Two Investment Firms Call For Bayer CEO Fired Because Monsanto Purchase and Lawsuits

Alatus Capital and Temasek Holdings, two major investment firms, have called for Bayer CEO Werner Baumann’s resignation. The company’s value has dropped since Monsanto was acquired, in large part due to the billions spent on the Roundup litigation.

Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion. The two investment firms claim that this was a bad deal for shareholders because Monsanto was already dealing with thousands of lawsuits from Roundup users who had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and other injuries.

Bayer was the target of a series of large jury verdicts in the months following the acquisition. These verdicts were based on Monsanto’s failure to warn consumers about Roundup’s cancer risks. The company has already paid more than $11 million in Roundup settlements. The company faces numerous unresolved claims and there are likely to be new claims as former Roundup users develop non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Bayer was unable to successfully defend Monsanto’s actions at trial. However, it suspended settlement negotiations while it waited for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether it would review two earlier verdicts. Bayer hopes this will result in a decision that will curtail future claims. There is no guarantee that the highest appellate court will consider Bayer’s appeal. However, juries are likely to be presented with a steady stream in the next months and year.

Two major investment firms called for a vote against Baumann at the next shareholder meeting. It is set for April 29.

According to an press release (PDF), by Alatus Capital, “The actions taken by Mr. Baumann have caused significant shareholder value destruction in Bayer.” This statement was made on March 18. The Fund was a long-term shareholder in Bayer, but it is urgent that a new leader be appointed. Baumann must accept full responsibility for the failures of his leadership and should not have his actions ratified by the Annual General Assembly.

Baumann was appointed to continue as CEO until 2024. He also survived another no-confidence vote in 2019 due to concerns about the Monsanto acquisition.

Alatus points out that Bayer’s share prices have dropped 48% since Monsanto was purchased.

Bayer told investors that if the Roundup Supreme Court appeals fail, it will continue with a claims administration plan to address future lawsuits. This could lead to billions of dollars in additional payments or verdicts.

The company also announced it would remove the active ingredient glyphosate in Roundup products sold to residential customers in the United States by 2023 to reduce its future liability.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/two-investment-firms-call-for-bayer-ceo-fired-because-monsanto-purchase-and-lawsuits/230/
via IFTTT

FEC Fines Clinton and DNC For Lying About Trump In 2016

Federal Election Commission fines Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee for lying about the funding of the discredited Russian “dossier”, which was used in a smear effort against Donald Trump just weeks before his shocking 2016 victory.

According to the election agency, Clinton and the DNC broke strict rules regarding the description of expenditures for payments that were funneled through their law firms to Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, Clinton claimed.

The Clinton campaign and DNC treasurers paid $1,024,407.97 to Perkins Coie, the law firm, for Fusion GPS’s information. However, the party and campaign claimed it was for legal services and not opposition research.

Instead, Trump’s first term was marred by the DNC’s $849.407.97 and Clinton’s $175,000 for Fusion GPS’s opposition research on the dossier.

According to the memo, Clinton campaign and DNC claimed that their payment was for legal advice and services. Fusion GPS was hired by Perkins Coie. The agency claimed that the law was clear and was not violated.

The FEC stated that neither the party nor the campaign admitted to lying, but they will not contest the finding. The FEC stated that the investigation was being conducted solely to settle the matter quickly and avoid additional legal costs.

In a memo to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation the FEC stated that it had fined Clinton’s treasurer $8,000 while the DNC’s treasurer $105,000. This was three years after the FEC filed its complaint.

Secrets received the memo and it will be made public within a month.

Dan Backer, who filed the complaint on behalf of the foundation that focuses on free speech, said Secrets: “This may be the first time Hillary Clinton, one of America’s most corrupt politicians, has been held legally responsible, and I’m proud of having forced the FEC into doing their job.” The Coolidge Reagan Foundation demonstrated that Americans can resist the Clinton machine and other corrupt politicians with their grit and determination.

Clinton has in the past justified her campaign’s expenditure for the information of Marc Elias, her campaign lawyer. Fusion GPS, which compiled and hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to dig deeper into Trump’s activities.

Trump attacked the dossier for being full of lies. The FBI called it fake but only after the president had suffered enough damage.

The Republicans continue to press for Clinton’s charges.

With Washington’s Chalmers & Adams, Backer held out hope that further action would be taken against the former first lady. He stated that Hillary Clinton and her cronies had engaged in the largest political fraud in American history, destroying the faith of the nation in the electoral process. It was high time they were held responsible. This is just the beginning, I hope.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/fec-fines-clinton-and-dnc-for-lying-about-trump-in-2016/233/
via IFTTT

Burt’s Bees and CoverGirl Class Action Lawsuits Filed For PFSAs in Products

Burt’s Bees has been joined by CoverGirl Cosmetics in a class-action lawsuit over the alleged presence of per- and/or polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS) within their products.

