Plaintiff firm Maurice Blackburn will foot the bill for the unsuccessful class action against Monsanto over weed killer Roundup, but the company’s reluctance to split the trial in two has come back to bite it.
A judge has dismissed a class action alleging Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer is carcinogenic but did not go so far as to say it definitively does not cause cancer, while also dressing down the lawyers for both sides for causing delays in the case.
The judge considering a $272 million settlement in class actions against Uber will appoint a pair of contradictors to advise her on the hundreds of objections lobbed against the agreement.
The funder behind two class actions against Uber, which have settled for $272 million, stands to make a tidy sum if the settlement holds up at a court approval hearing.
On the eve of trial, rideshare giant Uber has agreed to pay $271.8 million to settle a five-year-old class action brought by taxi and hire car drivers in four states over the introduction of UberX.
Defending allegations that its popular weed killer Roundup is carcinogenic, agrochemical giant Monsanto has accused the class action of having its “finger on the scales” when presenting scientific evidence to the court.
A class action against agrochemical giant Monsanto has told the court that there is “no safe level of exposure” to carcinogens allegedly present in the company’s popular weed killer Roundup.
Monsanto can’t throw out the evidence of an expert for the plaintiff in a class action over its Roundup product who has testified that the company engaged in criminal conduct in trying to bury scientific reports on the popular weed killer’s alleged cancer-causing properties.
The judge who rewarded the law firm with the lowest ever GCO proposal with carriage of an $80 million class action this week noted the competitive forces that shaped a “very good deal for group members,” but competition has its downsides, experts say.
The winning, 14 per cent contingency fee proposal by Slater & Gordon in a fight to run a class action against Star Entertainment was not driven by a desire to prevail in the contest and buy market share but was the product of a “reasoned decision” that took into account the law firm’s practice as a whole, a judge has found.