Indian state warns local firms over spread of unauthorised Monsanto GM cotton

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – A top Indian cotton-growing state has told two local companies that seeds they sold to farmers may have contained traces of an unapproved GM strain from Monsanto, according to government notices seen by Reuters that warn of action against the firms.

U.S. agrochemicals company Monsanto Co told Reuters late last year that local seed companies have attempted to “incorporate unauthorized and unapproved herbicide-tolerant technologies into their seeds” for profit, leading to the proliferation of illegal seeds, according its own internal investigation and that by the southern state of Andhra Pradesh.

Indian seed firms deny this. The authorities say they are still investigating how the strain has seeped into Indian agriculture.

The southern state of Andhra Pradesh last year launched an investigation after finding nearly 15 percent of its cotton acreage was planted with an unapproved variety of genetically modified seeds developed by Monsanto, which dominates India’s cotton seed market.

A panel of officials inspected some seed production plots and commercial cotton fields and collected “leaf samples” that tested positive for the Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) strain, which is engineered to tolerate common weedkillers.

Farmers told the officials the seeds that produced the positive tests were from brands marketed by Kaveri Seed Co Ltd and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd (NSL), according to “show cause” notices sent to the Indian companies on Jan. 29 by the office of the state’s commissioner of agriculture.

The notices, which were reviewed by Reuters, do not refer to any other evidence linking the seeds to the two companies. Both companies deny any wrongdoing.

Using unapproved GM strains is illegal and the state earlier said criminal charges can be brought against those found guilty under India’s Environment Protection Act.

“Any Genetically Modified Crop in India should be released for commercial crop use only after approval of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC),” the notices read, referring to a committee of experts under the federal environment ministry.

They asked the companies to explain within five days why their cotton seed licenses “should not be suspended/cancelled”.

Contacted by Reuters, Kaveri Seed and NSL said the seeds were not sold through their dealers or distributors. The state authorities should not have issued the notices without further supporting evidence, they said.

NSL later said a court in the southern city of Hyderabad had stayed, or suspended, the notice on Wednesday. Reuters could not immediately confirm that with the court. An official in the state agriculture commissioner’s office, which sent the notice, said it was not aware of any case filed by NSL.

Spokesmen for the Andhra Pradesh government and the federal environment ministry in New Delhi declined to comment on the investigation or the companies’ responses.

India approved the first GM cotton seed trait in 2003 and an upgraded variety in 2006, helping transform the country into the world’s top producer and second-largest exporter of the fiber.

But India has not approved any other GM crops on concerns over their safety, and large foreign companies have been increasingly unhappy at what they say is the infringement of their intellectual property by widespread planting of unapproved seeds. (reut.rs/2BVrQsC)

Authorities in the southwestern state of Maharashtra are also investigating illegal cotton planting.

Monsanto said using its unapproved technology in seeds could leave Indian farmers “vulnerable to exploitation by opportunistic companies”, because they could lose their crops if found to have knowingly planted such seeds.

“We appreciate the efforts being taken by the authorities to curb the sale of illegal and unapproved seeds,” said a Monsanto India spokesman. “We will continue to extend our cooperation in the investigation and efforts to halt the sale of such unapproved products.”

Monsanto pulled an application seeking approval in India for the RRF variety in 2016 following a dispute over how much the company should charge in royalties to license its technology to local firms. (reut.rs/2jbDq80)

FINDINGS DISPUTED

Kaveri Seed and NSL are among India’s top 10 seed companies, according to market estimates, and both had agreements with Monsanto to license its GM cotton technology.

NSL said the Andhra Pradesh investigating committee should not have issued the “show cause” notice – an official demand that the company explain its actions – based solely on what farmers had told them.

“Under the law, the samples have to be drawn in our presence and after ascertaining the source of the seeds purchased by the farmer,” NSL company secretary Narne Murali Krishna said in an emailed statement. “The farmer might have grown a crop from anybody’s seeds.”

NSL said Monsanto and its Indian partner had failed to prevent the spread of seeds used in its trial. Monsanto denied that and said it fully complied with Indian regulations.

NSL had replied to the notice and was confident that it would, as a result, be withdrawn by the state’s agriculture department, Krishna said, declining to share the content of the company’s reply.

