Tag Archives: NRLPA:OPROD

U.S. bans sales of Juul e-cigarettes, company to seek stay on enforcement

June 23 (Reuters) – Sales of Juul e-cigarettes were blocked by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday, in a major blow to the once high-flying firm whose products have been tied to a surge in teenage vaping.

The agency said the applications “lacked sufficient evidence” to show that sale of the products would be appropriate for public health, following a nearly two-year-long review of data provided by the company.

Some of the findings raised concerns due to insufficient and conflicting data, including whether potentially harmful chemicals could leach out of the Juul pods, the FDA said.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“We respectfully disagree with the FDA’s findings … intend to seek a stay and are exploring all of our options under the FDA’s regulations and the law, including appealing the decision and engaging with our regulator,” said Joe Murillo, chief regulatory officer at Juul.

The company said it had appropriately characterized the toxicological profile of its products and that the data met the statutory standard of being “appropriate for the protection of the public health”.

Juul and other e-cigarette brands, including British American Tobacco’s (BATS.L) Vuse and Imperial Brands’ (IMB.L) Blu, had to meet a September 2020 deadline to file applications to the FDA showing the products provided a net benefit to public health.

The heath regulator had to judge whether each product was effective in getting smokers to quit and, if so, whether the benefits to smokers outweighed the potential health damage to new e-cigarette users, including teenagers, who never smoked.

BAT’s Vuse Solo was the first e-cigarette to get the agency’s clearance in October. read more

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market. We recognize … many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in a statement.

Teenage use of e-cigarettes surged with the rise in popularity of Juul in 2017 and 2018. Its use among high school students grew to 27.5% in 2019 from 11.7% in 2017, but fell to 11.3% in 2021, a federal survey showed.

Juul did not provide evidence to show the products were up to its standards and that raised “significant questions”, the FDA said, but added it has so far not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard tied to the device or pods.

“Without the data needed to determine relevant health risks, the FDA is issuing these marketing denial orders,” Michele Mital, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said.

Shares of tobacco giant Altria Group Inc (MO.N), which partly owns Juul, have lost about 7%, or nearly $6 billion in market value, since Wednesday when the Wall Street Journal first reported the FDA was preparing to order Juul’s e-cigarettes off the market.

‘HAWKISH FDA’

Juul had sought approval for its vaping device and tobacco and menthol flavored pods that had nicotine content of 5% and 3%.

E-cigarette makers have been selling products in the United States for years without being officially authorized by the FDA, as regulators repeatedly delayed deadlines for the companies to comply with federal guidelines.

Thursday’s decision was cheered by public health groups, who had long warned that e-cigarettes were getting a new generation of teenagers hooked on nicotine after major strides in reducing youth cigarette use.

In 2020, the FDA banned all flavors except tobacco and menthol for cartridge-based e-cigarettes such as Juul. The company pulled all other flavors including mint and mango in late 2019.

The Biden administration has been looking at other ways to help people quit smoking in an effort to cut down on preventable cancer deaths. It said this week it plans to propose a rule establishing a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and other finished tobacco products to make them less addictive. read more

The surprise decision was an indication of a more hawkish FDA, some analysts said, as it was expected that some Juul products would be approved, following the agency’s clearance of several other e-cigarette products.

BAT overtook Juul as the leader of the U.S. vaping market in April, according to data Nielsen provided to brokerage J.P. Morgan. Juul led the market in 2021, with a 38% share of the $11 billion retail sales market.

“The only opportunity for Juul to create value may be in international markets, but we expect other regulators to take a similar stance to the FDA in limiting the marketing of e-cigarettes to minors,” Morningstar analyst Philip Gorham said.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Chris Kirkham and Aishwarya Venugopal; Additional reporting by Praveen Paramasivam, Ananya Mariam Rajesh and Uday Sampath in Bengaluru; Editing by Bill Berkrot, Sriraj Kalluvila and Shounak Dasgupta

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Toyota recalls first mass-produced EVs less than 2 months after launch

2023 Toyota bZ4X all-electric SUV is displayed during the 2021 LA Auto Show in Los Angeles, California, U.S. November, 17, 2021. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

TOKYO, June 23 (Reuters) – Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) said on Thursday it would recall 2,700 of its first mass-produced electric vehicles (EVs) for the global market because of a riskthe wheels could come loose.

