This story first appeared in USA Today.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration is ordering genetic test maker 23andMe to halt sales of its personalized DNA test kits, saying the company has failed to show that the technology is backed by science.
In a warning letter posted online, FDA regulators say the Silicon Valley company is violating federal law because its products claim to identify health risks for more than 250 diseases and health conditions.
Only medical tests that have been cleared by the FDA are permitted to make such claims.
The letter follows years of back-and-forth between the government and Google-backed 23andMe, the most visible company among a new field of startups selling personal genetic information. The proliferation of consumer-marketed genetic tests has troubled many public health officials and doctors who worry that the products are built on flimsy science.
For years, 23andMe resisted government regulation, arguing that it simply provides consumers with information, not a medical service. But last year the company appeared to change course, submitting several of the disease-specific tests included in its test kit.
A spokeswoman for the Mountain View, Calif.-based company said 23andMe recognizes "that we have not met the FDA's expectations," for addressing questions about the submission.
"Our relationship with the FDA is extremely important to us and we are committed to fully engaging with them to address their concerns," said Kendra Cassillo in a statement.
The FDA letter suggests that regulators have gone to great lengths to try and work with the company. Regulators even mention "more than 14 face-to-face and teleconference meetings, hundreds of email exchanges, and dozens of written communications."
"However, even after these many interactions with 23andMe, we still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated," its technology, the letter states.
The FDA warning takes issue with a number of claims the company makes for its saliva-based test kit, particularly calling it a "first step in prevention" against diseases like diabetes, heart disease and breast cancer. Regulators worry that false results from the test could cause patients to receive inadequate or inappropriate medical care. For instance, 23andMe says its test can identify women who carry the BRCA gene mutation that significantly increases the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. But a false result could lead women to undergo unnecessary screening, chemotherapy and surgery. The test also claims to predict how patients will respond to popular drugs, including the ubiquitous blood thinner warfarin, which is used to prevent blood clots. The FDA warns that an inaccurate reading there could "have significant unreasonable risk of illness, injury, or death to the patient," if they don't receive the appropriate drug dose.
23andMe was co-founded by Anne Wojcicki, who married Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2007. Google confirmed in September that the two are separated, though Google and Brin have invested millions in the privately held company over the years.
23andMe executives have previously said that they first contacted the FDA in 2007, before launching their product. The agency did not take an interest in the technology until 2010, when it issued letters to several testing companies, stating that their products are considered medical devices and must be approved as safe and effective.
The FDA already regulates a variety of genetic tests administered by health care providers, such as those given to pregnant women to detect cystic fibrosis in a developing fetus. The FDA's concern with 23andMe appears to center on its commercial approach, which sidesteps doctors and health professionals.
Consumers order the company's product online. When the kit arrives by mail consumers are instructed to spit into a small tube, providing a saliva sample which is sent back to the company for analysis. 23andMe says the customer's DNA is analyzed to determine their likelihood of developing various diseases and responding to various drugs. The test also claims to provide information about ancestral background, though this information is not regulated by the FDA.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Rieder: Impasse Must End At Divided Philly Paper
This story first appeared in USA Today.
The bitter battle between dueling owners is poisonous for the Philadelphia region.
Talk about awkward.
On Friday, a judge reinstated fired Philadelphia Inquirer Editor Bill Marimow. That means that Marimow is once again working for a publisher who not only bounced him but has repeatedly insulted him, and for a bitterly split, dysfunctional ownership group in which one faction desperately wants him gone.
What's more, the losing side in the rancorous legal battle over the paper's newsroom says it's going to appeal, meaning yet more uncertainty about what lies ahead.
Which raises a question: Why would anyone want this job? In Marimow's case, the situation is complicated by the fact his contract expires next April 30. Why go through five more months of turmoil, then split the scene anyway?
The embattled editor says he's constrained from saying much about the tense, unusual situation, particularly since courtroom combat seems far from over. But he took a stab.
"I love the Philadelphia area," he says. "It's my hometown. I know the city, and the Pennsylvania suburbs, and the South Jersey suburbs and the Jersey Shore." And, he feels, the depth of that knowledge, forged through many years of journalism in the city, provides critical advantages when it comes to steering the ship.
Marimow grew up in the Philadelphia suburbs. (Disclosure: Marimow is a friend and a fellow Philly guy.) He worked at the Inquirer for 21 years, winning two Pulitzer Prizes as an investigative reporter during the paper's glory days as one of the nation's finest under the great editor Gene Roberts. After stints at the Baltimore Sun and NPR — both ended badly — Marimow, known for his commitment to ambitious, hard-edged (some might say old-school) reporting, returned to the Inquirer in the top newsroom post in 2006.
But when new owners took over the paper four years later — the Inquirer has had five, count 'em, five, owners in seven years — Marimow was demoted. The new regime felt he just wasn't a digital enough dude to run a paper in the current media landscape. So in 2011, Marimow decamped from his beloved Philly to run, yep, a digital journalism program at Arizona State University.
But the turbulence at the Inquirer continued, and the following year the paper was sold yet again, along with the Philadelphia Daily News and the website philly.com. The new owners were six wealthy Philadelphians, two of whom make up the management committee that runs the company, Interstate General Media.They asked Marimow to return to the Inquirer to once again oversee the its newsroom. He jumped at the chance.
But one of those management committee members, George Norcross, soon grew disenchanted with his new editor. Norcross is a major South Jersey political player and a wealthy businessman used to getting his way. Working through the pliant Publisher Bob Hall, he pressured Marimow to make changes, including cutting back sharply on editorial pages and local columnists. Finally, Hall ordered Marimow to fire five top editors.
Marimow did make some of the changes that Norcross and Hall wanted. But the editor demurred at firing his lieutenants, traditionally a decision made by the editor, not the business side. Marimow no doubt was counting on support from the other managing partner, Lewis Katz, a parking lot magnate and former owner of the New Jersey Nets. Katz's companion is Nancy Phillips, an award-winning reporter who is now the Inquirer's city editor — and a Marimow protege.
But, to everyone's surprise, on Oct. 7, Hall fired Marimow. Katz and fellow owner H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest sued to have Hall ousted and Marimow reinstated. They batted .500, as Judge Patricia McInerney ruled that Hall could stay but Marimow had to come back.
The forces of Norcross quickly came out with guns blazing. In an aggressive statement in which they said they'd appeal, they warned the ruling would mean "paralysis" at the Inquirer, dismissed Marimow as a lame duck and threw in a reference to Phillips as Katz's "girlfriend." (I asked spokesman Daniel Fee Monday if the Norcross group had anything else to say, and he said no.)
It's clear that besides the Philly guy thing, part of Marimow's determination to stay on is to block his rivals from having their way with the paper. "What really matters," he says, "is that the Inquirer be in the hands of people of journalistic integrity. That's more important than whether I'm there."
But is it even possible to function in such a poisonous atmosphere, with an owner and a boss so inimical to your reign? "My intention is to do the best possible job we can do in print and on the Web, It's my fervent hope the owners can resolve their differences." Good luck with that. He adds, correctly, "The readers suffer when there's a fractious relationship among owners."
Another possibility, of course, is for one side to buy out the other. Easier said than done, given that Norcross and Katz are powerful, strong-willed people who have shown no inclination to back down.