None of the seed samples collected from NSL warehouses and distributors by government officials tested positive for the herbicide-tolerant traits of Monsanto’s strain, he said. Government officials declined to comment on the matter.

Kaveri Seed has also replied to the show cause notice, said G. V. Bhaskar Rao, its chairman and managing director.

“Sending notices based on the statements made by a few farmers is unprofessional,” Rao told Reuters. “We are not at all producing anything which has any trace of RRF and authorities are always welcome to come and check samples at our seed production centers.”

A senior Andhra Pradesh official, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said interviewing farmers was the only way the committee could trace the source of illegal seeds.

“Since planting is over and we can now only collect leaf samples, we will have to rely on farmers to trace the origin of seeds,” he said.

Monsanto, which is being bought by Germany’s Bayer for $66 billion, has been at loggerheads with local seed firms, including NSL, and India’s government over how much it can charge for its GM cotton seeds, costing it tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue a year.

Reporting by Mayank Bhardwaj in NEW DELHI; Additional reporting by Rajendra Jadhav in MUMBAI; Editing by Krishna N. Das and Alex Richardson

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Go to Source

RPT-Indian state warns local firms over spread of unauthorised Monsanto GM cotton

(Repeats item first published on Wednesday with no changes to text)

By Mayank Bhardwaj

NEW DELHI, Feb 15 (Reuters) – A top Indian cotton-growing state has told two local companies that seeds they sold to farmers may have contained traces of an unapproved GM strain from Monsanto, according to government notices seen by Reuters that warn of action against the firms.

U.S. agrochemicals company Monsanto Co told Reuters late last year that local seed companies have attempted to “incorporate unauthorised and unapproved herbicide-tolerant technologies into their seeds” for profit, leading to the proliferation of illegal seeds, according its own internal investigation and that by the southern state of Andhra Pradesh.

Indian seed firms deny this. The authorities say they are still investigating how the strain has seeped into Indian agriculture.

The southern state of Andhra Pradesh last year launched an investigation after finding nearly 15 percent of its cotton acreage was planted with an unapproved variety of genetically modified seeds developed by Monsanto, which dominates India’s cotton seed market.

A panel of officials inspected some seed production plots and commercial cotton fields and collected “leaf samples” that tested positive for the Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) strain, which is engineered to tolerate common weedkillers.

Farmers told the officials the seeds that produced the positive tests were from brands marketed by Kaveri Seed Co Ltd and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd (NSL), according to “show cause” notices sent to the Indian companies on Jan. 29 by the office of the state’s commissioner of agriculture.

The notices, which were reviewed by Reuters, do not refer to any other evidence linking the seeds to the two companies. Both companies deny any wrongdoing.

Using unapproved GM strains is illegal and the state earlier said criminal charges can be brought against those found guilty under India’s Environment Protection Act.

“Any Genetically Modified Crop in India should be released for commercial crop use only after approval of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC),” the notices read, referring to a committee of experts under the federal environment ministry.

They asked the companies to explain within five days why their cotton seed licences “should not be suspended/cancelled”.

Contacted by Reuters, Kaveri Seed and NSL said the seeds were not sold through their dealers or distributors. The state authorities should not have issued the notices without further supporting evidence, they said.

NSL later said a court in the southern city of Hyderabad had stayed, or suspended, the notice on Wednesday. Reuters could not immediately confirm that with the court. An official in the state agriculture commissioner’s office, which sent the notice, said it was not aware of any case filed by NSL.

Spokesmen for the Andhra Pradesh government and the federal environment ministry in New Delhi declined to comment on the investigation or the companies’ responses.

India approved the first GM cotton seed trait in 2003 and an upgraded variety in 2006, helping transform the country into the world’s top producer and second-largest exporter of the fibre.

But India has not approved any other GM crops on concerns over their safety, and large foreign companies have been increasingly unhappy at what they say is the infringement of their intellectual property by widespread planting of unapproved seeds. (reut.rs/2BVrQsC)

Authorities in the southwestern state of Maharashtra are also investigating illegal cotton planting.

Monsanto said using its unapproved technology in seeds could leave Indian farmers “vulnerable to exploitation by opportunistic companies”, because they could lose their crops if found to have knowingly planted such seeds.