The world’s largest automaker by sales submitted the recall of the bZ4X SUVs to Japan’s transportation ministry. Of the 2,700 vehicles, 2,200 were earmarked for Europe, 260 for the United States, 20 for Canada and 110 for Japan, the company said.

Subaru Corp (7270.T) also said Thursday it was globally recalling about 2,600 units of the Solterra, its first all-electric vehicle jointly developed with Toyota, for the same reason.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Japan’s safety regulator said sharp turns and sudden braking could cause a hub bolt to loosen, raising the risk of a wheel coming off the vehicle. It said it was not aware of any accidents being caused by the defect.

The regulator advised drivers to stop using the vehicle until a more “permanent” repair measure was in place.

All of the cars recalled in Japan had not yet been delivered to customers as they were meant for test drives and display, spokespeople of the automakers said.

“We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this causes you,” Toyota said on its website. “We would have repaired it as soon as possible, but we are investigating the details.”

A Toyota spokesperson said not every model was subjected to the recall but declined to say how many it has built overall.

For Subaru, most of the vehicles were for dealers and none were delivered to customers in the U.S., a Subaru spokesperson said.

The recall comes less than two months after Toyota, a relative latecomer to the EV market, rolled out the electric SUV, bZ4X, to the domestic market, albeit as a lease-only option.

Toyota’s unit that offers the leases, KINTO, has cancelled promotional test-drive events planned in three Japanese cities for safety measures.

Toyota has been criticised by some investors and environmental organisations for not acting quickly enough to phase out gasoline-powered cars and embrace EVs instead.

The company has repeatedly pushed back against the criticism, arguing the necessity to offer a variety of powertrains to suit different markets and customers.

Gasoline-electric hybrid models remain far more popular in Toyota’s home market than EVs, which accounted for just 1% of the passenger cars sold in Japan last year, based on industry data.

Still, the market is growing fast and foreign automakers including Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) are making visible inroads on the streets of cities such as Tokyo.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Satoshi Sugiyama and Maki Shiraki
Editing by Jane Merriman and Bernadette Baum

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. agency upgrades Tesla Autopilot safety probe, step before possible recall

WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Thursday said it was upgrading its probe into 830,000 Tesla (TSLA.O) vehicles with its advanced driver assistance system Autopilot, a required step before it could seek a recall.

The auto safety agency in August opened a preliminary evaluation to assess the performance of the system in 765,000 vehicles after about a dozen crashes in which Tesla vehicles struck stopped emergency vehicles — and said Thursday it had identified six additional crashes.

NHTSA is upgrading its probe to an engineering analysis, which it must do before demanding a recall if deemed necessary.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The auto safety regulator is reviewing whether Tesla vehicles adequately ensure drivers are paying attention. The agency added evidence suggested drivers in most crashes under review had complied with Tesla’s alert strategy that seeks to compel driver attention,raising questions about its effectiveness.

In 2020, the National Transportation Safety Board criticized Tesla’s “ineffective monitoring of driver engagement” after a 2018 fatal Autopilot crash and said NHTSA had provided “scant oversight.”

NHTSA saidthe upgrade is “to extend the existing crash analysis, evaluate additional data sets, perform vehicle evaluations, and to explore the degree to which Autopilot and associated Tesla systems may exacerbate human factors or behavioral safety risks by undermining the effectiveness of the driver’s supervision.”

Tesla, which has disbanded its press offices, did not respond to a request for comment.

NHTSA said it has reports of 16 crashes, including seven injury incidents and one death, involving Tesla vehicles in Autopilot that had struck stationary first-responder and road maintenance vehicles.