That's why the Katz/Marimow camp is said to be considering the possibility of going to court to dissolve the ownership agreement on the grounds that there is an insurmountable impasse. (Ya think?) The idea would be to have the company put up for sale. If it ended up with the papers, the group is thinking about converting the company into a non-profit.
However it plays out, one thing is obvious: The status quo is untenable. And it's the people of the Philadelphia region who are paying the price.
The bitter battle between dueling owners is poisonous for the Philadelphia region.
Talk about awkward.
On Friday, a judge reinstated fired Philadelphia Inquirer Editor Bill Marimow. That means that Marimow is once again working for a publisher who not only bounced him but has repeatedly insulted him, and for a bitterly split, dysfunctional ownership group in which one faction desperately wants him gone.
What's more, the losing side in the rancorous legal battle over the paper's newsroom says it's going to appeal, meaning yet more uncertainty about what lies ahead.
Which raises a question: Why would anyone want this job? In Marimow's case, the situation is complicated by the fact his contract expires next April 30. Why go through five more months of turmoil, then split the scene anyway?
The embattled editor says he's constrained from saying much about the tense, unusual situation, particularly since courtroom combat seems far from over. But he took a stab.
"I love the Philadelphia area," he says. "It's my hometown. I know the city, and the Pennsylvania suburbs, and the South Jersey suburbs and the Jersey Shore." And, he feels, the depth of that knowledge, forged through many years of journalism in the city, provides critical advantages when it comes to steering the ship.
Marimow grew up in the Philadelphia suburbs. (Disclosure: Marimow is a friend and a fellow Philly guy.) He worked at the Inquirer for 21 years, winning two Pulitzer Prizes as an investigative reporter during the paper's glory days as one of the nation's finest under the great editor Gene Roberts. After stints at the Baltimore Sun and NPR — both ended badly — Marimow, known for his commitment to ambitious, hard-edged (some might say old-school) reporting, returned to the Inquirer in the top newsroom post in 2006.
But when new owners took over the paper four years later — the Inquirer has had five, count 'em, five, owners in seven years — Marimow was demoted. The new regime felt he just wasn't a digital enough dude to run a paper in the current media landscape. So in 2011, Marimow decamped from his beloved Philly to run, yep, a digital journalism program at Arizona State University.
But the turbulence at the Inquirer continued, and the following year the paper was sold yet again, along with the Philadelphia Daily News and the website philly.com. The new owners were six wealthy Philadelphians, two of whom make up the management committee that runs the company, Interstate General Media.They asked Marimow to return to the Inquirer to once again oversee the its newsroom. He jumped at the chance.
But one of those management committee members, George Norcross, soon grew disenchanted with his new editor. Norcross is a major South Jersey political player and a wealthy businessman used to getting his way. Working through the pliant Publisher Bob Hall, he pressured Marimow to make changes, including cutting back sharply on editorial pages and local columnists. Finally, Hall ordered Marimow to fire five top editors.
Marimow did make some of the changes that Norcross and Hall wanted. But the editor demurred at firing his lieutenants, traditionally a decision made by the editor, not the business side. Marimow no doubt was counting on support from the other managing partner, Lewis Katz, a parking lot magnate and former owner of the New Jersey Nets. Katz's companion is Nancy Phillips, an award-winning reporter who is now the Inquirer's city editor — and a Marimow protege.
But, to everyone's surprise, on Oct. 7, Hall fired Marimow. Katz and fellow owner H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest sued to have Hall ousted and Marimow reinstated. They batted .500, as Judge Patricia McInerney ruled that Hall could stay but Marimow had to come back.
The forces of Norcross quickly came out with guns blazing. In an aggressive statement in which they said they'd appeal, they warned the ruling would mean "paralysis" at the Inquirer, dismissed Marimow as a lame duck and threw in a reference to Phillips as Katz's "girlfriend." (I asked spokesman Daniel Fee Monday if the Norcross group had anything else to say, and he said no.)
It's clear that besides the Philly guy thing, part of Marimow's determination to stay on is to block his rivals from having their way with the paper. "What really matters," he says, "is that the Inquirer be in the hands of people of journalistic integrity. That's more important than whether I'm there."
But is it even possible to function in such a poisonous atmosphere, with an owner and a boss so inimical to your reign? "My intention is to do the best possible job we can do in print and on the Web, It's my fervent hope the owners can resolve their differences." Good luck with that. He adds, correctly, "The readers suffer when there's a fractious relationship among owners."
Another possibility, of course, is for one side to buy out the other. Easier said than done, given that Norcross and Katz are powerful, strong-willed people who have shown no inclination to back down.
That's why the Katz/Marimow camp is said to be considering the possibility of going to court to dissolve the ownership agreement on the grounds that there is an insurmountable impasse. (Ya think?) The idea would be to have the company put up for sale. If it ended up with the papers, the group is thinking about converting the company into a non-profit.
However it plays out, one thing is obvious: The status quo is untenable. And it's the people of the Philadelphia region who are paying the price.
Monday, November 11, 2013
SHAW'S BEYONICS CLAIMS EX-CEO BRIBED TO DIVERT BUSINESS
This story first appeared in Bloomberg News.
Beyonics Technology Ltd., owned by Kyle Shaw’s private equity firm Shaw Kwei & Partners, sued its former chief executive officer claiming he took bribes to send a customer’s business to Korean competitors.
Goh Chan Peng, the former CEO of Singapore-based Beyonics, accepted payments from Nedec Co. and Kodec Co. to steer Seagate Technology Plc (STX) orders for hard-disk-drive parts to them, according to a lawsuit filed in the Singapore High Court. Seagate was Beyonics’s biggest customer, accounting for as much as 64 percent of revenue from 2009 to 2012, Beyonics said.
“The diversion enabled the Nedec/Kodec Group to develop a commercial relationship with Seagate and grow as a competitor,” Beyonics said in the lawsuit filed in August. A closed hearing is scheduled for Nov. 20.
Beyonics sought the return of lost profits, Goh’s salary from January to March and unspecified damages. Shaw Kwei, based in Hong Kong, acquired Beyonics in February 2012 for S$127 million ($102 million). The hard-disk-drive partmaker swung to a S$17.5 million loss on sales of S$1.33 billion for the fiscal year 2011 from net income of S$6.9 million a year earlier.
Goh, who resigned from Beyonics in January, said he had agreed to provide consulting services to Nedec and Kodec and the payments he received weren’t bribes. He also said the Korean firms had been supplying parts to Seagate since 2011, prior to the alleged diversion of business.
Tudor Shanghai
Goh countersued claiming he’s owed S$17,000 in unpaid salary, which Beyonics said he wasn’t entitled to because he failed to disclose that he breached his agreement with the company.
“My client’s position is the allegations are false and will vigorously defend against them,” said Goh’s lawyer Ng Lip Chih. Nedec and Kodec, which aren’t named as defendants in the lawsuit, didn’t bribe Goh, said Tony Lee, Chief Financial Officer at the Korean firms.
Kannan Ramesh, a lawyer representing Beyonics declined to comment.