Caroline Spindel, the plaintiff claims Burt’s Bees advertises its products as “100% Natural” despite their containing organofluorine. This she claims indicates that they contain PFAS.

Spindel’s class-action lawsuit states that PFAS is not a natural ingredient. Rather, PFAS are a set of synthetic chemicals known for being toxic to humans even at low levels.

According to class action lawsuits, PFAS is a group of synthetic chemicals that are both harmful to humans and the environment.

Spindel asserts that Burt’s Bees labels their products as “100% Natural” in order to mislead customers into believing that they are not made with toxic, synthetic chemicals such as PFAS.

“Burt’s Bees deceives consumers into believing that the Products are manufactured without unnatural chemicals when in reality some of them contain indicators PFAS which are synthetic,” Spindel’s lawsuit states.

Spindel is seeking to represent both a national and a subclass of New York consumers who have bought Burt’s Bees products. She alleges that Burt’s Bees is guilty unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty and violation of New York General Business Law.

CoverGirl Markets Products with PFAS as ‘Safe’ and ‘Sustainable.

According to Plaintiff Yeraldinne Solis however, CoverGirl claims that it sells PFAS-containing products despite the fact that they advertise as “sustainable” or “safe.”

Solis claims that CoverGirl’s failure to disclose the presence PFAS is particularly bad because it tells customers to use its products “throughout their day” and claims that it is “suitable to sensitive skin” as well as “dermatologically validated.”

Solis’ class action lawsuit states that the Defendants’ advertisements show the Product being applied directly to the face. This is despite the fact that research has shown that the risk of ingestion and absorption increases when the Product is near the eyes.

Solis is seeking to represent both a California and national class of CoverGirl product purchasers.

Solis asserts CoverGirl is guilty, among others, of negligent failure to warn and unjust enrichment. This also violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California’s False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Both Solis and Spindel are asking for a jury trial. They also request declaratory relief, along with damages for all class members.

L’Oreal was also sued in a similar case earlier this month for failing to disclose that its waterproof mascara contains PFAS .

Are you a CoverGirl and Burt’s Bees customer? Comment below!

L. Timothy Fisher of Bursor & Fisher P.A. and Kim E. Richman, Richman Law & Policy, collectively represent the plaintiffs.

FL 305-330-5512 NY 646-837-7150 CA 925-300-4455 info@bursor.com

The Burt’s Bees, CoverGirl, PFAS Class Action Lawsuits have Spindel against Burt’s Bees, Inc., and others, Case No. 4:22-cv-01928, U.S. District Court for Northern California. Solis, et. al.. Case No. 3:22-cv-01928, in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California; and em>Solis v. Covergirl Cosmetics, et al., Case No.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/burts-bees-and-covergirl-class-action-lawsuits-filed-for-pfsas-in-products/228/
via IFTTT

Sun Pharma Agrees to $485 Million Settlement For Ranbaxy

Sun Pharma agreed to pay $485 Million to settle claims that Ranbaxy’s faulty U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA approval filings) were made to prevent other generic drugs from entering the market.

Sun, the Indian pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy, was purchased by Sun in 2014 for a reported $3.2Billion. FiercePharma reports that Sun has not admitted to any wrongdoing in the settlement.

Ranbaxy was accused by generic drug buyers of violating state consumer protection laws as well as federal antitrust laws. He submitted flimsy FDA approval applications that contained false or missing information.

Sun’s attempt to dismiss the class-action lawsuit was unsuccessful in November, FiercePharma reports. The complaint itself was consolidated in 2019.

Ranbaxy was awarded exclusive rights for generic versions of drug products after the FDA fraudulent applications were submitted. This included AstraZeneca’s stomach-acid drug Nexium and Novartis’ blood pressure drug Diovan. Also, Roche’s herpes drug Valcyte. FiercePharma reports.

Ranbaxy received FDA approval in 2014 for its generic Diovan version.

Ranbaxy’s Faulty FDA Application Caused Higher Drug Price

Buyers claimed that the faulty applications prevented competitors from entering the market, and led to an increase in drug prices.

Sun also had issues with Ranbaxy’s four manufacturing plants after it bought the company. These locations were closed by the FDA because of quality problems.

FiercePharma reports that the FDA consent decree allowed the manufacturing plants to continue operating while they were being monitored by outside auditors.

FDA revoked tentative approvals Ranbaxy for generic Nexium/Valcyte drugs due to manufacturing problems.

Teva Pharmaceuticals was the subject of a similar class-action lawsuit. The limited liability company claimed that Teva had suppressed market competition to produce generic versions of Copaxone, its multiple sclerosis drug.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/sun-pharma-agrees-to-485-million-settlement-for-ranbaxy/226/
via IFTTT

Exchanges Beat High-Frequency Trading Lawsuit

A federal judge dismissed a long-running lawsuit accusing seven U.S. Stock Exchanges of defrauding ordinary investors on Monday. The litigation was quieted by allowing high-frequency traders to trade more quickly and at higher prices.

Exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and BATS Global Markets, were accused of providing high-frequency trading firms with enhanced order processing speeds and data feeds. They also allowed them to locate their servers close to the exchanges so that trading signals could be sent more quickly.

In a 46-page decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of Manhattan stated that investors in the class action were not able to prove they were injured by the actions of the exchanges, which they claimed violated federal securities laws.

The judge said that reports by the plaintiffs’ expert witness (a former high-frequency trader, who now consults about market structure) were not based on reliable methodology and did not track trading firms’ use of specialized services.

Furman stated that these reports were inadmissible and that “it follows the plaintiffs have adduced not admissible evidence their trades were harmed due to the exchanges’ challenged conduct”, denying them legal standing to sue.

The lawyers representing the investors and the exchanges didn’t immediately respond to inquiries for comment.

High-frequency traders make use of computer algorithms to achieve split-second trading benefits.

They were featured in Michael Lewis’ bestseller “Flash Boys”, published in March 2014. The suit was filed the following month.

BATS is now part CBOE Global Markets Inc, while NYSE is part Intercontinental Exchange Inc.

The city of Providence, Rhode Island, and several pension plans, which included one for Boston, led investors.

Furman had dismissed their claims in 2015. He found that the exchanges were completely immune from federal law liability. However, a court of appeals overturned Furman’s decision two years later.

The case is the City of Providence in Rhode Island et. al v BATS Global Markets Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 14-02811.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/exchanges-beat-high-frequency-trading-lawsuit/224/
via IFTTT

Caerus Explores $2.5 Billion Sale

People familiar with the matter Friday said that Caerus Oil and Gas, a private equity-owned natural resource producer in the United States, is considering a sale. The potential value of the sale would exceed $2.5 billion including debt.

According to sources, the company was offered an acquisition deal at the end of last year. The company plans to launch a sale process within the next few weeks. They warned that no sale is guaranteed and requested anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

Oaktree Capital Management and Anschutz Investment Company own Caerus. Old Ironsides Energy also owns Caerus. The Denver-based company is home to exploration and production assets as well as pipelines and mineral rights. Its operations are centered in the Piceance Basin of Colorado and the Uinta Basin of Utah.

Anschutz and Old Ironsides declined to comment. Oaktree and Caerus did not respond to comment requests.

U.S. natural-gas futures traded at $5.45 per million British thermo units on Friday. This was an increase of over 45% since the invasion by Russia in Ukraine. Crude oil prices have also reached multi-year highs.

The rising commodity prices have encouraged private equity firms to exit long-standing energy investments.

Caerus was founded in 2009 by Oaktree, Anschutz, and other founding sponsors. Old Ironsides was one of its backers and helped the company to acquire assets from Encana Corp in Colorado for $735 million.

Caerus also purchased the Uinta assets from Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 2020. According to its website, Caerus produces natural gas on approximately 680,000 net acres.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/caerus-explores-2-5-billion-sale/222/
via IFTTT

Microwave Popcorn Class Action Lawsuit

Popcorn is a popular snack that many people consider healthy. This popular snack may conceal harmful chemicals that aren’t listed on the labels. You may be able to file a claim if you bought popcorn products containing unlisted chemicals.

Health-conscious consumers look closely at product labels when deciding whether or not to buy a product. The label on the product provides accurate information about its ingredients.

However, some popcorn manufacturers allegedly fail to disclose the harmful chemicals in their products, potentially putting consumers’ lives at risk.

Consumer protection lawyers are investigating claims that these companies have sold popcorn containing undisclosed chemicals.

• Orville Redenbacher
• Skinny Pop
• Boom Chicka Pop
• Pop Secret
• Whole Foods Market 365
• Kirkland
• Jolly Time
• Newman’s Own

Are You Qualified?

You may be eligible for a free popcorn mislabeling lawsuit investigation if you have purchased popcorn products from these companies and live in one the following states:

• Illinois
• California
• Florida
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• New Jersey
• New York
• Washington

You can hold microwave popcorn manufacturers responsible for their safety by joining a class-action lawsuit against popcorn manufacturers. You might also be eligible for compensation on behalf of yourself and other purchasers of the products.

Click Here to Submit A Claim

Is Popcorn Good for You?

Popcorn is a healthy snack that’s low in calories. Popcorn is a whole grain food rich in fiber and antioxidants. Time popcorn preparation can have a negative impact on the health benefits.

According to some reports, microwave popcorn coatings have been linked with health problems. One of the most common microwave popcorn chemicals is diacetyl. It has been linked with a condition called popcorn lung that affects workers at factories that make microwave popcorn.