Democratic Senator Ed Markey praised NHTSA’s upgrade. “Every day that Tesla disregards safety rules and misleads the public about its ‘Autopilot” system, our roads become more dangerous,” he wrote on Twitter.

NHTSA said its analysis indicated that Forward Collision Warnings activated in the majority of incidents just prior to impact and that subsequent Automatic Emergency Braking intervened in approximately half of the crashes.

“On average in these crashes, Autopilot aborted vehicle control less than one second prior to the first impact,” the agency added.

NHTSA noted that “where incident video was available, the approach to the first responder scene would have been visible to the driver an average of 8 seconds leading up to impact.”

The agency also reviewed 106 reported Autopilot crashes and said in approximately half, “indications existed that the driver was insufficiently responsive to the needs of the dynamic driving task.”

“A driver’s use or misuse of vehicle components, or operation of a vehicle in an unintended manner does not necessarily preclude a system defect,” the agency said.

NHTSA also found in about a quarter of the 106 crashes, the primary crash factor appeared to relate to operating the system where Tesla says limitations may exist in places like roadways other than limited-access highways, or while in visibility environments involving factors such as rain, snow, or ice.

Tesla says Autopilot allows the vehicles to brake and steer automatically within their lanes but does not make them capable of driving themselves.

A NHTSA spokesperson said advanced driving assistance features can promote safety “by helping drivers avoid crashes and mitigate the severity of crashes that occur, but as with all technologies and equipment on motor vehicles, drivers must use them correctly and responsibly.”

Last week, NHTSA said it asked Tesla to respond to questions by June 20 after it received 758 reports of unexpected brake activation tied to Autopilot in its separate investigation of 416,000 newer vehicles.

Separately, NHTSA has opened 35 special crash investigations into incidents involving Tesla vehicles, in which Autopilot or other advanced systems were suspected of use involving 14 reported deaths since 2016, including a crash that killed three last month in California.

NHTSA asked a dozen other automakers including General Motors (GM.N) Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) and Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) to answer questions on “driver engagement and attentiveness strategies” using driver assistance systems” during its Tesla probe but has not released their responses.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Bill Berkrot, Bernadette Baum and Chizu Nomiyama

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Sacklers to pay $6 billion to settle Purdue opioid lawsuits

March 3 (Reuters) – The Sackler family owners of Purdue Pharma LP reached a deal with a group of attorneys general to pay up to $6 billion in cash to resolve widespread litigation alleging that they fueled the U.S. opioid epidemic, bringing the OxyContin maker closer to exiting bankruptcy.

The attorneys general for eight states and the District of Columbia, who had blocked a previous settlement that included a $4.3 billion cash payment, announced the deal after weeks of mediation with the Sacklers.

The family agreed to pay at least $5.5 billion in cash, which will be used for abating a crisis that has led to nearly 500,000 U.S. opioid overdose deaths over two decades.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The value of the deal could grow as the family members sell additional assets.

The Sackler family owners said in a statement that they “sincerely regret” that OxyContin “unexpectedly became part of an opioid crisis.”

The family members said they acted lawfully but a settlement was by far the best way to help resolve a “serious and complex public health crisis.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain must approve the deal, which protects the Sacklers from civil lawsuits. Purdue requested a March 9 hearing for Drain to review the agreement.

Purdue said on Thursday that the new settlement would provide additional funding for opioid abatement programs, overdose rescue medicines, and victims, while putting the company on track to resolve its bankruptcy case on “an expedited schedule.”

When the bankruptcy plan takes effect, Purdue Pharma will cease to exist. It will emerge as a new company, Knoa Pharma LLC, owned by the National Opioid Abatement Trust, an entity controlled by creditors of Purdue.

Opioid overdose deaths soared to a record during the COVID-19 pandemic, including from the powerful synthetic painkiller fentanyl, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said.

The Sacklers’ agreement follows an announcement on Friday by the three largest U.S. drug distributors and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) that they would finalize a $26 billion plan to settle allegations over their role in the opioid crisis. read more

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019 in the face of thousands of lawsuits accusing it and members of the Sackler family of fueling the opioid epidemic through deceptive marketing of its highly addictive pain medicine.