“We appreciate the efforts being taken by the authorities to curb the sale of illegal and unapproved seeds,” said a Monsanto India spokesman. “We will continue to extend our cooperation in the investigation and efforts to halt the sale of such unapproved products.”

Monsanto pulled an application seeking approval in India for the RRF variety in 2016 following a dispute over how much the company should charge in royalties to license its technology to local firms. (reut.rs/2jbDq80)

FINDINGS DISPUTED

Kaveri Seed and NSL are among India’s top 10 seed companies, according to market estimates, and both had agreements with Monsanto to license its GM cotton technology.

NSL said the Andhra Pradesh investigating committee should not have issued the “show cause” notice – an official demand that the company explain its actions – based solely on what farmers had told them.

“Under the law, the samples have to be drawn in our presence and after ascertaining the source of the seeds purchased by the farmer,” NSL company secretary Narne Murali Krishna said in an emailed statement. “The farmer might have grown a crop from anybody’s seeds.”

NSL said Monsanto and its Indian partner had failed to prevent the spread of seeds used in its trial. Monsanto denied that and said it fully complied with Indian regulations.

NSL had replied to the notice and was confident that it would, as a result, be withdrawn by the state’s agriculture department, Krishna said, declining to share the content of the company’s reply.

None of the seed samples collected from NSL warehouses and distributors by government officials tested positive for the herbicide-tolerant traits of Monsanto’s strain, he said. Government officials declined to comment on the matter.

Kaveri Seed has also replied to the show cause notice, said G. V. Bhaskar Rao, its chairman and managing director.

“Sending notices based on the statements made by a few farmers is unprofessional,” Rao told Reuters. “We are not at all producing anything which has any trace of RRF and authorities are always welcome to come and check samples at our seed production centres.”

A senior Andhra Pradesh official, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorised to speak to the media, said interviewing farmers was the only way the committee could trace the source of illegal seeds.

“Since planting is over and we can now only collect leaf samples, we will have to rely on farmers to trace the origin of seeds,” he said.

Monsanto, which is being bought by Germany’s Bayer for $66 billion, has been at loggerheads with local seed firms, including NSL, and India’s government over how much it can charge for its GM cotton seeds, costing it tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue a year. (Reporting by Mayank Bhardwaj in NEW DELHI; Additional reporting by Rajendra Jadhav in MUMBAI; Editing by Krishna N. Das and Alex Richardson)

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Go to Source

Help Wanted: Data Protection Officers to Aid Anxious Firms with EU Data Law

  • Article
  • 0 Comments

They may not have the cachet of entrepreneurs, or geek chic of developers, but data protection officers are suddenly the hottest properties in technology.

When Jen Brown got her first certification for information privacy in 2006, few companies were looking for people qualified to manage the legal and ethical issues related to handling customer data.

But now it’s 2018, companies across the globe are scrambling to comply with a European law that represents the biggest shake-up of personal data privacy rules since the birth of the internet – and Brown’s inbox is being besieged by recruiters.

“I got into security before anyone cared about it, and I had a hard time finding a job,” said the 46-year-old, who is the data protection officer (DPO) of analytics start-up Sumo Logic in Redwood City near San Francisco.

“Suddenly, people are sitting up and taking notice.”

Brown is among a hitherto rare breed of workers who are becoming sought-after commodities in the global tech industry ahead of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes into effect in May.

The law is intended to give European citizens more control over their online information and applies to all firms that do business with Europeans. It requires that all companies whose core activities include substantial monitoring or processing of personal data hire a DPO.

And finding DPOs is not easy.

More than 28,000 will be needed in Europe and U.S. and as many as 75,000 around the globe as a result of GDPR, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) estimates. The organization said it did not previously track DPO figures because, prior to GDPR, Germany and the Philippines were the only countries it was aware of with mandatory DPO laws.

DPO job listings in Britain on the Indeed job search site have increased by more than 700 percent over the past 18 months, from 12.7 listings per every 1 million in April 2016 to 102.7 listings per 1 million in December.