Shaw, who had opened the Shanghai office of Paul Tudor Jones’s hedge fund firm Tudor Investment Corp. in 1994, founded his own private equity firm in 1999. Shaw Kwei invests in companies in Greater China and Southeast Asia.
Beyonics, in its lawsuit, also accused Goh of giving preferential treatment to Nedec and Kodec in the sale of one of its units, promising them in a 2012 e-mail a “friend price” of $40 million, while saying he would ask $50 million from a rival bidder.
Goh denied the allegation, saying the board had reviewed and approved the sale process.
Goh also claimed expenses which were unauthorized, including S$101,910 for wine, Beyonics said in seeking the return of most of the money.
The wines were given to customers as gifts and used at functions for Beyonics employees and suppliers, Goh said in his defense.
The case is Beyonics Technology Ltd. v Goh Chan Peng, S672/2013. Singapore High Court.
Beyonics Technology Ltd., owned by Kyle Shaw’s private equity firm Shaw Kwei & Partners, sued its former chief executive officer claiming he took bribes to send a customer’s business to Korean competitors.
Goh Chan Peng, the former CEO of Singapore-based Beyonics, accepted payments from Nedec Co. and Kodec Co. to steer Seagate Technology Plc (STX) orders for hard-disk-drive parts to them, according to a lawsuit filed in the Singapore High Court. Seagate was Beyonics’s biggest customer, accounting for as much as 64 percent of revenue from 2009 to 2012, Beyonics said.
“The diversion enabled the Nedec/Kodec Group to develop a commercial relationship with Seagate and grow as a competitor,” Beyonics said in the lawsuit filed in August. A closed hearing is scheduled for Nov. 20.
Beyonics sought the return of lost profits, Goh’s salary from January to March and unspecified damages. Shaw Kwei, based in Hong Kong, acquired Beyonics in February 2012 for S$127 million ($102 million). The hard-disk-drive partmaker swung to a S$17.5 million loss on sales of S$1.33 billion for the fiscal year 2011 from net income of S$6.9 million a year earlier.
Goh, who resigned from Beyonics in January, said he had agreed to provide consulting services to Nedec and Kodec and the payments he received weren’t bribes. He also said the Korean firms had been supplying parts to Seagate since 2011, prior to the alleged diversion of business.
Tudor Shanghai
Goh countersued claiming he’s owed S$17,000 in unpaid salary, which Beyonics said he wasn’t entitled to because he failed to disclose that he breached his agreement with the company.
“My client’s position is the allegations are false and will vigorously defend against them,” said Goh’s lawyer Ng Lip Chih. Nedec and Kodec, which aren’t named as defendants in the lawsuit, didn’t bribe Goh, said Tony Lee, Chief Financial Officer at the Korean firms.
Kannan Ramesh, a lawyer representing Beyonics declined to comment.
Shaw, who had opened the Shanghai office of Paul Tudor Jones’s hedge fund firm Tudor Investment Corp. in 1994, founded his own private equity firm in 1999. Shaw Kwei invests in companies in Greater China and Southeast Asia.
Beyonics, in its lawsuit, also accused Goh of giving preferential treatment to Nedec and Kodec in the sale of one of its units, promising them in a 2012 e-mail a “friend price” of $40 million, while saying he would ask $50 million from a rival bidder.
Goh denied the allegation, saying the board had reviewed and approved the sale process.
Goh also claimed expenses which were unauthorized, including S$101,910 for wine, Beyonics said in seeking the return of most of the money.
The wines were given to customers as gifts and used at functions for Beyonics employees and suppliers, Goh said in his defense.
The case is Beyonics Technology Ltd. v Goh Chan Peng, S672/2013. Singapore High Court.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Pop Warner sued for 'head-first' tackling technique
Story originally appeared on USA Today.
A California youth was left paralyzed after a head-first tackle, a technique coaches taught
The family of a Pop Warner youth football player, paralyzed making a tackle during a 2011 game, filed suit in California this week alleging he was taught an unsafe "head-first" technique by his coaches and that the Pop Warner organization and others failed to ensure the coaches complied with rules banning such tackling.
Donnovan Hill was 13 at the time of his injury as a member of the Lakewood (Calif.) Black Lancers, a Pop Warner group about 20 miles south of Los Angeles.
"As Donnovan approached contact with his opponent, he dropped his head down, kept his arms at his side and initiated the tackle head-first," as stated in the lawsuit filed in Superior Court of California. "Upon contact with the opposing player, Donnovan immediately went limp and dropped to the field unmoving."
The suit says Hill sustained a "catastrophic spinal cord injury" and that he has minimal use of his arms and no movement from the chest down, because of tackling as he was taught -- head first.
"It's an unbelievable story about how not to run a football program," says Rob Carey, a Phoenix attorney representing the plaintiffs. "And the really sad part is when you look at Pop Warner, they market themselves as safety, safety, safety."
Jon Butler, executive director of Pop Warner, declined comment, which he said is the organization's stance on all litigation.
In August, Pop Warner announced it is joining the Heads Up Football program being rolled out nationally this year by USA Football, a national youth football governing body which receives NFL funding. Pop Warner said the plan is for all of its 1,300 associations to go through Heads Up certification before the start of next season.
In Heads Up, players are taught to hit with their heads to the side.
Hill was injured in a Nov. 6, 2011, game in Laguna Hills, Calif., about 45 miles southeast of Los Angeles.
"Their coach wasn't certified. He didn't follow their own procedures and get certified on safety at regular intervals," Carey said of Salvador Hernandez, head coach of Hill's team in 2011. "They (Pop Warner) didn't supervise him to make sure he is teaching proper tackling techniques. And the consequence is ... that Donnovan Hill is now quadriplegic."
The lawsuit says the 2011 Pop Warner rules prohibited "face tackling" or "spearing" techniques and that any coaches teaching such techniques should be dismissed following a hearing.
"It's not so much about not being certified," Carey said. "That can happen. ... But what should never happen is you've got an array of coaches, assistant coaches, on the sideline, multiple times, watching Donovan 'face tackle,' and no one stops it. That should never happen. ... They should ensure the rules are being followed."
The suit says game videos show Hill "consistently tackled head-first" throughout the 2011 season. It alleges the coaches observed this repeatedly in practices and games without correcting or reprimanding it. And during one drill, the suit alleges, Hill said he was concerned he might be hurt tackling head first -- and a coach "chastised" him for "whining."
Pop Warner, the Langhorne, Pa.-based group which had about 275,000 youngsters in its football program nationally last season, is a defendant, as is the Orange Empire Conference; Lakewood Pop Warner; Hernandez; four assistant coaches; Roberto Carlos Gonzales, president and athletic director of Lakewood Pop Warner in 2011, and Robert Espinosa, an assistant commissioner of the Orange Empire Conference in 2011. The suit also includes the spouses as defendants.
The suit says Hill does not have transportation to accommodate his injuries and that his life expectancy is diminished. Hill, 15, and his mother, Crystal Dixon, seek unspecified damages, including compensation to care for Hill for the rest of his life.
"I'm sure Donovan himself doesn't really relish the idea of suing his coaches," Carey said. "But it becomes an issue of insurance and compensability and making sure that Donovan is going to be taken care of."
