fbpx

Day: June 23, 2020

Burned Tort Lawyers Plead Guilty to $200 Million Extortion Racket

Late last year, we covered the criminal case against Virginia-based attorney Timothy Litzenburg and his partners.

He was accused of approaching an international agrochemical company, presumably Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, and threatening to weaponize the media and courts against them unless they gave his law firm $200 million.

The aim was to use recent verdicts to claim glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is a dangerous carcinogen, even though hundreds of studies by reputable bodies, including the FDA, have said there is no evidence for that claim.

In court, it was revealed that Litzenburg’s firm threatened Monsanto by pitching them a massive “consulting agreement” that would make future cases against them from the firm invalid because of the conflict of interest. The hope was that the company would back down and the lawyers would make off with a huge payday.

Last Friday, Timothy Litzenburg, of Charlottesville, and his partner, Daniel Kincheloe each pleaded guilty to extortion after a short trial. They will face sentencing in September.

Litzenburg and Kincheloe also admitted that after making their demand for $200 million from the company, they registered a Virginia corporation for the purpose of receiving money from the company, and that they agreed to split the funds among themselves and their associates, and to not distribute any of the money the company paid them as purported “consulting fees” to their existing clients. Litzenburg and Kincheloe admitted that after making their demand for $200 million, Litzenburg threatened that they and others would commence litigation that would become “an ongoing and exponentially growing problem for [Company 1], particularly when the media inevitably takes notice[,]” and that such litigation would cost Company 1 and its publicly-traded parent company “billions, setting aside the associated drop in stock price and reputation damage.”

WHSV

This case is important because it peels back some layers on our nation’s vastly complicated tort or injury legal system, a pernicious cyclone of veiled threats, millions of dollars, unethical standards, and huge settlements to lawyers that often leave truly injured plaintiffs in the dust.

The incentives that exist in the American legal system make it possible for virtually any legal firm to trump up a case against companies or individuals. Often times, companies will choose to settle these cases for large amounts rather than have the case gain publicity, even if there was no actual harm or injury.

In a sense, the bigger a company is, the more likely they are to have a target on their back, no matter the claim that is brought up in court.

Though there are plenty of legitimate tort cases in which people have been harmed, there are just as many that are just outright frivolous and have no legal merit. Just think of the various cases against Google Maps because people took a wrong route and were struck by a car, or against Burger King because it’s meatless burgers aren’t really “vegan”.

Because the number of cases that can be heard by judges and juries is limited in a given year, the existence of these types of cases means that other cases, with real greviences won’t get heard.

And even if cases with real harms are eventually brought to court, it’s highly likely the plaintiffs will only receive a fraction of their deserved restitution.

It’s a system that overwhelmingly benefits injury lawyers at the expense of those they are supposed to represent.

Earlier this year, an analysis of large class-action lawsuits compiled by the law firm Jones Day found that that class members received an average of just 23 percent of eventual payouts — sometimes in the billions of dollars — and close to two-thirds went straight to lawyers instead.

These large settlements end up costing companies and the consumers that suffer from higher prices, not to mention the hundreds of potential plaintiffs who are not able to have their civil cases quickly heard.

Licensing laws in the public health sector

On June 17th 2020, the Innovation, Brands and Intellectual Property Intergroup sent an open letter Commissioner for Trade Phil Hogan about the COVID-19 crisis and the risk of Licensing Laws to the production and supply of essential goods to the population.

Under licensing laws, a government has the power to revoke patent rights from innovators or companies if a discovery they made would provide vital treatment or protection related to a national health emergency. Under these laws, another organization can also reproduce and distribute the product without prior consent from the patent-holder. If the patent owner does not comply, they may face heavy fines from the government.

“If European and third-countries’ companies are prevented from retaining their patent licenses, this could hinder furtherly the production and supply of essential goods to the population.”

“A compulsory licensing bill could place even more barriers for pharmaceutical groups trying to make a profit, which could further discourage these kinds of companies from registering in any EU Member State.”

Compulsory licensing is threatening to move the goalposts on how intellectual property rights are protected; it should only be used in a state of national emergency. However, the interpretation of the notion of “health emergency” can be fuzzy.

“There are other grey areas still to be addressed over compulsory licensing as well as there are many ways to make easier access to vaccines: for example, a mutual recognition of FDA and EMA and fast-tracking procedures for some type of medicines. During tough times, decision-makers are requested to restore certainty to the greatest extent possible. Moreover, this crisis compels us to be one step ahead and anticipate issues.”

The letter was signed by:

Gianna GANCIA MEP
Fulvio MARTUSCIELLO MEP
Lucia VUOLO MEP
Massimiliano SALINI MEP
Patrizia POIA MEP
Ivan STEFANEC MEP
Anna- Michelle ASSIMAKOPOULOU MEP
Lukas MANDL MEP
Radan KANEV MEP
Fred ROEDER, Managing Director Consumer Choice Center

FULL LETTER CAN BE SEEN BELOW:


[Marketing Medium] L’interdiction des vols domestiques sera une catastrophe pour la mobilité des consommateurs

Paris, FR – Jean-Baptiste Djebbari, secrétaire d’État aux Transports, a confirmé le souhait du gouvernement d’interdire les vols intérieurs quand une alternative en TGV de moins de 2h30 est disponible. Ceci concerne la majorité des vols domestiques en France métropolitaine. Pour Bill Wirtz, analyste de politiques publiques pour l’Agence pour le choix des consommateurs (Consumer Choice Center), le rail n’est pas une alternative viable pour beaucoup de voyageurs.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5ef1a81d07369a0004e6d04f/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] L’interdiction des vols domestiques sera une catastrophe pour la mobilité des consommateurs

Paris, FR – Jean-Baptiste Djebbari, secrétaire d’État aux Transports, a confirmé le souhait du gouvernement d’interdire les vols intérieurs quand une alternative en TGV de moins de 2h30 est disponible. Ceci concerne la majorité des vols domestiques en France métropolitaine. Pour Bill Wirtz, analyste de politiques publiques pour l’Agence pour le choix des consommateurs (Consumer Choice Center), le rail n’est pas une alternative viable pour beaucoup de voyageurs.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3dodU8Y

Scroll to top
en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org