Some chemicals used to coat microwave popcorn bags could also prove carcinogenic. Some microwave popcorn chemicals have been banned by the FDA.

Diacetyl was also found in butter flavoring and the air at a microwave popcorn factory, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Discover Magazine reported that people who eat a lot of fast food, microwave popcorn, and takeout have higher levels than those who eat mainly home-cooked meals. The chemicals may leach into foods through the packaging, according to researchers.

Popcorn producers who fail to disclose that their products contain harmful chemicals could be putting the health of consumers at risk. They could be held responsible for mislabeling products.

The healthiest way to prepare popcorn is air-popped without oil.

Participate in a Free Popcorn Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

Popcorn consumers in Illinois, California, and Florida who bought popcorn from any of these companies could be eligible to participate in a popcorn mislabeling lawsuit investigation:

• Orville Redenbacher
• Skinny Pop
• Boom chicka Pop
• Pop Secret
• Whole Foods Market
• Kirkland
• Jolly Time
• Newman’s Own

DAPEER LAW, P.A.

Licensee in Florida, New York, New Jersey
Miami, FL – Office Location

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/microwave-popcorn-class-action-lawsuit/217/
via IFTTT

Plaid Settles Class Action Lawsuit

Plaid Inc. agreed to pay $58 Million to settle class-action lawsuit claims alleging that it violated the data privacy laws.

Any U.S. resident who owned or had one or more “financial accounts” that Plaid accessed between Jan. 1 and Nov. 19, 2021, or for whom Plaid obtained their login credentials. The Class Member was a U.S. citizen at the time.

This settlement refers to all checking, savings, loans, and other accounts at financial institutions that Plaid accessed with the user’s login credentials. It can also be connected to a mobile application or web app enabling money transfers or payments, or where Plaid Link-provided login credentials for the financial accounts.

Plaintiffs claimed that the Plaid Data Privacy Class Action lawsuit wrongly obtained financial account login information from users.

According to its website, Plaid Inc. is a partnership of more than 5,500 fintech companies. It powers consumer-facing applications and other services. Plaid is used by many popular apps, including Venmo and Stripe.

Although the exact amount of each Class Members’ payment is not yet known, every Class Member who files a valid claim will be paid an equal share of the $58 Million settlement fund after deducting attorneys’ fees and any other expenses.

Each member of the Class may file one claim.

Plaid must also remove certain data from its systems and inform Class Members about the ability to use Plaid Portal for managing connections and deleting data.

The final hearing on the Plaid data privacy settlement will be held on May 12, 2022.

March 4, 2022, is the deadline for Class Members who wish to object or withdraw from the settlement.

All claims forms must be received no later than April 28, 2022.

Who’s ELIGIBLE?

Anyone who is a U.S. citizen and has one or more “financial accounts” that Plaid can access, or for whom Plaid obtained their login credentials between January. The Class Member was a U.S. citizen at the time.

CASE NAME

In re: Plaid, Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

FINAL HEARING

05/12/2022

SETTLEMENT WEBSITE

PlaidSettlement.com

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR

In re: Plaid, Inc. Privacy Litigation
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
855–645–1115
Questions@PlaidSettlement.com

CLASS COUNSEL

Rachel Geman
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP

Shawn M. Kennedy
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP

Christopher J. Cormier
BURNS CHAREST LLP

DEFENSE COUNSEL

Michael G. Rhodes
Whitty Somvichian
Kyle C. Wong
Lauren J. Pomeroy
Ellie Barczak
COOLEY LLP

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/plaid-settles-class-action-lawsuit/215/
via IFTTT

GPB Capital Sales Cost Broker-Dealers With FINRA Fines

More bad news for GPB Capital Holdings investors hit this week as 2 broker-dealers were penalized by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Dempsey Lord Smith and BD4RIA Inc. for selling negligence to GPB Capital Holdings private customers. This was due to GPB’s inability to audit financial statements for high-risk, high-commission investments.

Both broker-dealers accepted FINRA’s findings as settlements without admitting to or denying them. These settlements apply to actions that took place in spring 2018. Clients and financial advisors who bought GPB private placements waited while Finra filed financial statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Two of the largest funds were covered by financial statements. Both funds had passed the industry thresholds to make such information public a year before.

GPB failed to file audited financial statements by the deadline and was forced to reduce dividends for private placements. GPB was charged last year with fraud by the Justice Department and SEC.

According to Haselkorn & Thibaut (InvestmentFraudLawyers.com), investors are filing lawsuits and claims against financial advisors to recover losses. To assist GPB investors, they have set up a 1-888-902-6872 toll-free number and “GPB Capital Investor Guide”.

GPB private placement brokers charged between 7% to 10% commissions and GPB product fees to clients at many of the firms they represented. This is the highest permitted percentage in the industry.

