Talk of The Villages Florida - Investment question-legal

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- Investment Talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/investment-talk-158/)

- - Investment question-legal (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/investment-talk-158/investment-question-legal-298196/)

Investment question-legal

The many lawsuits. One of the many ambulance chasers claims they are suing Monsanto for glycophosate (Round up) From what I know, or think I know, monsanto, an American company (MON) has been sold to Bayer a German company. MON is no longer traded.
How can they sue something that does not exist? For that matter glycophosate I assume like 24D is produced by many companies.

Similar question re: Johnsons baby powder. The women claiming it caused cervical cancer were not using the product as suggested.
For that matter, what proof do they have they purchased only the Johnson product. Baby powder is crushed soap stone. Hum can they prove they never bought Walmart unbranded, CVS etc.

In a lawsuit, the lawyers don't have to "prove" anything. All they need to do is to convince a jury to award big bucks to their client, or settle out of court. It happens all the time.

When the companies were merged all the assets and LIABILITIES of both companies are included in the new company. That is what was done. The new company is liable for any problems of the old company.

It is also possible for a company to buy some or all of the assets of a company and to assume some of the known liabilities. This probably leaves the problems you mention with the original company but I am not sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 1681509)

In a lawsuit, the lawyers don't have to "prove" anything. All they need to do is to convince a jury to award big bucks to their client, or settle out of court. It happens all the time.

I am aware of what you've said. Perhaps just my wondering about what is compared to what should be.
The baby powder case should simply have been disallowed unless you can prove you used the product as expected-they did not-and you can prove you only used Johnson's-they can not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjm1cc (Post 1681518)

I had a small corporation that owed me roughly 50,000. I discovered they were trying to sell the business. I discovered they could sell the business and simply avoid paying me and others in my same position. I sued them, I got the money owed me. I did not get my atty paid so I lost about 1/3 of what was owed.

Naive, perhaps-there is right there is wrong then there is legal.
The me too movement. What do all the guys have in common?
Deep pockets. All poor guys are saints?

Speaking of big corporate lawsuits....

I'm sure there are still a lot of people who believe the infamous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit...was/is the epitome of juries out of control.

If folks did some simple research however, they would find out things...that I bet they never knew.

I was one of those until one day while walking down the fairway at Arroyo del Oso, I mentioned it to my good friend and to my surprise (since he was the retired Deputy Chief of the State Police for NM)...he gave me the real facts.

I'm sure they're are some that don't even care though, because they go by emotions and will believe the false news put out at the time...and facts don't really matter to them. :ohdear:

Poke Here For The Whole Story

Quote:

In a new segment of Adam Ruins Everything, host Adam Conover explains that basically everything people think they know about the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit is false. He walks through some of the actual details of the case:

Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose grandson drove her to McDonald’s in 1992. She was in a parked car when the coffee spilled.

Liebeck acknowledged that the spill was her fault. What she took issue with was that the coffee was so ridiculously hot — at up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, near boiling point — that it caused third-degree burns on her legs and genitals, nearly killing her and requiring extensive surgery to treat.

McDonald’s apparently knew that this was unsafe.

In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700 reports of people burning themselves.

McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald’s claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.)

Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994.

After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message.

Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began changing how it heats up its coffee.

On a side note, when she originally went back to the restaurant to ask the manager to pay for her medical bills...he grabbed her elbow and forcefully removed her from the store.

She also makes the best tamales...I have ever eaten. :thumbup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjm1cc (Post 1681518)

Monsanto probably had some insurance covering claims that arose out of the years of exposure. There are probably a number of policy years and quite possible a number of different carriers that will be providing coverage for some of these claims.