Monday, November 4, 2013
Appeals court to review approval of BP settlement
This story first appeared in fuelfix
NEW ORLEANS — A year ago, lawyers for BP and Gulf Coast residents and businesses took turns urging a federal judge to approve their settlement for compensating victims of the company’s massive 2010 oil spill.
On Monday, however, the one-time allies will be at odds when an appeals court hears objections to the multibillion-dollar deal.
That’s because several months after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier approved the settlement, BP started complaining that the judge and court-appointed claims administrator were misinterpreting it. The London-based oil giant is worried it could be forced to pay billions of dollars more for bogus or inflated claims by businesses.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys who brokered the deal want the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the class-action settlement.
As of Friday, payments have been made to more than 38,000 people and businesses for
an estimated $3.7 billion. Tens of thousands more could file claims in the coming months.
The settlement doesn’t have a cap, but BP initially estimated that it would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve the claims. Later, as it started to challenge the business payouts, the company said it no longer could give a reliable estimate for how much the deal will cost.
The dispute centers on money for businesses, not individuals. Awards are based on a comparison of revenues and expenses before and after the spill. BP says a “policy decision” that claims administrator Patrick Juneau announced in January has allowed businesses to manipulate those figures in a way that leads to errors in calculating their actual lost profits.
Last month, a different 5th Circuit panel threw out Barbier’s rulings on the dispute and ordered him to craft a “narrowly-tailored” injunction that modifies the damage calculations.
The lead plaintiffs’ attorneys said the panel’s decision has no effect on the separate appeal of Barbier’s December 2012 approval of the settlement.
“The processing and payment of (business) claims has not in any way affected the fair, reasonable and adequate compensation paid under the Settlement Agreement’s transparent and objective criteria to any Objector or any other member of the class,” they wrote.
BP wants the court to adopt its interpretation of the settlement terms for businesses. If it does, the “otherwise fatal obstacles” would be eliminated and the entire settlement could be upheld, the company told the 5th Circuit.
BP is not the only one questioning Barbier’s December 2012 approval of the settlement. Attorney Brent Coon, of Beaumont, Texas, argued that a rush to “close the deal” resulted in a settlement program “mired in implementation problems.” He did not have a role in negotiating the settlement but filed one of several formal objections, seeking revisions to the agreement.
“Too much random guess work was needed to determine whether an individual’s claim was eligible for settlement funds or not,” he wrote.
Juneau’s office began issuing settlement payments on July 31, 2012. As of Friday, tens of thousands of claimants have received settlement offers worth more than $4.9 billion.
BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the 5th Circuit’s ruling last month concluded that Juneau’s interpretations of the settlement “do not withstand scrutiny under the law.”
“If they are not corrected, the settlement class cannot be certified and the settlement should be set aside, ending what once promised to be an historic effort to benefit those who experienced losses as a result of the spill,” he said in a statement.
NEW ORLEANS — A year ago, lawyers for BP and Gulf Coast residents and businesses took turns urging a federal judge to approve their settlement for compensating victims of the company’s massive 2010 oil spill.
On Monday, however, the one-time allies will be at odds when an appeals court hears objections to the multibillion-dollar deal.
That’s because several months after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier approved the settlement, BP started complaining that the judge and court-appointed claims administrator were misinterpreting it. The London-based oil giant is worried it could be forced to pay billions of dollars more for bogus or inflated claims by businesses.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys who brokered the deal want the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the class-action settlement.
As of Friday, payments have been made to more than 38,000 people and businesses for
an estimated $3.7 billion. Tens of thousands more could file claims in the coming months.
The settlement doesn’t have a cap, but BP initially estimated that it would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve the claims. Later, as it started to challenge the business payouts, the company said it no longer could give a reliable estimate for how much the deal will cost.
The dispute centers on money for businesses, not individuals. Awards are based on a comparison of revenues and expenses before and after the spill. BP says a “policy decision” that claims administrator Patrick Juneau announced in January has allowed businesses to manipulate those figures in a way that leads to errors in calculating their actual lost profits.
Last month, a different 5th Circuit panel threw out Barbier’s rulings on the dispute and ordered him to craft a “narrowly-tailored” injunction that modifies the damage calculations.
The lead plaintiffs’ attorneys said the panel’s decision has no effect on the separate appeal of Barbier’s December 2012 approval of the settlement.
“The processing and payment of (business) claims has not in any way affected the fair, reasonable and adequate compensation paid under the Settlement Agreement’s transparent and objective criteria to any Objector or any other member of the class,” they wrote.
BP wants the court to adopt its interpretation of the settlement terms for businesses. If it does, the “otherwise fatal obstacles” would be eliminated and the entire settlement could be upheld, the company told the 5th Circuit.
BP is not the only one questioning Barbier’s December 2012 approval of the settlement. Attorney Brent Coon, of Beaumont, Texas, argued that a rush to “close the deal” resulted in a settlement program “mired in implementation problems.” He did not have a role in negotiating the settlement but filed one of several formal objections, seeking revisions to the agreement.
“Too much random guess work was needed to determine whether an individual’s claim was eligible for settlement funds or not,” he wrote.
Juneau’s office began issuing settlement payments on July 31, 2012. As of Friday, tens of thousands of claimants have received settlement offers worth more than $4.9 billion.
BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the 5th Circuit’s ruling last month concluded that Juneau’s interpretations of the settlement “do not withstand scrutiny under the law.”
“If they are not corrected, the settlement class cannot be certified and the settlement should be set aside, ending what once promised to be an historic effort to benefit those who experienced losses as a result of the spill,” he said in a statement.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Medical marijuana-using parents get baby back
Story originally appeared on USA Today.
Child Protective Services took the baby in September after alleging the Michigan couple might be exposing the infant to marijuana.
LANSING, Mich. — Baby Bree is back home.
In a case that galvanized Michigan supporters of medical marijuana, custody of an infant seized by Child Protective Services workers last month was awarded to the child's parents Friday in a Lansing courtroom.
"I'm ecstatic," said Bree's mother, Maria Green, standing outside the courtroom with a dozen medical marijuana activists wearing green ribbons.
"Bree will be in her own bed tonight. We're going to hug her and read to her and love her," said Maria's husband, Steve Green.
On Sept. 13, Steve and Maria Green, each a state-approved marijuana user, stood in their Lansing home in shock as employees from the county's Child Protective Services unit said the Greens might be exposing their infant daughter Bree to marijuana. As police looked on outside the Greens' two-story gray house, Bree was taken from her mother's arms and driven away.
That action triggered an outcry of "Free Baby Bree" — on websites and the Greens' Facebook page, at rallies and fund-raisers, on the weekly web-streamed Planet Green Trees Radio and outside the Ingham County courthouse.
Four attorneys volunteered their time. And leaders of the medical-marijuana community declared the case would make or break future investigations involving medical marijuana by child protective units across the state.
"The idea that medical marijuana patients can't be good parents is just drug-war hysteria," said Charmie Gholson, 49, of Ann Arbor. But the Greens aren't the first to suffer the loss of a child, Gholson said.
"This has been going on almost since the law passed," she said. Gholson is founder of Michigan Moms United, what she calls "a campaign to re-educate the public and legislators about how the failed drug war destroys families."