The company pleaded guilty to misbranding and fraud charges related to its marketing of OxyContin in 2007 and 2020. Members of the Sackler family have denied wrongdoing.

The new deal was announced over two months after U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon overturned the earlier settlement, which contained sweeping legal protections for the Sacklers from future opioid-related litigation.

Eight states, Washington D.C. and the U.S. Department of Justice’s bankruptcy watchdog said at the time that the Sacklers should not be afforded such protections since they did not file for bankruptcy themselves.

While bankruptcy judges have increasingly granted such releases over the years when approving a reorganization plan, McMahon ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have that legal authority.

As part of the new deal, the holdout states and D.C. agreed to drop their opposition to the protections.

SERVING JUSTICE

Connecticut’s William Tong, one of the attorneys general who agreed to the settlement, said he recognized its limits.

“No one is under any illusion this solves all the problems we’re facing,” Tong said at a news conference.

Tong and the mediator urged Drain to allow victims of the opioid epidemic to address the court when the judge considers approving the settlement and to order the Sackler family members to attend.

The mediator, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman, said in a court filing it was her “heartfelt belief” that doing so would “serve the ends of justice.”

Under Thursday’s settlement, $276 million of the increased Sackler contribution will be dedicated to the eight states that had opposed the prior deal and the District of Columbia.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Jonathan Stempel and Dietrich Knauth in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Judge greenlights J&J strategy to resolve talc lawsuits in bankruptcy court

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

Feb 25 (Reuters) – Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) can use the bankruptcy system to resolve multibillion-dollar litigation claiming its talc products cause cancer, a U.S. judge ruled on Friday, signing off on a legal maneuver that enables the company to avoid fighting more than 38,000 individual lawsuits.

J&J used a strategy known as the “Texas two-step,” which allows companies to split valuable assets from liabilities through a so-called divisive merger. In October, J&J, which maintains its talc products are safe, put the claims into a newly created entity called LTL Management LLC, which filed for bankruptcy days later.

Plaintiffs argued the move was an abuse of the Chapter 11 system.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan forcefully rejected that argument on Friday, saying J&J’s approach was “unquestionably” proper and that bankruptcy offers a faster and more fair alternative to decades of litigation in other courts.

Jon Ruckdeschel, an attorney for plaintiffs pursuing the talc lawsuits, said the ruling would be appealed.

“The bankruptcy code was never intended to be abused in this way by massively profitable corporations as a means to delay or prevent cancer victims from having their day in court,” he said in a statement.

J&J’s stock closed up 5%, its biggest one-day gain since the start of the pandemic in spring 2020. The company, which has a stock market value of more than $400 billion, also said on Friday it planned to move ahead with a $5 billion settlement to resolve claims by states and local governments that J&J contributed to the U.S. opioid epidemic. read more .

Talc plaintiffs and some critics had warned that the strategy could “open the floodgates” for other companies facing mass litigation risk.

Kaplan said “maybe the gates indeed should be opened.”

“There is nothing to fear in the migration of tort litigation out of the tort system and into the bankruptcy system,” Kaplan wrote.

After Kaplan’s “extremely strong” defense of J&J’s bankruptcy strategy, other companies would be “negligent” if they did not consider a similar approach, said Jared Ellias, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law.

“This couldn’t have been a better opinion for people who think that the Texas two-step bankruptcy strategy is a good way for companies to deal with mass tort problems,” Ellias said.

The plaintiffs had alleged that J&J’s talc-based products contained asbestos and caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a type of cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

J&J denies the allegations, saying decades of scientific testing and regulatory approvals have shown its talc to be safe and asbestos-free.

Before the bankruptcy filing, the company faced costs from $3.5 billion in verdicts and settlements, including one in which 22 women were awarded a judgment of more than $2 billion, according to bankruptcy-court records.