Dempsey LordSmith employs 100 brokers and financial advisors. It broke industry rules in May 2018 as well as June 2018. According to FINRA, it “negligently forgotten” to notify four investors in GPB Private Placements of its failure to file required filings to the SEC in a timely manner. Four investors were given unsuitable GPB Securities recommendations by brokers between September 2015 and June 2018.

Finra reports Dempsey LORD Smith was fined $70,000 and ordered to pay restitution of nearly $30,000 plus interest. Joel Beck, the attorney representing the firm declined to comment.

FINRA reports that BD4RIA employs 13 brokers and advisers. The firm notified seven investors in June 2018 that they had failed to file required filings with the SEC. The firm was fined $40,000. On Tuesday, the firm was ordered to pay $40,000. Matthew Henneman, an attorney representing BD4RIA, did not respond to a request for comment.

FINRA seems to be gaining momentum in fining companies in 2018, over GPB securities sales. Geneos Wealth Management Inc. settled for $400,000 last week with Finra over GPB private placements and alternative investments, the LJM Preservation & Growth Fund.

GPB Capital, a New York-based alternative asset management firm, was the general partner in limited partnerships. These partnerships were created to acquire income-producing businesses like auto dealers or trash companies. GPB raised $1.8 million from investors.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/gpb-capital-sales-cost-broker-dealers-with-finra-fines/209/
via IFTTT

Charter Communications and T-Mobile’s Sprint Communications Co Settle Intellectual Property Dispute

According to court filings, Charter Communications Inc. and T-Mobile’s Sprint Communications Co. have reached an agreement to resolve a wide-ranging intellectual property claim over the alleged misuse of each others’ technology.

The companies asked a federal court Monday and Tuesday for dismissal of the cases, citing the settlement. The details of the settlement are not yet available.

Charter did not comment. Sprint and its lawyers didn’t immediately respond to inquiries for comment.

Sprint sued Charter’s Time Warner Cable, Kansas in 2011. won over $140 million after a jury found Time Warner had infringed patents related to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which is used to relay calls over the internet.

In 2016, a Charter subsidiary sued Sprint in Delaware alleging that Sprint’s LTE wireless technology violated a telecommunications Patent. On Sprint’s request to have the case thrown out before trial, a Delaware judge ruled in favor of Sprint.

T-Mobile of West Texas sued the subsidiary in 2020 over infringing the identical patent. The case was also settled by the settlement.

Sprint responded to Delaware lawsuits in 2017 and 2018 with its own. It argued that Charter’s Spectrum television, internet and telephone services infringe patents relating to wireless phone-call processing technology and on-demand streaming video.

In January, the Delaware court ruled in favor of Charter. Charter’s Send-to-TV technology to control streaming video using a smartphone did not infringe Sprint patents.

On Monday, the companies informed the court that they had settled all three cases. They were then dismissed on Tuesday.

Charter also filed a separate suit against Sprint in Kansas in 2020 alleging that Sprint had stolen its VoIP trade secrets. The Kansas City court was asked to dismiss the case in a joint filing on Tuesday.

The cases are TC Technology LLC v. Sprint Corp. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware No. 1:16-cv-00153. TC Technology LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc., U.S. District Court for Texas Western District, No. 6:20-cv-01734; Sprint Communications Co. v. Charter Communications Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Nos. 1:17-cv-01734 & 1:18-cv-012033 Sprint Communications Co v. Charter Communications Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. 2:20-cv-02161.

Sprint: Trent Webb, Robert Reckers, of Shook, Harty & Bacon, Josh Krevitt, and Wayne Barsky, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Stephen Kraftschik, of Polsinelli

Charter: David Benyacar, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Charles Verhoeven, Deepa Acharya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Kelly Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, and Scott Nehrbass, Foulston Siefkin

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/charter-communications-and-t-mobiles-sprint-communications-co-settle-intellectual-property-dispute/206/
via IFTTT

Bayer Ask Supreme Court For Review in Roundup Case

Bayer AG asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of a case in which it claimed that its glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer. This is the second petition by Bayer AG to the court in less than one year.

A California court has ruled in favor of the German pharmaceutical and chemical firm. It awarded nearly $87 million to Alberta Pilliod and Alva Pilliod. They were both diagnosed with cancer after they used Roundup for more than three decades.

The couple was initially awarded more than $2B by a jury, but the judge reduced it later.

Bayer could be subject to billions in damages due to thousands of lawsuits alleging Roundup is cancer-causing.

According to the company, the lawsuits should not be filed because federal regulators have deemed the weedkiller safe.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether it will hear Bayer’s appeal to overturn a $25M award made by a California court to Roundup user Edwin Hardeman. In December, the Biden administration was questioned for its opinions.

Bayer was responsible for the lawsuits after it bought Roundup in 2018 as part of Monsanto’s $63 billion acquisition of pesticides and seeds maker Monsanto.