Steve Green, 34, is a former auto mechanic who suffers from severe epileptic seizures that no medicine would relieve until he tried marijuana, he said. Maria Green, 31, is a former preschool teacher who has multiple sclerosis and operates a home-based business, selling her own nutrition supplements, "that keeps a roof over our heads," she said. Both are state-approved medical-marijuana users, as their attorneys showed in court.
At their previous home in Auburn Hills, the couple was charged with manufacturing marijuana — a four-year felony — because Oakland County authorities found them growing marijuana. Friday's court order allows them to resume growing the plants, Covert said.
"I was there and I have to tell you — that was hard to watch," Joshua Covert, the couple's key attorney, said about Bree being taken away. But Friday's decision had him smiling.
"We said we're going to let the parents medicate (with marijuana) but not around the children, just what they've been doing all along, and allow some type of regular testing of the baby, maybe a mouth swab," to prove that Bree was not being exposed, Covert said.
The Greens had been scheduled for a jury trial Monday, but this week their luck turned. Ingham County Probate Judge Richard Garcia, at an evidentiary hearing Wednesday, voiced doubts about the actions of social workers and their allegations on a Child Protective Services petition. That led Garcia to call for a special hearing Friday. That's when the couple heard the words they longed to hear — that Baby Bree would come back to her mother and father.
"We've been hoping and praying for this, and we were joking about the return policy," Maria Green said. The infant has been living with her parents near Port Hurton, under a temporary custody arrangement.
The Ingham County assistant prosecutor who represented Child Protective Services at Friday's hearing declined to comment.
Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said Tuesday that he could not comment directly about Bree Green's parents' fitness to raise her.
"But I would hope that any parents who have the need to use prescription medication would do so in a manner that does not expose their child to harm," Dunnings said.
In Michigan's see-saw battle over the legitimacy of medical marijuana, the Greens have become heroes to those who support full legalization of the drug.
But for those at the other end of the spectrum, medical marijuana activity in Michigan has become a cover for drug dealing.
"I've seen it first-hand," said Roseville Police Chief James Berlin, who spent most of his career in narcotics enforcement.
"I'm sure there's legitimate patients, but we spend a lot of time and effort investigating guys who have their (state registry) card and they're raising plants and selling the drug to anyone who'll buy from them," Berlin said.
Monday, October 28, 2013
TOYOTA SETTLES FATAL ACCELERATION CASE
This story first appeared in USA Today.
Toyota settled a fatal crash case that allegedly involved sudden acceleration in a Toyota Camry the day after an Oklahoma jury awarded victims $3 million.
The jury already found Toyota Motor Corp. liable Thursday for the crash that killed Barbara Schwarz and injured Jean Bookout. Schwarz' family and Bookout each would have gotten $1.5 million if the jury's decision hadn't been superseded by the settlement.
The jury was deliberating punitive damages on top of the $3 million when the settlement was reached Friday.
The jury decided Toyota acted with "reckless disregard" for the rights of others.
Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner said the company strongly disagreed with the verdict and would continue defending its vehicles in similar cases.
This was the first trial in which the plaintiffs made Toyota electronic malfunctions the centerpiece of an unintended acceleration case, according to safety advocate Sean Kane, whose clients include plaintiff attorneys
"And what may be significant going forward is not the verdict...but what is entered into the public record about what Toyota knows about the failures of its Electronic Throttle Control System– Intelligent (ETCS-i) and when they knew it," Kane said Friday in a release.
LAST YEAR:
Toyota to pay $1.1B for 'unintended acceleration'
Earlier this month, a California jury failed to find Toyota liable for the death of a California woman who was killed when her 2006 Camry apparently accelerated and crashed despite her efforts to stop. Jurors deliberated for about five days before concluding the vehicle's design didn't contribute to the death of 66-year-old Noriko Uno, who died in August 2009 when she was struck by another motorist, sending her vehicle into a telephone pole and tree.
In July, a federal judge in California approved a $1.6 billion settlement in a class action suit filed over economic loss suffered by owners who say their vehicles lost value over the adverse publicity about the issue.
Toyota settled a fatal crash case that allegedly involved sudden acceleration in a Toyota Camry the day after an Oklahoma jury awarded victims $3 million.
The jury already found Toyota Motor Corp. liable Thursday for the crash that killed Barbara Schwarz and injured Jean Bookout. Schwarz' family and Bookout each would have gotten $1.5 million if the jury's decision hadn't been superseded by the settlement.
The jury was deliberating punitive damages on top of the $3 million when the settlement was reached Friday.
The jury decided Toyota acted with "reckless disregard" for the rights of others.
Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner said the company strongly disagreed with the verdict and would continue defending its vehicles in similar cases.
This was the first trial in which the plaintiffs made Toyota electronic malfunctions the centerpiece of an unintended acceleration case, according to safety advocate Sean Kane, whose clients include plaintiff attorneys
"And what may be significant going forward is not the verdict...but what is entered into the public record about what Toyota knows about the failures of its Electronic Throttle Control System– Intelligent (ETCS-i) and when they knew it," Kane said Friday in a release.
LAST YEAR:
Toyota to pay $1.1B for 'unintended acceleration'
Earlier this month, a California jury failed to find Toyota liable for the death of a California woman who was killed when her 2006 Camry apparently accelerated and crashed despite her efforts to stop. Jurors deliberated for about five days before concluding the vehicle's design didn't contribute to the death of 66-year-old Noriko Uno, who died in August 2009 when she was struck by another motorist, sending her vehicle into a telephone pole and tree.
In July, a federal judge in California approved a $1.6 billion settlement in a class action suit filed over economic loss suffered by owners who say their vehicles lost value over the adverse publicity about the issue.
RISK FROM MADOFF SCAM REMAINS AT JPMORGAN
This story first appeared in USA Today.
Trustee seeking to recover funds lost by investors wants Supreme Court to review case
The nation's largest bank isn't out of financial jeopardy for its business link to the Bernard Madoff fraud scandal.
The court-appointed trustee trying to recover billions Madoff stole in the now-infamous Ponzi scheme petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court this month, asking it to issue the final word on whether JPMorgan Chase should pay for taking little action on suspicious activity in the account Madoff held at the bank.
The petition also argues that Swiss banking giant UBS, global bank HSBC and other financial institutions should share legal liability with JPMorgan for failing to stop the fraud.
"Madoff did not sustain this unprecedented fraud for more than two decades by himself," David Rivkin, the counsel for trustee Irving Picard, wrote in the Oct. 9 petition. "Instead, he was aided by a network of financial institutions, feeder funds and individuals who funneled investments" into Madoff's firm, provided financial services "and (of course) skimmed off substantial amounts for their efforts."
The petition asks the Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court decision in June that upheld lower court rulings that barred the trustee from pursuing financial recovery from the financial institutions. The lower courts ruled the federal law that empowers the trustee limits him to customer claims against Madoff's now-insolvent business.
The high court set a Dec. 9 deadline for the banks and feeder funds to file legal responses. They have repeatedly said they acted in good faith and could not have detected or stopped Madoff's scheme.
Formally known as a writ of certiorari, the petition represents a legal long shot. The Supreme Court agrees to accept only a fraction of the thousands of cases submitted for review. But Picard's petition argues that several federal appeals courts around the nation have issued differing rulings on similar matters. The Supreme Court sometimes reviews such cases to resolve legal discrepancies.