The need for DPOs is expected to be particularly high in any data-rich industries, such as tech, digital marketing, finance, healthcare and retail. Uber, Twitter, Airbnb, Cloudflare and Experian are advertising for a DPO, online job advertisements show. Microsoft, Facebook , Salesforce.com and Slack are also currently working to fill the position, the companies told Reuters.

‘Everyone Is Looking’

“I would say that I get between eight and 10 calls a week about a role (from recruiters),” said Marc French, DPO of Massachusetts email management company Mimecast. “Come Jan. 1 the phone calls increased exponentially because everybody realized, ‘Oh my god, GDPR is only five months away.’”

GDPR requires that DPOs assist their companies on data audits for compliance with privacy laws, train employees on data privacy and serve as the point of contact for European regulators. Other provisions of the law require that companies make personal information available to customers on request, or delete it entirely in some cases, and report any data breaches within 72 hours.

On a typical day, French said he monitors for any guidance updates for GDPR, meets with Mimecast’s engineering teams to discuss privacy in new product features, reviews the marketing team’s data usage requests, works on privacy policy revisions and conducts one or two calls with clients to discuss the company’s position on GDPR and privacy.

“Given that we’re trying to march to the deadline, I would say that 65 percent of my time is focused on GDPR right now,” said French, who is also a senior vice president of Mimecast.

The demand for DPOs has sparked renewed interest in data privacy training, said Sam Pfeifle, content director of the IAPP, which introduced a GDPR Ready program last year for aspiring DPOs.

“We already sold out all of our GDPR training through the first six months of 2018,” said Pfeifle, adding that the IAPP saw a surge in new memberships in 2017, from 24,000 to 36,000.

Those companies who have DPOs, meanwhile, are braced for poaching.

Many of those firms reside in Germany, which has long required that most companies that process data designate DPOs. They include Simplaex, a Berlin ad-targeting startup.

“Everyone is looking for a DPO,” said Simplaex CEO Jeffry van Ede. “I need to have some cash ready for when someone tries to take mine so I can keep him.”

(Reporting by Salvador Rodriguez; additional reporting by Stephen Nellis; editing by Jonathan Weber and Pravin Char)

Related:

Go to Source

Chinese tech firms Huawei and ZTE singled out during intel hearing over national security concerns

Senators and Trump administration officials on both sides of the dais during Tuesday’s Intelligence Committee hearing raised concerns over Chinese telecommunications equipment companies Huawei and ZTE, two of the world’s largest cellphone makers, amid recent efforts waged by Republicans attempting to keep either from infiltrating U.S. markets.

Lawmakers and witnesses alike spoke warily of Chinese tech firms trying to expand their presence in the U.S. during Tuesday’s extensive hearing on worldwide threats, where six of the nation’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials, including the heads of the FBI, NSA and the director of national intelligence, spent hours answering questions involving foreign adversaries, both countries and companies.

“The focus of my concern today is China, and specifically Chinese telecoms like Huawei and ZTE, that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the Chinese government,” said Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican and committee chairman.

“Most Americans have not heard of all of these companies,” added Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s ranking Democrat. “But as they enter Western economic markets, we want to ensure they play by the rules. We need to makes sure that this is not a new way for China to gain access to sensitive technology.”

Facing questioning from Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, witnesses agreed that letting Chinese tech firms into the U.S. market could probe to be problematic.

“We’re deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don’t share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks,” FBI Director Chris Wray testified.

“That provides the capacity to exert pressure or control over our telecommunications infrastructure, it provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information and it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage.”

“I would say you need to look long and hard at companies like this,” agreed U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency.

Mr. Cotton followed up by asking each of the witnesses if they would recommend Huawei or ZTE products to U.S. citizens. None answered affirmatively.

“Huawei is aware of a range of U.S. government activities seemingly aimed at inhibiting Huawei’s business in the U.S. market,” a company spokesman said afterwards. “Huawei is trusted by governments and customers in 170 countries worldwide and poses no greater cybersecurity risk than any ICT vendor, sharing as we do common global supply chains and production capabilities.”

ZTE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment, Reuters reported.

“I don’t know where the United States’ sense of insecurity comes from. But I want to emphasize that in this world there is no such thing as absolute security. One country’s security can’t be put before another country’s security,” responded Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, according to Reuters.