Bayer stated last year that it would reserve $4.5 billion to fund weedkiller litigation in the event of a failure by its Supreme Court appeals.

Bayer argued in both Supreme Court petitions that plaintiffs’ claims of cancer were contrary to sound science and were invalidated by Roundup regulatory clearance.

A new petition challenges the Constitution by claiming that punitive damages should be awarded for more than compensatory damages.

Bayer intends to replace glyphosate with other active ingredients in weedkillers intended for residential use in the United States. Bayer plans to sell the product to farmers who heavily rely on it and play a minimal role in the litigation.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/bayer-ask-supreme-court-for-review-in-roundup-case/203/
via IFTTT

Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing Class Action Lawsuit Filed

Unilever United States Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit alleging that its Hellman’s brand mayonnaise dressing misrepresents it is “With Olive Oil,” despite the fact that it contains very little olive oil.

Plaintiff Laura Hite claims that mayonnaise consumption has declined over the past two decades. She points out a few factors that could explain the decline in sales: mayonnaise’s reputation as unhealthy, ultra-processed food, and the wide range of alternatives available in supermarkets.

According to Hellmann’s lawsuit, condiments such as salsa, hummus, and guacamole “are often served fresh, contain healthy ingredient and appeal to consumers who seek to avoid processed foods.”

Hellmann’s class action cites growing consumer demand for products containing olive oil

According to Hellmann’s mayonnaise lawsuit, olive oil is not processed with chemicals like most vegetable oils. Olive oil is also made without harsh processing or additives. Olive oil is rich in heart-healthy fats, antioxidants, and oleic acids, which provide health benefits.

Hite claims that olive oil sales currently surpass all other vegetable oils, in the Hellmann class-action lawsuit.

Hite claims Unilever sells Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing as a way to appeal to consumers who want to eat healthier foods like olive oil.

Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing labels prominently state that the product was made “With Olive Oil” and include pictures of two olives perched on a branch with leaves. This is a class action lawsuit highlights. The ingredients list does not reveal that soybean oil is the predominant oil in this product.

Hellmann’s mayonnaise lawsuit claims that the Hellmann mayonnaise product contains too much olive oil to provide many health benefits comparable to olive oil.

Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Class Action Says Olive Oil Content Misrepresentation Constitutes Fraud

Hite claims that she bought Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing With Olive Oil because she believed it was made primarily with olive oil, based on what the label claimed. She says that if she knew the product was mislabeled as having olive oils as the predominant ingredient, she wouldn’t have bought it or paid less.

She claims Unilever capitalized on Hellmann’s brand reputation as the “golden standard for mayonnaise”, and its reputation for quality, in order to lure consumers to buy the allegedly mislabeled product.

Plaintiffs in the Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing With Olive Oil class-action lawsuit allege breach of contract, violation of state consumer fraud laws, breaches of express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Are you a Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing With Olive Oil customer? Do you think this class action lawsuit will affect your future purchase of Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing With Olive Oil? We want to hear your opinions in the comments!

Spencer Sheehan, Sheehan & Associates PC represents Hite

516-268-7080

The Hellmann’s Mayonnaise Dressing Class Action Lawsuit is Laura Hite v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-02188, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/hellmanns-mayonnaise-dressing-class-action-lawsuit-filed/200/
via IFTTT

New Jersey Superior Court Rules For Injured Corrections Officer

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled that a corrections officer fell on ice while driving to her car to retrieve a hygiene product. This was in the course of her regular or assigned duties and entitled her to an accidental disability pension.

Kristy Bowser is a corrections officer. She learned that she would be working a second day at the Mercer County Correctional Center. During the second shift, she went to her car to get a feminine hygiene product. Bowser was walking in the MCCC parking lots to her car when she fell on ice. This resulted in her permanent and total disability.

Bowser applied to the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System Board of Trustees for an accidental disability pension. Bowser’s request was denied by the Board, as her injury occurred during or as a result of her regular or assigned duties.

In Bowser v. Board of Trustees Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (June 2018), the Appellate Division ruled that Bowser’s stop to retrieve items from her car was similar to an employee using a bathroom break during work hours. Bowser sought relief from another officer before she left her post. She was also on the clock at that time.

Mattia v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, a decision that was reached on the same day by the same panel, the Appellate Division upheld the Board’s refusal to pay benefits to Paul Mattia. Mattia, who was injured when he fell on the parking lot ice, had to check in for his assignment.

Without the assistance of an experienced workplace lawyer, it can be difficult to prove that an injury occurred in the course of employment. Call Petrillo and Goldberg to speak with a lawyer.