J&J, in a statement, called the ruling a positive development, adding that an independent investigation would establish that the formation of LTL and the Chapter 11 filing were appropriate.

“LTL stands ready to work with claimants’ counsel and the mediator to reach an equitable and efficient resolution as ordered by the Bankruptcy Court,” J&J said in a statement.

J&J has set aside $2 billion to settle talc claims, but LTL executives characterized that number as a starting point rather than a “cap” during court proceedings last week.

Kaplan said he believed there was a need for “independent scrutiny” of the company’s restructuring and said he would consider appointing an examiner at a March 8 hearing.

Reuters exclusively reported earlier this month that J&J secretly launched “Project Plato” last year to shift liability from its pending talc lawsuits to the newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy.

The strategy angered lawyers for cancer plaintiffs, who in court called it “rotten to the core.”

It also alarmed lawmakers including U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who said it provided a blueprint for other well-heeled corporations to deprive victims of the compensation and “hide assets in plain view.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Additional reporting by Dan Burns; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

Feb 4 (Reuters) – Johnson & Johnson tried to get a U.S. judge to block Reuters from publishing a story based on what it said were confidential company documents about the healthcare giant’s legal maneuvers to fight lawsuits claiming its Baby Powder caused cancer.

“The First Amendment is not a license to knowingly violate the law,” said the company in a filing late Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey, where a unit of J&J had sought bankruptcy protection while defending the Baby Powder lawsuits. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of the press.

On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched “Project Plato” last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

After the publication of the story, Reuters asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan to deny J&J’s motion, claiming it was moot. Less than an hour after Reuters submitted its letter, J&J said in a filing that it was withdrawing a request for an immediate hearing on the matter but was “not prepared to agree” that its request regarding the documents was moot.

J&J said in its filing after the publication of the story that it intends to continue discussions with Reuters and said it was “heartened that publication of confidential documents may no longer be imminent.”

J&J’s request to block publication was “among the most extraordinary remedies a litigant can request under the law,” attorneys for Reuters, a unit of Thomson Reuters , said in a Friday court filing. The news agency’s lawyers called J&J’s request a “prior restraint of speech on a matter of public interest.”

J&J said Reuters had obtained documents that were protected from public disclosure by an order from Kaplan. The company demanded that Reuters return the documents and refrain from publishing information gleaned from the documents.

“This is a complex matter that should be heard by the court – in a forum where both sides present their cases in an appropriate setting – and not argued through the media,” a J&J spokesperson said in a statement on Friday.

Reuters denied that it has confidential information, saying in court papers that the confidentiality of one of the documents was lifted in January and that the second is not in the possession of Reuters.

J&J’s (JNJ.N) LTL unit filed for bankruptcy in October to resolve the claims alleging J&J’s talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. read more

J&J maintains that its consumer talc products are safe and have been confirmed to be asbestos-free.

The company has said it placed LTL into bankruptcy to settle those claims rather than litigating them individually. It has said resolving these claims through Chapter 11 is a legitimate use of the restructuring process.

Talc plaintiff committees argue that J&J should not be permitted to use bankruptcy to address the talc litigation and that by doing so, it is depriving plaintiffs their day in court.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Maria Chutchian in New York; editing by Amy Stevens and Rosalba O’Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Qatar Airways sues Airbus in A350 jet damage dispute

PARIS, Dec 20 (Reuters) – Qatar Airways said on Monday it had started proceedings in a UK court against planemaker Airbus (AIR.PA) in a bid to resolve a dispute over skin flaws on A350 passenger jets, bringing the two sides closer to a rare legal showdown over aviation safety.

The companies have been locked in a row for months over damage, including blistered paint and corrosion to a sub-layer of lightning protection, which Qatar Airways says has now led to the grounding of 21 A350 jets by its domestic regulator.