Congress members quietly pressured AT&T towards cutting ties last month with Huawei and another Chinese firm over national security concerns, according to previous reports, and Mr. Cotton introduced a bill last week alongside Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, banning the U.S. government from buying or leasing telecom equipment from Huawei or ZTE.

“Huawei is effectively an arm of the Chinese government, and it’s more than capable of stealing information from U.S. officials by hacking its devices,” Mr. Cotton said in unveiling the bill. “There are plenty of other companies that can meet our technology needs, and we shouldn’t make it any easier for China to spy on us.”

“Chinese telecom companies, like Huawei, are directly linked to the Chinese government and communist party,” Mr. Rubio added. “For national security reasons, we cannot allow a foreign adversary to embed their technology in U.S. government systems or critical infrastructure.”

Previously the Trump administration banned government agencies from using products made by Kaspersky Lab, a privately owned Russian software company, citing similar security concerns. Kaspersky has denied aiding the Russian government and is currently challenging the ban in federal court.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link “Have a Disqus Account?”. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Go to Source

Indian state warns local firms over spread of…

Reuters

By Mayank Bhardwaj

NEW DELHI, Feb 14 (Reuters) – A top Indian cotton-growing state has told two local companies that seeds they sold to farmers may have contained traces of an unapproved GM strain from Monsanto, according to government notices seen by Reuters that warn of action against the firms.

U.S. agrochemicals company Monsanto Co told Reuters late last year that local seed companies have attempted to “incorporate unauthorised and unapproved herbicide-tolerant technologies into their seeds” for profit, leading to the proliferation of illegal seeds, according its own internal investigation and that by the southern state of Andhra Pradesh.

Indian seed firms deny this. The authorities say they are still investigating how the strain has seeped into Indian agriculture.

The southern state of Andhra Pradesh last year launched an investigation after finding nearly 15 percent of its cotton acreage was planted with an unapproved variety of genetically modified seeds developed by Monsanto, which dominates India’s cotton seed market.

A panel of officials inspected some seed production plots and commercial cotton fields and collected “leaf samples” that tested positive for the Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) strain, which is engineered to tolerate common weedkillers.

Farmers told the officials the seeds that produced the positive tests were from brands marketed by Kaveri Seed Co Ltd and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd (NSL), according to “show cause” notices sent to the Indian companies on Jan. 29 by the office of the state’s commissioner of agriculture.

The notices, which were reviewed by Reuters, do not refer to any other evidence linking the seeds to the two companies. Both companies deny any wrongdoing.

Using unapproved GM strains is illegal and the state earlier said criminal charges can be brought against those found guilty under India’s Environment Protection Act.

“Any Genetically Modified Crop in India should be released for commercial crop use only after approval of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC),” the notices read, referring to a committee of experts under the federal environment ministry.

They asked the companies to explain within five days why their cotton seed licences “should not be suspended/cancelled”.

Contacted by Reuters, Kaveri Seed and NSL said the seeds were not sold through their dealers or distributors. The state authorities should not have issued the notices without further supporting evidence, they said.

NSL later said a court in the southern city of Hyderabad had stayed, or suspended, the notice on Wednesday. Reuters could not immediately confirm that with the court. An official in the state agriculture commissioner’s office, which sent the notice, said it was not aware of any case filed by NSL.

Spokesmen for the Andhra Pradesh government and the federal environment ministry in New Delhi declined to comment on the investigation or the companies’ responses.

India approved the first GM cotton seed trait in 2003 and an upgraded variety in 2006, helping transform the country into the world’s top producer and second-largest exporter of the fibre.

But India has not approved any other GM crops on concerns over their safety, and large foreign companies have been increasingly unhappy at what they say is the infringement of their intellectual property by widespread planting of unapproved seeds. (http://reut.rs/2BVrQsC)

Authorities in the southwestern state of Maharashtra are also investigating illegal cotton planting.

Monsanto said using its unapproved technology in seeds could leave Indian farmers “vulnerable to exploitation by opportunistic companies”, because they could lose their crops if found to have knowingly planted such seeds.

“We appreciate the efforts being taken by the authorities to curb the sale of illegal and unapproved seeds,” said a Monsanto India spokesman. “We will continue to extend our cooperation in the investigation and efforts to halt the sale of such unapproved products.”