David Sheehan, Picard's chief counsel, maintained the trustee has legal authority "to pursue compensation from any third party that collaborates with a broker to defraud its customers."
JPMorgan "was foremost among (financial institution) collaborators, standing at the very center of Madoff's fraud for over 20 years," Picard's petition argues.
Billions of dollars flowed through Madoff's retail checking account at the New York-based bank "in suspicious and repetitive round-trip transactions." Madoff was assumed to be making investments on behalf of thousands of mom-and-pop clients, celebrities, charities and financial institutions, and the account funds weren't "segregated in any fashion," the petition argued.
According to the trustee's petition, JPMorgan's chief risk officer, John Hogan, warned colleagues about 18 months before the fraud collapsed that "there is a well-known cloud over the head of Madoff and that his returns are speculated to be part of a Ponzi scheme." But the bank response was to assign a junior employee "to see what a Google search could turn up about Madoff," the petition argues.
Despite its suspicions, JPMorgan ultimately invested with several feeder funds that funneled money to Madoff. But unlike thousands of other investors, JPMorgan Chase redeemed more than $276 million before the scheme crumbled. At that time, the bank sent a suspicious activity report about Madoff to the United Kingdom's Serious Organized Crime Agency.
"But these revelations came too late to do anyone, save JPM, any good," the petition argued.
Madoff confessed to the fraud in December 2008 and pleaded guilty the following year without standing trial. He's now serving a 150-year federal prison term. Accountants and other experts assisting Picard determined that the scam ran up nearly $20 billion in losses. Five former Madoff employees are currently on trial in New York on charges they were knowing participants in the scheme.
JPMorgan could also face criminal liability for its long financial relationship with Madoff. The New York Times reported Thursday that federal authorities and the bank have discussed a deferred prosecution agreement in which the bank would pay a financial fine and make acknowledgments concerning its Madoff-related activity.
The Times account, which cited information from people briefed on the inquiry, reported that JPMorgan could also be required to hire an independent monitor.
The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office declined to comment. JPMorgan spokesman Joe Evangelisti reiterated previous statements that all personnel "acted in good faith" with regard to Madoff's banking.
Separately, JPMorgan is negotiating a potential record-setting $13 billion settlement to address the role the bank and its subsidiaries played in marketing mortgage-backed securities during the run-up to the 2008 financial collapse. The tentative agreement is expected to include a mixture of fines and consumer relief.
Trustee seeking to recover funds lost by investors wants Supreme Court to review case
The nation's largest bank isn't out of financial jeopardy for its business link to the Bernard Madoff fraud scandal.
The court-appointed trustee trying to recover billions Madoff stole in the now-infamous Ponzi scheme petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court this month, asking it to issue the final word on whether JPMorgan Chase should pay for taking little action on suspicious activity in the account Madoff held at the bank.
The petition also argues that Swiss banking giant UBS, global bank HSBC and other financial institutions should share legal liability with JPMorgan for failing to stop the fraud.
"Madoff did not sustain this unprecedented fraud for more than two decades by himself," David Rivkin, the counsel for trustee Irving Picard, wrote in the Oct. 9 petition. "Instead, he was aided by a network of financial institutions, feeder funds and individuals who funneled investments" into Madoff's firm, provided financial services "and (of course) skimmed off substantial amounts for their efforts."
The petition asks the Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court decision in June that upheld lower court rulings that barred the trustee from pursuing financial recovery from the financial institutions. The lower courts ruled the federal law that empowers the trustee limits him to customer claims against Madoff's now-insolvent business.
The high court set a Dec. 9 deadline for the banks and feeder funds to file legal responses. They have repeatedly said they acted in good faith and could not have detected or stopped Madoff's scheme.
Formally known as a writ of certiorari, the petition represents a legal long shot. The Supreme Court agrees to accept only a fraction of the thousands of cases submitted for review. But Picard's petition argues that several federal appeals courts around the nation have issued differing rulings on similar matters. The Supreme Court sometimes reviews such cases to resolve legal discrepancies.
David Sheehan, Picard's chief counsel, maintained the trustee has legal authority "to pursue compensation from any third party that collaborates with a broker to defraud its customers."
JPMorgan "was foremost among (financial institution) collaborators, standing at the very center of Madoff's fraud for over 20 years," Picard's petition argues.
Billions of dollars flowed through Madoff's retail checking account at the New York-based bank "in suspicious and repetitive round-trip transactions." Madoff was assumed to be making investments on behalf of thousands of mom-and-pop clients, celebrities, charities and financial institutions, and the account funds weren't "segregated in any fashion," the petition argued.
According to the trustee's petition, JPMorgan's chief risk officer, John Hogan, warned colleagues about 18 months before the fraud collapsed that "there is a well-known cloud over the head of Madoff and that his returns are speculated to be part of a Ponzi scheme." But the bank response was to assign a junior employee "to see what a Google search could turn up about Madoff," the petition argues.
Despite its suspicions, JPMorgan ultimately invested with several feeder funds that funneled money to Madoff. But unlike thousands of other investors, JPMorgan Chase redeemed more than $276 million before the scheme crumbled. At that time, the bank sent a suspicious activity report about Madoff to the United Kingdom's Serious Organized Crime Agency.
"But these revelations came too late to do anyone, save JPM, any good," the petition argued.
Madoff confessed to the fraud in December 2008 and pleaded guilty the following year without standing trial. He's now serving a 150-year federal prison term. Accountants and other experts assisting Picard determined that the scam ran up nearly $20 billion in losses. Five former Madoff employees are currently on trial in New York on charges they were knowing participants in the scheme.
JPMorgan could also face criminal liability for its long financial relationship with Madoff. The New York Times reported Thursday that federal authorities and the bank have discussed a deferred prosecution agreement in which the bank would pay a financial fine and make acknowledgments concerning its Madoff-related activity.
The Times account, which cited information from people briefed on the inquiry, reported that JPMorgan could also be required to hire an independent monitor.
The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office declined to comment. JPMorgan spokesman Joe Evangelisti reiterated previous statements that all personnel "acted in good faith" with regard to Madoff's banking.
Separately, JPMorgan is negotiating a potential record-setting $13 billion settlement to address the role the bank and its subsidiaries played in marketing mortgage-backed securities during the run-up to the 2008 financial collapse. The tentative agreement is expected to include a mixture of fines and consumer relief.
JACK DANIEL'S BATTLES SMALL KY. DISTILLER
Story first appeared in USA Today.
Legal feuding pits industry blue blood against moonshiner purist over trademarks.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A white whiskey named for a famed Appalachian moonshiner started out being sold in Mason jars, to honor its roguish roots, but switched to square-shaped bottling. That new look has the upstart distiller embroiled in a trademark infringement fight with Jack Daniel's Tennessee whiskey. A Tampa Patent Lawyer is paying close attention to this story.
The legal feuding pits an industry blue blood against a tiny distiller that proudly claims to carry on the tradition of moonshiner Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton. The irascible Sutton wrote a paperback called "Me and My Likker" and recorded videos on how to make moonshine.