Learn more at http://www.petrilloandgoldberg.com/

Petrillo & Goldberg Law

6951 North Park Drive
Pennsauken, NJ 08109

19 South 21st Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

70 South Broad Street
Woodbury, NJ 08096

Phone: 856-486-4343
Fax: 856:486-7979

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/new-jersey-superior-court-rules-for-injured-corrections-officer/197/
via IFTTT

Lead Plaintiff Announced By The Klein Law Firm in the Class Action Filed on Behalf of Tal Education Group Shareholders

The complaint claims that Tal Education Group made materially misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a. TAL’s revenue growth and operations were the result of deceptive marketing tactics, illegal business practices, and flouted Chinese laws, policies, and policies. (b. TAL had used misleading and fraudulent advertising techniques, including false and misleading discount information to obfuscate the true costs of its programs to its customers. (c) TAL offered courses that gave affluent students an unfair advantage by offering courses designed to give them.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If your loss was in TAL, you have until April 5, 2022 to petition the court to become a lead plaintiff. You don’t have to be a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

NO OUT-OF-POINT FEES: If TAL securities were purchased during the relevant period, you could be eligible for compensation.

ABOUT KLEINLAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and takes part in securities litigations that involve financial fraud across the country. The Klein Law Firm, a boutique law firm, has extensive experience in many areas such as securities law and corporate finance. Our clients have enjoyed superior results since 2011, thanks to our highly skilled attorneys who put a personal touch on their work. Advertising for attorneys. Past results are not indicative of future results.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com

URL : http://www.kleinstocklaw.com

jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/leade-plaintiff-announced-by-the-klein-law-firm-in-the-class-action-filed-on-behalf-of-tal-education-group-shareholders/194/
via IFTTT

Coinbase Users File $5 Million Class Action Lawsuit

Three Coinbase users accuse the company of selling unlicensed securities. They are asking for at least $5,000,000 on behalf of themselves, all others who bought Dogecoin or Solana, Cardano, and more than 70 other tokens from the platform.

The users claim that Coinbase is selling securities (also called investment contracts), and should therefore have registered with SEC as a National Securities Exchange. This designation is usually reserved for stock exchanges and would mean that Coinbase would be subject to a host of reporting and regulatory obligations.

The suit was filed by Coinbase users claiming that they, along with everyone else who purchased the tokens, should be compensated for any trading losses and other unspecified damages. They claim that Coinbase violates both state and federal securities laws and they are asking for a judge to stop selling the tokens. The tokens include Chainlink and Polygon.

The lawsuit also names Brian Armstrong, CEO, as a defendant. It quotes a speech given by Gary Gensler, SEC Chairman, in which he likened the cryptocurrency to the Wild West and suggested that it was possible that exchanges such as Coinbase were selling unlicensed securities.

Although all of this could theoretically pose a threat to Coinbase’s operations, it is unclear how much attention the lawsuit will gain, particularly since similar lawsuits in the past have been dismissed. For instance, seven class-action lawsuits against cryptocurrency exchanges were dismissed by the courts last April or withdrawn by plaintiffs.

The new Coinbase class action suit is being led by a law company, as with many other securities law class actions. The firm announced late last year that they would file such a lawsuit and asked for Coinbase customers to be lead plaintiffs. This designation requires one to put their name on the case, and in return receive a larger payout if the defendant loses.

These types of lawsuits almost never reach trial and are often a gamble for law firms who seek to get a settlement. The settlement in these cases usually includes a large payment for lawyers and very little for customers who are not the victims of the suit.

The new lawsuit, regardless of its merits, highlights the legal exposure Coinbase is facing as a result its decision to list numerous tokens, despite the fact that the legal status of those tokens wasn’t clear. SEC officials suggested that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other crypto-assets are not securities, but that they don’t have to be registered with them. Some of these tokens are clearly securities and others are in a gray area.

Coinbase declined to comment to the lawsuit.

Lawyers –

By: /s/ Steven L. Bloch
Steven L. Bloch
Ian W. Sloss
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: 203-325-4491
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com

By: /s/ Jordan A. Goldstein
Jordan A. Goldstein
Mitchell Nobel
SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Tel: 212-390-9000
jgoldstein@selendygay.com
mnobel@selendygay.com

Attorneys for Louis Oberlander, Henry Rodriguez, and Christopher Underwood

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/coinbase-users-file-5-million-class-action-lawsuit/187/
via IFTTT

Boeing Closer to Deal With Delta

Boeing Co is moving closer to a landmark order by Delta Air Lines for 100 of its 737 Max 10 jets. This model is being fought in separate talks to be approved before the year-end rule changes.

If the deal is confirmed, it would be the first Delta order for Boeing’s most-sold single-aisle aircraft family and the first major Boeing order in a decade.

This comes as Delta, the US’s only major carrier, has restructured its fleet to prepare for a quick recovery from the pandemic.

Boeing and Delta have had a strained relationship over the years. They are currently working on details for an order that could include 100 aircraft. Many or all of these could include the largest variant, the 737 MAX 10. Two people confirmed this.

