads asking, do you know someone who lived in a toxic Chinese drywall home, and are they still alive? They may be entitled to compensation." The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center does not believe the quote Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall global settlement addresses serious health issues related to long term exposure to toxic Chinese drywall. Why not?" http://ChineseDrywallComplaintCenter.Com
On the topic of back room deals, according to CNN Money on January 22nd 2013, and toxic Chinese drywall, "In the waning hours of the 112th Congress, lawmakers finally passed a piece of legislation aimed at tainted drywall– sending the bill to President Obama's desk during the final stages of the high-stakes wrangling over the fiscal cliff. He signed the Drywall Safety Act. There's just one problem: the bill does little to prevent the problem from continuing to spread, nor keep it from happening again. And it doesn't call for standards ensuring that future drywall – imported or domestically produced – does not release similarly problematic levels of sulfur gases. It also doesn't mandate disclosure of Chinese drywall when an affected home is sold – leaving a whole new generation of buyers currently at risk for inheriting the tainted homes."
The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center says, "We are now inviting homeowners in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas to contact us, if they have just discovered their home contains toxic Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall, especially if they live in a medium to larger subdivision, and if they were not included in the quote, global settlement. The only condition is they must be the original homeowner, and they must be able to prove their home contains Knauf Tianjin toxic Chinese drywall." http://ChineseDrywallComplaintCenter.Com
(United States District Court-Eastern District of Louisiana MDL Case #2047)