Sutton, known for his long gray beard and faded overalls, took his own life in 2009 rather than go to prison for making white lightning.
Now, the whiskey maker he inspired is facing its own legal problems. A Milwaukee Patent Lawyer will be following these actions.
The owner of the Jack Daniel's trademark sued the Nashville, Tenn.-based distiller of Popcorn Sutton's Tennessee White Whiskey. The lawsuit claims the bottling and labeling for the Popcorn Sutton product is "confusingly similar" to the ubiquitous packaging for Jack Daniel's.
The suit filed in Nashville wants the Popcorn Sutton bottle removed from the market. It says the new packaging hit the shelves in either late 2012 or early 2013.
"Defendants' use of the new Popcorn Sutton's trade dress in connection with their Tennessee white whiskey is likely to cause purchasers and prospective purchasers of the product to believe mistakenly that it is a new Tennessee white whiskey product in the Jack Daniel's line," the lawsuit said. A Boston Patent Lawyer is closely monitoring.
The suit was filed by California-based Jack Daniel's Properties Inc., a subsidiary of Brown-Forman Corp. Watching this filing is an Atlanta Trademark Lawyer.
Jack Daniel's is the flagship brand of Louisville-based Brown-Forman, which sold 11 million cases of the Black Label Tennessee Whiskey in the fiscal year that ended April 30. Jack Daniel's whiskey is produced in Lynchburg, Tenn.
Named as defendants are J&M Concepts LLC and Popcorn Sutton Distilling LLC, which operate in Nashville.
The defendants did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment Friday.
The small distillery's website says Popcorn Sutton's white whiskey is currently available in Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Georgia.
The suit notes what it said are the similarities between the packing for Jack Daniel's and the Popcorn Sutton spirit. Both bottles are square shaped with angled shoulders and beveled corners, with white-on-black labeling color schemes, the suit said. Even the font style of the Popcorn Sutton labeling is reminiscent of the Jack Daniel's label, it said. A Richmond Trademark Lawyer is reviewing the actions of this case.
Except for minor tweaks, the Jack Daniel's packaging has been "a consistent commercial impression" for decades, the suit said. That packaging is part of "one of the oldest, longest-selling and most iconic consumer products" in U.S. history, it said.
The suit said the defendants' master distiller, Jamey Grosser, cited Sutton for inspiring the makeover for his brand's look. Grosser noted that Sutton wanted to sell his moonshine in eye-catching packaging once he could afford to do so. The old moonshiner would say: "My whiskey is too good to be in a damn jar," the suit said.
Nick Reifsteck, manager of Old Town Wine and Spirits in Louisville, said the Popcorn Sutton's whiskey seemed more popular in its simpler bottle.
"When it was in the Mason jars, it was a better seller, more of a curiosity," he said Friday.
Jack Daniel's last year released its own white spirit — an unaged rye. So far, the company has produced about 100,000 bottles for sale in the U.S., Brown-Forman said.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the defendants from using their current bottle. It also asks for unspecified damages. A Boston Trademark Lawyer will continue to monitor this story.
For Jack Daniel's, it's the latest round of legal fighting in its vigilance to protect its trademark, its parent company said.
"We've taken action against many individuals and companies all over the world for infringing in the Jack Daniel's trademark," Brown-Forman spokesman Phil Lynch said Friday. "We are vigorous in our defense of all our trademarks, and especially Jack Daniel's."
Legal feuding pits industry blue blood against moonshiner purist over trademarks.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A white whiskey named for a famed Appalachian moonshiner started out being sold in Mason jars, to honor its roguish roots, but switched to square-shaped bottling. That new look has the upstart distiller embroiled in a trademark infringement fight with Jack Daniel's Tennessee whiskey. A Tampa Patent Lawyer is paying close attention to this story.
The legal feuding pits an industry blue blood against a tiny distiller that proudly claims to carry on the tradition of moonshiner Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton. The irascible Sutton wrote a paperback called "Me and My Likker" and recorded videos on how to make moonshine.
Sutton, known for his long gray beard and faded overalls, took his own life in 2009 rather than go to prison for making white lightning.
Now, the whiskey maker he inspired is facing its own legal problems. A Milwaukee Patent Lawyer will be following these actions.
The owner of the Jack Daniel's trademark sued the Nashville, Tenn.-based distiller of Popcorn Sutton's Tennessee White Whiskey. The lawsuit claims the bottling and labeling for the Popcorn Sutton product is "confusingly similar" to the ubiquitous packaging for Jack Daniel's.
The suit filed in Nashville wants the Popcorn Sutton bottle removed from the market. It says the new packaging hit the shelves in either late 2012 or early 2013.
"Defendants' use of the new Popcorn Sutton's trade dress in connection with their Tennessee white whiskey is likely to cause purchasers and prospective purchasers of the product to believe mistakenly that it is a new Tennessee white whiskey product in the Jack Daniel's line," the lawsuit said. A Boston Patent Lawyer is closely monitoring.
The suit was filed by California-based Jack Daniel's Properties Inc., a subsidiary of Brown-Forman Corp. Watching this filing is an Atlanta Trademark Lawyer.
Jack Daniel's is the flagship brand of Louisville-based Brown-Forman, which sold 11 million cases of the Black Label Tennessee Whiskey in the fiscal year that ended April 30. Jack Daniel's whiskey is produced in Lynchburg, Tenn.
Named as defendants are J&M Concepts LLC and Popcorn Sutton Distilling LLC, which operate in Nashville.
The defendants did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment Friday.
The small distillery's website says Popcorn Sutton's white whiskey is currently available in Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Georgia.
The suit notes what it said are the similarities between the packing for Jack Daniel's and the Popcorn Sutton spirit. Both bottles are square shaped with angled shoulders and beveled corners, with white-on-black labeling color schemes, the suit said. Even the font style of the Popcorn Sutton labeling is reminiscent of the Jack Daniel's label, it said. A Richmond Trademark Lawyer is reviewing the actions of this case.
Except for minor tweaks, the Jack Daniel's packaging has been "a consistent commercial impression" for decades, the suit said. That packaging is part of "one of the oldest, longest-selling and most iconic consumer products" in U.S. history, it said.
The suit said the defendants' master distiller, Jamey Grosser, cited Sutton for inspiring the makeover for his brand's look. Grosser noted that Sutton wanted to sell his moonshine in eye-catching packaging once he could afford to do so. The old moonshiner would say: "My whiskey is too good to be in a damn jar," the suit said.
Nick Reifsteck, manager of Old Town Wine and Spirits in Louisville, said the Popcorn Sutton's whiskey seemed more popular in its simpler bottle.
"When it was in the Mason jars, it was a better seller, more of a curiosity," he said Friday.
Jack Daniel's last year released its own white spirit — an unaged rye. So far, the company has produced about 100,000 bottles for sale in the U.S., Brown-Forman said.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the defendants from using their current bottle. It also asks for unspecified damages. A Boston Trademark Lawyer will continue to monitor this story.
For Jack Daniel's, it's the latest round of legal fighting in its vigilance to protect its trademark, its parent company said.
"We've taken action against many individuals and companies all over the world for infringing in the Jack Daniel's trademark," Brown-Forman spokesman Phil Lynch said Friday. "We are vigorous in our defense of all our trademarks, and especially Jack Daniel's."