Monsanto pulled an application seeking approval in India for the RRF variety in 2016 following a dispute over how much the company should charge in royalties to license its technology to local firms. (http://reut.rs/2jbDq80)

FINDINGS DISPUTED

Kaveri Seed and NSL are among India’s top 10 seed companies, according to market estimates, and both had agreements with Monsanto to license its GM cotton technology.

NSL said the Andhra Pradesh investigating committee should not have issued the “show cause” notice – an official demand that the company explain its actions – based solely on what farmers had told them.

“Under the law, the samples have to be drawn in our presence and after ascertaining the source of the seeds purchased by the farmer,” NSL company secretary Narne Murali Krishna said in an emailed statement. “The farmer might have grown a crop from anybody’s seeds.”

NSL said Monsanto and its Indian partner had failed to prevent the spread of seeds used in its trial. Monsanto denied that and said it fully complied with Indian regulations.

NSL had replied to the notice and was confident that it would, as a result, be withdrawn by the state’s agriculture department, Krishna said, declining to share the content of the company’s reply.

None of the seed samples collected from NSL warehouses and distributors by government officials tested positive for the herbicide-tolerant traits of Monsanto’s strain, he said. Government officials declined to comment on the matter.

Kaveri Seed has also replied to the show cause notice, said G. V. Bhaskar Rao, its chairman and managing director.

“Sending notices based on the statements made by a few farmers is unprofessional,” Rao told Reuters. “We are not at all producing anything which has any trace of RRF and authorities are always welcome to come and check samples at our seed production centres.”

A senior Andhra Pradesh official, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorised to speak to the media, said interviewing farmers was the only way the committee could trace the source of illegal seeds.

“Since planting is over and we can now only collect leaf samples, we will have to rely on farmers to trace the origin of seeds,” he said.

Monsanto, which is being bought by Germany’s Bayer for $66 billion, has been at loggerheads with local seed firms, including NSL, and India’s government over how much it can charge for its GM cotton seeds, costing it tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue a year. (Reporting by Mayank Bhardwaj in NEW DELHI; Additional reporting by Rajendra Jadhav in MUMBAI; Editing by Krishna N. Das and Alex Richardson)

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Go to Source

Could oil firms be forced to pay for climate change?



The city of Richmond recently made an unlikely move that got the attention of its largest employer and taxpayer, Chevron.

It followed other municipalities and counties across California that have filed lawsuits against oil companies, alleging that the energy giants knowingly contributed to climate change and should begin paying for it. Literally.

Employing the legal strategy that brought states major payouts from tobacco companies decades ago, the plaintiffs are demanding that oil interests begin writing checks to protect Californians against rising seas, crippling drought and harmful air.

The legal viability of the lawsuits is unclear; the cases are in early stages. But if any succeed, the implications are profound: The state is already spending hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up coastlines, protect infrastructure and retrofit roads and bridges in response to rising seas. And if companies are persuaded to drill and refine less oil, California has a much better chance of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions on the schedule it has set.

esides Richmond, plaintiffs include the cities of Imperial Beach, Oakland, Santa Cruz and San Francisco and the counties of Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz. The Los Angeles City Council is considering its own suit.

The state has not joined in, something environmental groups say is a failure of leadership.

“Accountability is critical,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The state of California can and should file a case seeking money damages and also an injunction against ongoing activities.”

The California Department of Justice has sued the Trump administration two dozen times over policies that include several related to the environment. Asked whether the state would join the cities and counties or consider filing its own suit against the oil companies, the Justice Department declined to comment about potential future action.

The city-county suits began six months ago when Imperial Beach, in southern San Diego County, sued a handful of oil companies. Richmond, surrounded on three sides by water and imperiled by rising seas, joined the fight Jan. 22. Its city council voted unanimously to sue 29 oil producers, even if it meant taking on Chevron, whose tax payments — $45 million in 2016 — account for 25 percent of the city’s general fund.

“They are a pretty important corporate citizen,” said Richmond Mayor Tom Butt.

However, “we are a waterfront city — Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline on the Bay. Part of our city is vulnerable to sea-level rise: our transportation systems, neighborhoods and commercial areas and thousands of acres of waterfront park.”

