Pity Party for Monsanto

Posted on 07/30/2010 at 10:46 am by Bob Cesca

Awwwwww.

BOCA RATON, Fla., Jul 29, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Monsanto Company between January 7, 2009 and May 27, 2010, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

ht Robyn O’Brien

This entry was posted in Food and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • ec

    More, please.

  • http://www.bubblegenius.com pea

    Now, where did I put my tiny violin?

  • ec

    Don’t know if you have already seen this:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJuly 8, 2010EPA Fines Monsanto for Distributing Misbranded Genetically Engineered PesticideWASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that Monsanto Company Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, has agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty to resolve misbranding violations related to the sale and distribution of cotton seed products containing genetically engineered pesticides. This is the largest civil administrative penalty settlement ever received under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).”This agreement shows that when a company violates the law by distributing misbranded pesticides, EPA will take action,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The regulated community should understand that we take these violations seriously, and the public will accept nothing less than compliance.”“People who manufacture and distribute pesticide products must follow the federal registration requirements,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These requirements are critical to preventing the development and spread of insect resistance.”Monsanto Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed products contain genetically engineered pesticides known as plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are registered as a pesticidal product under FIFRA. As a condition of the registrations, EPA included planting restrictions on Bollgard and Bollgard II, which contain the PIP Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). EPA restricted planting of the cotton seed product in 10 Texas counties (Carson, Dallam, Hansford, Hartley, Hutchison, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Roberts and Sherman) to protect against pests becoming resistant to Bt PIPs and other microbial products used in sprays and dusts. Monsanto was required to control the sale and distribution of the cotton seed by including information on the planting restrictions in its labeling and grower guides.In 2007, Monsanto disclosed to EPA that it had distributed misbranded Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed to customers in the Texas counties where EPA had restricted its planting. EPA’s subsequent investigation confirmed that between 2002 and 2007, the company distributed or sold the cotton products more than 1,700 times nationwide without the planting restrictions in its grower guides and that Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton was planted in the restricted counties.Monsanto subsequently corrected the grower guides by including the required planting restriction for the Bollgard and Bollgard II products. In September 2008, EPA lifted the planting restriction in the 10 Texas counties for Bollgard II, after Monsanto applied for a change in the registration of that product.More information about the Monsanto consent agreement:www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/fifra/monsanto-infosht.html

  • josephS

    I don’t know what other history Monsanto has to earn the vitriol of the public, but, as satisfying as a class action suit can be, and even appropriate, I can’t help but be reminded of who really benefits.A national brokerage I’ve had an account with for some time finally settled a class action. I won’t get into the details except to say that, having been part of the class by default, my “benefit” was, well, sneezeable. As part of the ‘Class,’ I was entitled to $6.74, to be used within a specific window of time as a credit toward future transaction fees. All this assumes of course that I would transact, something I hadn’t intended to do.But I’m happy for the lawyers. They no doubt came away with substantially more than $6.74.Since the issue of “fairness” seems to pop up frequently these days, especially in terms of financial institutions, it seems appropriate to see who benefits the most from these legal actions. It’s debatable whether the shareholders do, first because the stock they hold has already lost significant value. That’s usually when class actions of this sort are initiated, after the stock has tanked. Second, to add insult to injury, here comes a class action which puts more stress on the company and share price.Golden Plump (NOT a public company to my knowledge but an interesting case) has a food processing plant up in Minnesota that, up until last year some time, was engaged in a religious discrimination class action lawsuit in which about 28 Muslim employees claimed they were denied their religious right to pray five times a day according to a schedule based on a lunar calendar.After nearly three years, Golden (never admitting to any discrimination) decided to settle. It was running out of legal financial resources.They settled for about $1.3 million, out of which the Lawyers on the case (provided by CAIR or one of its affiliates) received something like $950,000. Not a bad payout. The plaintiffs received varying sums out of what was left.I’m not saying the plaintiffs deserved 950K any more than the lawyers did, but it makes clear that, aside from the value to society to be able to sue businesses when shady practices are suspected, the result for the public is often little more than the satisfaction of seeing the company punished, and maybe a few employees.Fair enough – Erin Brochovich ROCKS!I’m always skeptical when I hear that a public concern, such as Monsanto, is being sued in a class action, where shareholders are pissed but where likely the lawyers as a single entity will take home the pot of gold – and, in the Monsanto case, the single “Institutional Investor”… a Wall Street Firm?