NINE RESIDENTS SUE DUPONT OVER CANCER
Story first appeared in USA Today
CINCINNATI (AP) — Nine Ohio and West Virginia residents who have cancer and other diseases have filed federal lawsuits this month against chemical giant DuPont, alleging the company knowingly contaminated drinking-water supplies with a chemical used by one of its plants.
The lawsuits, filed Oct. 8 and this week, are among about 50 such cases — including one alleging wrongful death — filed against DuPont since April, when a court-appointed science panel found probable links between exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8, and kidney cancer, testicular cancer and thyroid disease, among others.
DuPont, based in Wilmington, Del., uses C8 at its plant near Parkersburg, West Va., on the Ohio line but plans to stop making and using the chemical by 2015. C8 is a key ingredient in Teflon, the coating used on cookware, clothing and other products.
The recent litigation is the latest in a years-long battle between DuPont and residents of the mid-Ohio Valley, in the heart of Appalachia along the Ohio River. A Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer is following this case closely.
About 80,000 area residents filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in 2001. It resulted in a settlement in which DuPont agreed to pay as much as $343 million for residents' medical tests, the removal of as much C8 from the area's water supply as possible and a science panel's years-long study into whether C8 causes disease in humans.
"These are folks who've been waiting many, many years to be able to pursue these claims," said Rob Bilott, a Cincinnati attorney who has been working on the case for more than 15 years and represents the Mid-Ohio Valley residents. "Our goal is to be able to get these resolved for them and move forward as quickly as we can." A Newark Personal Injury Lawyer agrees this can take years to pursue claims.
In a written statement, DuPont spokesman Dan Turner pointed out the company's efforts to pay for the medical study of C8 and fund a medical monitoring program for residents exposed to the chemical.
"Lawsuits such as these ignore family history, lifestyle choices and other causes of health issues and disease in specific individuals," Turner said. "DuPont will vigorously defend against any and all such lawsuits not based upon valid science."
The roughly 50 recent lawsuits in Ohio and West Virginia, which seek unspecified damages, have been consolidated into one case being presided over by a federal judge in Columbus. The first trial in the matter is set for September 2015.
Many of the lawsuits are more than 50 pages long and accuse the company of negligence, concealment, fraud, deception, battery and the "negligent, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress and outrage." A Miami Personal Injury Lawyer is not surprised by the amount of documentation require for such a case.
The lawsuits allege that DuPont's own research had concluded by at least 1961 that C8 was toxic and it conducted studies in the 1980s showing higher-than-normal birth defects among babies born to its female employees.
DuPont is accused of recklessly, maliciously and knowingly ignoring the risks and releasing C8 into the air and groundwater through its production practices, all while telling members of the public and news media that C8 was safe.
"No reasonable person could be expected to endure the knowledge that an entity has knowingly and intentionally exposed them to years of harmful contact with a dangerous chemical, and has furthermore actively misrepresented and/or concealed such danger from them, while reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in profits as a direct and proximate result," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuits quote internal notes written by DuPont's attorneys, obtained during previous litigation, that show their apparent frustration.
"Too bad the business wants to hunker down as though everything will not come out in the litigation," wrote one attorney who was not named in 2001, according to the lawsuit. "God knows how they could be so clueless. Don't they read the paper or go to the movies?"
Among the lawsuits is one filed by Virginia Morrison of Parkersburg, West Va., accusing DuPont of causing the death of her husband in 2008 from injuries related to kidney cancer.
DuPont denies all the allegations in court filings, saying that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by acts of God or actions of others, "over which DuPont had no control," and were not reasonably foreseeable by the company. A Minneapolis Personal Injury Lawyer will continue to monitor this case.
CINCINNATI (AP) — Nine Ohio and West Virginia residents who have cancer and other diseases have filed federal lawsuits this month against chemical giant DuPont, alleging the company knowingly contaminated drinking-water supplies with a chemical used by one of its plants.
The lawsuits, filed Oct. 8 and this week, are among about 50 such cases — including one alleging wrongful death — filed against DuPont since April, when a court-appointed science panel found probable links between exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8, and kidney cancer, testicular cancer and thyroid disease, among others.
DuPont, based in Wilmington, Del., uses C8 at its plant near Parkersburg, West Va., on the Ohio line but plans to stop making and using the chemical by 2015. C8 is a key ingredient in Teflon, the coating used on cookware, clothing and other products.
The recent litigation is the latest in a years-long battle between DuPont and residents of the mid-Ohio Valley, in the heart of Appalachia along the Ohio River. A Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer is following this case closely.
About 80,000 area residents filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in 2001. It resulted in a settlement in which DuPont agreed to pay as much as $343 million for residents' medical tests, the removal of as much C8 from the area's water supply as possible and a science panel's years-long study into whether C8 causes disease in humans.
"These are folks who've been waiting many, many years to be able to pursue these claims," said Rob Bilott, a Cincinnati attorney who has been working on the case for more than 15 years and represents the Mid-Ohio Valley residents. "Our goal is to be able to get these resolved for them and move forward as quickly as we can." A Newark Personal Injury Lawyer agrees this can take years to pursue claims.
In a written statement, DuPont spokesman Dan Turner pointed out the company's efforts to pay for the medical study of C8 and fund a medical monitoring program for residents exposed to the chemical.
"Lawsuits such as these ignore family history, lifestyle choices and other causes of health issues and disease in specific individuals," Turner said. "DuPont will vigorously defend against any and all such lawsuits not based upon valid science."
The roughly 50 recent lawsuits in Ohio and West Virginia, which seek unspecified damages, have been consolidated into one case being presided over by a federal judge in Columbus. The first trial in the matter is set for September 2015.
Many of the lawsuits are more than 50 pages long and accuse the company of negligence, concealment, fraud, deception, battery and the "negligent, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress and outrage." A Miami Personal Injury Lawyer is not surprised by the amount of documentation require for such a case.
The lawsuits allege that DuPont's own research had concluded by at least 1961 that C8 was toxic and it conducted studies in the 1980s showing higher-than-normal birth defects among babies born to its female employees.
DuPont is accused of recklessly, maliciously and knowingly ignoring the risks and releasing C8 into the air and groundwater through its production practices, all while telling members of the public and news media that C8 was safe.
"No reasonable person could be expected to endure the knowledge that an entity has knowingly and intentionally exposed them to years of harmful contact with a dangerous chemical, and has furthermore actively misrepresented and/or concealed such danger from them, while reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in profits as a direct and proximate result," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuits quote internal notes written by DuPont's attorneys, obtained during previous litigation, that show their apparent frustration.
"Too bad the business wants to hunker down as though everything will not come out in the litigation," wrote one attorney who was not named in 2001, according to the lawsuit. "God knows how they could be so clueless. Don't they read the paper or go to the movies?"
Among the lawsuits is one filed by Virginia Morrison of Parkersburg, West Va., accusing DuPont of causing the death of her husband in 2008 from injuries related to kidney cancer.
DuPont denies all the allegations in court filings, saying that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by acts of God or actions of others, "over which DuPont had no control," and were not reasonably foreseeable by the company. A Minneapolis Personal Injury Lawyer will continue to monitor this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