Airbus insists the carbon-composite passenger jets are safe to fly despite some “surface degradation,” while Qatar Airways says it is too early to say whether safety has been compromised.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The dispute came to a head last week when Airbus, in what experts called an unprecedented move, accused the Gulf airline of misrepresenting the problem as a safety issue and threatened to call for an independent legal assessment. read more

On Monday, Qatar Airways hit back, saying it had taken its complaint against Airbus to the High Court in London.

“We have sadly failed in all our attempts to reach a constructive solution with Airbus in relation to the accelerated surface degradation condition adversely impacting the Airbus A350 aircraft,” it said in a statement. “Qatar Airways has therefore been left with no alternative but to seek a rapid resolution of this dispute via the courts.”

In a statement late on Monday, Airbus confirmed it had received a formal legal claim. “Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position,” it said.

A spokesman earlier reiterated it had found the cause of the problem and was working with customers and Europe’s safety regulator, which has said it has not identified a safety issue.

Qatar Airways denies that the surface flaws – which witnesses say have left some of the jets with a pock-marked appearance – are properly understood and said on Monday that it wanted Airbus to mount a “thorough investigation”. read more

JETS GROUNDED

Several industry executives said such a public legal fight between two of aviation’s leading players is unprecedented.

The row widened this month when documents seen by Reuters revealed at least five other airlines in varying climates had complained about paint or other surface problems since 2016. Airbus had until recently maintained the problem was focused on paint on Qatar’s A350s, based in the Gulf.

Reuters also first reported that Airbus was looking at changing the anti-lightning system. read more

The planemaker has said it is proposing interim solutions ranging from repairs to repainting and has accused Qatar Airways of ignoring those proposals without reasonable justification.

Qatar Airways reiterated on Monday it could not be sure whether proposed repairs would work without deeper analysis. Its chief executive has questioned why Airbus is still working on a solution if a reliable fix is already available.

The 21 grounded jets represent 40% of its current fleet of A350s, for which it was the launch customer with the biggest order. Other airlines still operate the jet, saying its airworthiness is not affected by what they term cosmetic issues.

The row meanwhile looks set to cost Airbus a bigQatar order for a new A350 freighter version. It received the first firm order for the model on Monday, confirming a previously tentative order for four planes from France’s CMA CGM.

Qatar Airways Chief Executive Akbar Al Baker told the South China Morning Post last week he had previously looked at placing a large order for the cargo A350. Sources now expect Boeing to win the order to replace Qatar’s 34-35 freighters. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Tim Hepher
Editing by Mark Potter and Gerry Doyle

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. judge tosses $4.5 bln deal shielding Sacklers from opioid lawsuits

NEW YORK, Dec 16 (Reuters) – A federal judge overturned a roughly $4.5 billion settlement that legally shielded members of the Sackler family who stand accused of helping fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic, a decision that threatened to upend the bankruptcy reorganization of their company, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon said in a written opinion on Thursday the New York bankruptcy court that approved the settlement did not have authority to grant the Sacklers the legal protection from future opioid litigation that formed the linchpin of Purdue’s reorganization.

Purdue said it would appeal the decision.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“While the district court decision does not affect Purdue’s rock-solid operational stability or its ability to produce its many medications safely and effectively, it will delay, and perhaps end, the ability of creditors, communities, and individuals to receive billions in value to abate the opioid crisis,” Purdue Chairman Steve Miller said in a statement.

The Sacklers had insisted on the legal shields, known as nondebtor releases because they protect parties that have not filed for bankruptcy themselves, in exchange for contributing $4.5 billion toward resolving widespread opioid litigation.

The Sacklers threatened to walk away from the settlement absent the guaranteed legal protections.

Representatives for the Sacklers did not immediately respond to a request for comment late on Thursday.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement he was pleased with the ruling.

“The bankruptcy court did not have the authority to deprive victims of the opioid crisis of their right to sue the Sackler family,” Garland said.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who had objected to Purdue’s reorganization, also praised McMahon’s decision.

“There cannot be two forms of justice – one for ordinary Americans and a different one for billionaires,” Ferguson said. “I’m prepared to take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to ensure true accountability for the Sackler family.”