One person said that if a deal is reached, it could be announced as soon as next month.

Boeing and Delta refused to comment.

According to industry sources, negotiations are often very close and no decision has been made. In the past, there has been speculation that Delta might place a MAX order. However, no deal was ever made.

The MAX 10 is competing with Airbus’ most popular model, the A321neo. Both planes target the rapidly-growing market of just over 200 seats.

Air Lease, the leasing company, has described the A321neo as one of the “hottest planes on the market”. However, Boeing has won a number of contracts in the last year.

Airbus declined to comment.

Airline Weekly reported that Delta Chief Executive Ed Bastian stated in September that there was room for the MAX at Delta, if the carrier could find a way to bring them in. 

When asked about the MAX in London, he said that Delta was always looking into all types of airplanes.

CERTIFICATION TALKS

The deal will cement Boeing’s position as a leader in industrial certification and headaches. 

The planemaker faces a separate, but more difficult battle to get certification for the MAX 10, before a new safety standard regarding cockpit alerts goes into effect at year’s end.

After the 2018 and 2019 fatal crashes involving a smaller MAX-model aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration introduced a deadline for making changes.

Boeing met with lawmakers to discuss the possibility of asking for more time. However, Boeing has not officially sought an extension to address a flight-deck issue.

When asked about this possibility, an FAA spokesperson stated that “safety dictates when certification projects are scheduled”.

If the FAA fails to certify the MAX by the end of the year, only Congress can extend the deadline.

Boeing raised concerns with lawmakers about the possible impact on production and jobs if the 737 MAX 10 was not approved.

Boeing sent an emailed statement saying that it continues to work transparently to the FAA to provide all the information they require and is committed to fulfilling their expectations in order to obtain 737-10 certification.

Although it did not directly comment on talks with lawmakers, the company said that the jet would support “tens to thousands of jobs at Boeing” and throughout its supply chain, including in Washington.

This issue will likely become a topic of contention during confirmation hearings for the next FAA administrator. The current FAA Administrator Steve Dickson will step down on March 31.

The Seattle Times published this month an earlier Boeing submission to FAA, citing an estimated cost of compliance for the MAX of more than $10 billion.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/182-2/182/
via IFTTT

North Bergen EMT’s Whistleblower Lawsuit Revived

An EMT from North Bergen claims he was fired after refusing to follow a North Bergen police officer’s order to transport a man to the hospital. He may still be eligible for a trial.

Monday’s appellate panel overturned the Nov. 13, 2020 decision of a lower court to dismiss the whistleblower claim made by Luis DeLeon. However, it affirmed the summary judgment against Tamara Sepulveda, his former coworker, since she had not filed any report on the incident.

According to the 25-page ruling, the lower court erred in not retaliating against DeLeon for the incident on July 31, 2017, in which police responded after a woman complained about her husband’s conduct.

North Bergen fired DeLeon after he claimed that he and Sepulveda had told police that he took the man to the hospital against their will. He was also cited for incompetency and inefficiency; failure to perform duties, inability to do duties; conduct unbecoming of a public employee; neglect; and violation standard operating procedures. This was due to his inability to complete a patient’s medical assessment and inappropriate outbursts, and the use of vituperative epithets

Sepulveda “resigned voluntarily” claiming that the environment at the township’s EMS was ‘hostile’ and uncomfortable. She believed there were possible ‘chances for retaliation by (the) North Bergen police department) when (EMTs are not following their wishes regarding patient care,” the appellate panel stated.

The lawsuit was filed by the couple on August 22, 2018.

DeLeona and Sepulveda were deposed to dispute the version of events by police officers that night. According to the officers, F.A. was the patient. According to the ruling, the patient was drunk and had to be taken to the hospital. In his report, one officer stated that F.A. One officer stated that F.A. had admitted to having drunk a bottle of alcohol but had “no smell of it on his breath.”

F.A. was not being treated by the officers. F.A. told them that he did not want to be “checked out by an ambulance.” DeLeon and Sepulveda also testified that they didn’t believe F.A. The ruling stated that he needed to be transferred because he was alert and oriented, with normal pupil dilation and a steady gait. He also did not slur his speech.

F.A. was forced into the ambulance by officers, according to EMTs. EMTs testified that F.A. was forced into the ambulance by officers, saying “you are going to the hospital or jail.” The appellate ruling stated that F.A. was stopped from returning to his home and instead pushed him towards an ambulance.

According to police reports, officers refuted that version of events. They said F.A. The officers disputed the police reports and stated that F.A.

DeLeon did not have to prove a “direct causal relationship” between whistle-blowing and retaliation. However, the appellate ruling stated that DeLeon can show that there is a causal connection between whistle-blowing and adverse employment actions.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/north-bergen-emts-whistleblower-lawsuit-revived/179/
via IFTTT