Remington claims Barber only dropped his demands after a federal appeals court ruled in May of 2015 that he had forfeited his right to make future claims against the company as a result of the 2002 wrongful death settlement, dismissing the case and rendering his demands moot.

Barber said he regrets making the demands, which he said he assumed were confidential. He has spoken broadly about settlement talks in the past and acknowledged them in court filings, but never volunteered details to the court or CNBC.

“I pray for forgiveness every day for the things I’ve done and left undone,” he said.

But, he added, “I believe my actions speak for themselves, and truth is still a defense.”

Specifically, Barber alleges the company and plaintiffs’ attorneys in the class action case intentionally misled the court about a particular class of Remington rifles—the Model 600—that the company claims is too old to retrofit. Owners of those rifles—several hundred thousand in all—are ineligible for a new trigger under the proposed settlement, and can only claim a $12.50 product voucher. Barber alleges the attorneys concealed the fact that Remington recalled the Model 600 in 1978 and says the company remains obligated to fix it. In its latest filing, Remington argues that the recall has been part of the court record from the beginning of the case.

U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in Kansas City, who is overseeing the class action case, has given Barber until January 1 to file a formal response to Remington. Smith has scheduled a hearing for February 14 to consider final approval of the settlement.

Other gun owners have alleged that Remington and the plaintiffs’ attorneys have deliberately structured the settlement to discourage customers from returning their guns and reduce the cost to Remington, a charge the company and plaintiffs have denied.

But last week a Connecticut gun owner wrote to the court to complain that he has been getting the run-around when trying to return his gun, including “30-minute hold times” on Remington’s customer service line, “representatives that intentionally disconnect the line,” and a web site that is “plagued with errors.”

“I am now convinced the Remington Arms Co. is intentionally making it difficult for owners, such as me, to have our defective guns properly repaired,” wrote Paul Vigano of New Canaan.

Remington’s attorneys have not yet responded in court to the letter, and did not respond to an e-mail seeking a comment.

For more information, please visit the source link below.