More than 95% of creditors – in this case predominantly plaintiffs suing Purdue and the Sacklers – voted to approve the drugmaker’s reorganization.

But eight states, Washington, D.C., Seattle and more than 2,600 personal injury claimants voted against Purdue’s reorganization, McMahon said. The U.S. Justice Department’s bankruptcy watchdog and the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office also objected.

McMahon raised questions about more than $10 billion Purdue distributed to the Sacklers spanning a roughly decade-long period that preceded the company’s bankruptcy filing.

The Sacklers have faced allegations, which they deny, that they authorized the financial transfers to prevent the money from being drained in future litigation against Purdue. The Sacklers have said much of the money went toward taxes and investments, as opposed to their pockets.

McMahon’s ruling came a week after the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Sacklers, long known for their philanthropy, announced an agreement to remove Sackler name from seven exhibition spaces.

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in September 2019 in the face of 3,000 lawsuits accusing the company and Sackler family members of contributing to a public health crisis that has claimed the lives of about 500,000 people since 1999.

The litigation accused the company and family members of aggressively marketing OxyContin while downplaying its addiction and overdose risks. The company and family members have denied the allegations.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in White Plains, New York, agreed early in Purdue’s court restructuring to halt litigation against the company and Sackler family members, who had not filed for Chapter 11 protection themselves.

The Stamford, Connecticut, drugmaker last year pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from its handling of opioids. At the outset of its bankruptcy case, Purdue said there were a number of legal defenses it could mount in response to lawsuits alleging improper conduct.

Drain said it was clear the wrongful marketing of the company’s opioid products contributed to the addiction crisis that touched every corner of the country.

But he overruled objections to the legal releases shielding the Sacklers. Drain predicted that denying the releases would unravel Purdue’s reorganization – settlement aimed at steering funds toward communities reeling from the opioid epidemic – and result in the company’s liquidation, leaving little to nothing for victims.

McMahon, though, found that the Bankruptcy Code “does not authorize” granting such nonconsensual third-party releases.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Brendan Pierson, Mike Spector and Maria Chutchian in New York; editing by Diane Craft, Lincoln Feast and Grant McCool

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Exclusive: SEC probes Tesla over whistleblower claims on solar panel defects

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. securities regulator has opened an investigation into Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) over a whistleblower complaint that the company failed to properly notify its shareholders and the public of fire risks associated with solar panel system defects over several years, according to a letter from the agency.

The probe raises regulatory pressure on the world’s most valuable automaker, which already faces a federal safety probe into accidents involving its driver assistant systems. Concerns about fires from Tesla solar systems have been published previously, but this is the first report of investigation by the securities regulator.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed the Tesla probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Steven Henkes, a former Tesla field quality manager, who filed a whistleblower complaint on the solar systems in 2019 and asked the agency for information about the report.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

Register

“We have confirmed with Division of Enforcement staff that the investigation from which you seek records is still active and ongoing,” the SEC said in a Sept. 24 response to Henkes, declining his request to provide its records. The SEC official said the letter should not be taken as an indication by the agency that violations of law had occurred. Reuters independently confirmed the SEC letter was legitimate.

Henkes, a former Toyota Motor quality division manager, was fired from Tesla in August 2020 and he sued Tesla claiming the dismissal was in retaliation for raising safety concerns. Tesla did not respond to Reuters’ emailed questions, while the SEC declined to comment.

In the SEC complaint, Henkes said Tesla and SolarCity, which it acquired in 2016, did not disclose its “liability and exposure to property damage, risk of injury of users, fire etc to shareholders” prior and after the acquisition.

Tesla also failed to notify its customers that defective electrical connectors could lead to fires, according to the complaint.

Tesla told consumers that it needed to conduct maintenance on the solar panel system to avoid a failure that could shut down the system. It did not warn of fire risks, offer temporary shutdown to mitigate risk, or report the problems to regulators, Henkes said.

Tesla shares fell 5.5% at $960.25 on Monday after the Reuters report.

