Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update - April 2019!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Abstruser" data-source="post: 10866" data-attributes="member: 260"><p><strong><u>3. Bayer Monsanto is found liable for farmer’s sickness by French Courts (by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER])</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The story:</strong></p><p></p><p>On April 11, a French court ruled in favour of 55-year old farmer Paul Francois, who has fought a ten-year battle against Bayer Monsanto; a pharmaceutical and agriculture conglomerate. Francois who fell ill in 2004, suffered memory loss, headaches, and stammering, and has since alleged that his illness was a result of him inhaling Lasso, a now banned herbicide manufactured by Monsanto. As a result of his illness, Mr. Francois had to stop work and is seeking €1milllion in damages. </p><p></p><p>Mr Francois and his lawyers argued that Monsanto failed to include sufficient safety warnings on the Lasso label, despite the fact that the herbicide contained hazardous chemicals. Lasso has been banned in France since 2007, and had already been withdrawn from several countries before that. </p><p></p><p>In its ruling, the court found that Monsanto should have indicated “a notice on the specific dangers of using the products in vats and reservoirs” on Lasso’s labelling and instructions. Moreover, it noted that Mr Francois’ expertise as a farmer did not excuse the lack of an accurate warning on the product. </p><p></p><p>Previous rulings in French courts had found Monsanto legally responsible for poisoning Mr Francois; however, those judgements were overturned by France’s top court, which in turn ordered a new hearing. The latest ruling was an appeal against that decision, and as a result François’ case will be heard again in another Lyon court which will make a ruling on the damages. </p><p></p><p>In addition to its legal battle in France, Monsanto is also facing several lawsuits in the United States regarding its most popular weed killer, Roundup. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which allegedly causes cancer. The company has been found liable in two trials in which plaintiffs have been awarded tens of millions of dollars.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Impact on businesses and law firms:</strong></p><p></p><p>The ongoing litigation against Monsanto has thrown into question Bayer AG’s acquisition of the company in 2018. Bayer acquired Monsanto in a $63 billion deal last year and Monsanto’s legal troubles since the merger have led to resulted in losses of €30 million in market value since August 2018. Following the announcement of the most recent legal decision, Bayer’s shares fell about 1.5% before recovering. </p><p></p><p>These losses have led some of Bayer’s largest shareholders to criticize the company’s management for underestimating the legal risks of the acquisition. Last year, they sought a legal opinion from Linklaters for reassurance that Bayer management had complied with its fiduciary duties to shareholders when acquiring Monsanto for $64 billion last year. The situation is particularly concerning for Bayer’s shareholders because it seemingly is not a situation that management can control or resolve. They are instead left to hope that their legal teams are able to persuade judges and juries that Monsanto is not liable for the plaintiffs’ illness, which so far, they have failed to do. Nevertheless, Bayer’s largest shareholders may look to take a vote of no confidence against management, which could result in further concern for the company and leave it vulnerable to attacks from activist shareholders who may seek to break it up. </p><p></p><p>Despite the most recent ruling, Francois’ legal battle is likely still ongoing as the company said it was considering an appeal. Bayer Monsanto’s shareholders will be watching closely to see if the French ruling leads to another surge in litigation, as was the case with the US ruling. Although they are appealing the California cases, more than 11,000 plaintiffs are seeking damages. In addition to diminishing investor confidence, surges in litigation also generally lead to significant costs for firms, which cause erosion to their bottom line and help to further reduce investor confidence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Abstruser, post: 10866, member: 260"] [B][U]3. Bayer Monsanto is found liable for farmer’s sickness by French Courts (by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER])[/U][/B] [B]The story:[/B] On April 11, a French court ruled in favour of 55-year old farmer Paul Francois, who has fought a ten-year battle against Bayer Monsanto; a pharmaceutical and agriculture conglomerate. Francois who fell ill in 2004, suffered memory loss, headaches, and stammering, and has since alleged that his illness was a result of him inhaling Lasso, a now banned herbicide manufactured by Monsanto. As a result of his illness, Mr. Francois had to stop work and is seeking €1milllion in damages. Mr Francois and his lawyers argued that Monsanto failed to include sufficient safety warnings on the Lasso label, despite the fact that the herbicide contained hazardous chemicals. Lasso has been banned in France since 2007, and had already been withdrawn from several countries before that. In its ruling, the court found that Monsanto should have indicated “a notice on the specific dangers of using the products in vats and reservoirs” on Lasso’s labelling and instructions. Moreover, it noted that Mr Francois’ expertise as a farmer did not excuse the lack of an accurate warning on the product. Previous rulings in French courts had found Monsanto legally responsible for poisoning Mr Francois; however, those judgements were overturned by France’s top court, which in turn ordered a new hearing. The latest ruling was an appeal against that decision, and as a result François’ case will be heard again in another Lyon court which will make a ruling on the damages. In addition to its legal battle in France, Monsanto is also facing several lawsuits in the United States regarding its most popular weed killer, Roundup. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which allegedly causes cancer. The company has been found liable in two trials in which plaintiffs have been awarded tens of millions of dollars. [B]Impact on businesses and law firms:[/B] The ongoing litigation against Monsanto has thrown into question Bayer AG’s acquisition of the company in 2018. Bayer acquired Monsanto in a $63 billion deal last year and Monsanto’s legal troubles since the merger have led to resulted in losses of €30 million in market value since August 2018. Following the announcement of the most recent legal decision, Bayer’s shares fell about 1.5% before recovering. These losses have led some of Bayer’s largest shareholders to criticize the company’s management for underestimating the legal risks of the acquisition. Last year, they sought a legal opinion from Linklaters for reassurance that Bayer management had complied with its fiduciary duties to shareholders when acquiring Monsanto for $64 billion last year. The situation is particularly concerning for Bayer’s shareholders because it seemingly is not a situation that management can control or resolve. They are instead left to hope that their legal teams are able to persuade judges and juries that Monsanto is not liable for the plaintiffs’ illness, which so far, they have failed to do. Nevertheless, Bayer’s largest shareholders may look to take a vote of no confidence against management, which could result in further concern for the company and leave it vulnerable to attacks from activist shareholders who may seek to break it up. Despite the most recent ruling, Francois’ legal battle is likely still ongoing as the company said it was considering an appeal. Bayer Monsanto’s shareholders will be watching closely to see if the French ruling leads to another surge in litigation, as was the case with the US ruling. Although they are appealing the California cases, more than 11,000 plaintiffs are seeking damages. In addition to diminishing investor confidence, surges in litigation also generally lead to significant costs for firms, which cause erosion to their bottom line and help to further reduce investor confidence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update - April 2019!
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…