EX-TOYOTA QUALITY MANAGER BLOWS THE WHISTLE

More than 60,000 residential customers in the U.S. and 500 government and commercial accounts were affected by the issue, according to his lawsuit filed in November last year against Tesla Energy over wrongful termination.

It is not clear how many of those remain after Tesla’s remediation program.

Henkes, a longtime manager at Toyota’s North American quality division, moved to SolarCity as a quality engineer in 2016, months before Tesla acquired SolarCity. After the acquisition, his duties changed and he became aware of the widespread problem, he told Reuters.

Henkes, in the SEC complaint, said he told Tesla management that Tesla needs to shut down the fire-prone solar systems, report to safety regulators and notify consumers. When his calls were ignored, he proceeded to file complaints with regulators.

“The top lawyer cautioned any communication of this issue to the public as a detriment to the Tesla reputation. For me this is criminal,” he said in the SEC complaint.

Litigation and concerns over faulty connectors and Tesla solar system issues stretch back several years. Walmart in a 2019 lawsuit against Tesla said the latter’s roof solar system led to seven store fires. Tesla denied the allegations and the two settled.

Business Insider reported Tesla’s program to replace defective solar panel parts in 2019.

Several residential customers or their insurers have sued Tesla and parts supplier Amphenol (APH.N) over fires related to their solar systems, according to documents provided by legal transparency group PlainSite.

Henkes also filed a complaint with he U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which CNBC reported this year was investigating the case. CPSC and Amphenol didn’t respond to request for comment.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin; Additional reporting by Chris Prentice in Washington and Shreyashi Sanyal in Bangalore; Editing by Peter Henderson and Nick Zieminski

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Shareholders may pursue 737 MAX claims against Boeing board, court rules

WASHINGTON, Sept 7 (Reuters) – A Delaware judge ruled on Tuesday that Boeing’s (BA.N) board of directors must face a lawsuit from shareholders over two fatal 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people in less than six months.

Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn ruled Boeing stockholders may pursue some claims against the board, but dismissed others.

Zurn’s ruling in the Court of Chancery said the first of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes was a “red flag” about a key safety system known as MCAS “that the board should have heeded but instead ignored.”

Boeing said late Tuesday it was “disappointed in the court’s decision to allow the plaintiffs’ case to proceed past this preliminary stage of litigation. We will review the opinion closely over the coming days as we consider next steps.”

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration lifted a flight ban on the 737 MAX in November after a 20-month review following the fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. In January, Boeing was charged by the Justice Department with 737 MAX fraud conspiracy and agreed to a deferred prosecution agreement and settlement worth more than $2.5 billion.

Zurn’s ruling found some evidence submitted by Boeing supported the shareholders’ allegations. “That the board knowingly fell short is also evident in the board’s public crowing about taking specific actions to monitor safety that it did not actually perform,” the ruling said.

In a lengthy summary of the shareholder’s case, Zurn said the board “publicly lied about if and how it monitored the 737 MAX’s safety.”

The opinion also cited comments by Dave Calhoun, then lead Boeing director, who became Boeing chief executive in January 2020 after the board ousted CEO Dennis Muilenburg.

It cited Calhoun’s comments that “the board had been ‘notified immediately, as a board broadly,’ after the Lion Air crash and met ‘very, very quickly’ thereafter.”

It added that after the second crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX in March 2019, Calhoun represented that the board met within 24 hours of the crash to discuss potentially grounding the 737 MAX.

“Each of Calhoun’s representations was false,” Zurn’s ruling said.

The crashes have cost Boeing some $20 billion.

Brian Quinn, a professor at Boston College Law School, said the ruling clears the way for additional discovery and potentially a trial, although he considered that very unlikely.

“Right now everything is lining up where the board of directors are telling their attorneys I don’t want to go to trial. You need to pay them whatever it costs and I cannot as a director admit liability,” he said.

In that scenario, the directors’ insurance would likely pay any settlement, he said.

Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington, Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Richard Pullin

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here