Advertisement

Among those vulnerable venues is Chevron’s refinery, which sits at the edge of San Francisco Bay. Completed in 1902, this refinery, the state’s largest, was immediately dubbed “the colossus.” The facility today employs more than 3,400 people.

Leah Casey, the spokeswoman for Chevron’s Richmond refinery, said in a statement that lawsuits like the local ones “will do nothing to address the serious issue of climate change. Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement.”

Butt said the city sued “out of frustration, because I know that these fossil fuel companies are aware of the long-term costs and damage of the widespread consumption of fossil fuel.” He said Richmond was already planning for the sea’s rise but had not yet calculated mitigation costs.

The suits are filed in state court under California’s public-nuisance law, which allows legal actions against activities that are “injurious to health.”

New York City filed a similar claim against five of the world’s largest oil companies in federal court, asking that the cost of mitigating damage done by the companies as a result of their contribution to climate change be charged to them.

The legal challenges also assert that the oil industry has known for decades that burning fossil fuels accelerates climate change. The Richmond complaint states, “The industry has known for decades that business-as-usual combustion of their products could be ‘severe’ or even ‘catastrophic.’

“Companies were so certain of the threat that some even took steps to protect their own assets from rising seas and more extreme storms,” the complaint goes on, “and they developed new technologies to profit from drilling in a soon-to-be-ice-free Arctic. Yet instead of taking steps to reduce the threat to others, the industry actually increased production while spending billions on public relations, lobbying, and campaign contributions to hide the truth.”

The slow unraveling of the decades-long industry cover-up of the medical harm from cigarettes turned the tide in the tobacco cases, according to Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law.

Carlson, who is advising some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, said that courts will take into account the oil-industry-funded campaign to discredit climate science.

“That matters in California,” she said. “If you can show evidence that a defendant engaged in a campaign to obfuscate, it’s more than just a nice detail. Evidence helps.”

With much at stake, oil companies are pushing back hard. ExxonMobil has responded with a demand to depose lawyers representing the California cities and counties.

The company says it is a victim of a conspiracy and cities and counties are being disingenuous: When they issue municipal bonds, they portray risk from climate change as unpredictable, not the fault of oil firms, as the lawsuits claim.

The companies have also filed motions to move the cases to federal courts, where they believe there are precedents more favorable to them.

The number of the legal claims intended to monetize the consequences of a warming planet is growing. Carlson said greater scientific certainty about attributing climate change impacts to specific industries and companies has created a legal opening.

“The courts were uncomfortable that they couldn’t trace the harm,” she said.

California is the epicenter of so-called climate-attribution science, said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“There’s really a quite robust ability to characterize the extent to which climate change impacts have worsened,” he said.

Further, by collating data taken from oil companies’ annual accounting and national and international energy agencies’ reports, “one can then connect the dots and assign a cost. That tees up the question, ‘Who is responsible and who should pay?’” Frumhoff said.

“This is where the science is taking us, with increasing specificity and confidence.”

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Vodafone Group plc and Certain Officers – VOD

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Vodafone Group plc and Certain Officers – VOD – World News Report – EIN News

Trusted News Since 1995

A service for global professionals
·
Thursday, February 15, 2018

·
432,143,715
Articles


·
3+ Million Readers

News Monitoring and Press Release Distribution Tools

News Topics

Newsletters

Press Releases

Events & Conferences

RSS Feeds

Other Services

Questions?

Documents: Trenton paying $2 million for two firms to help Trenton Water Works



TRENTON >> An engineering firm hired by the city to help with the water crisis is making a boatload of cash to provide a handful of workers to help the troubled Trenton Water Works, documents show.

Records obtained by The Trentonian lay out the scope of the previously reported $1.3 million emergency contract the city entered into with Wade Trim, a civil engineering firm with corporate headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.

The records also show an additional three-quarters of a million dollars flowing into the coffers of Princeton-based Banc3 Engineering owned by Babu Cherukuri, who online records show made at least one political donation to a Mercer County leader in the past.

That pushes the total cost to more than $2 million for the city to help fix the ailing water utility.

Advertisement

City councilors reached by The Trentonian said they were upset information about the cost of fixing TWW is slowly leaking.

“I’m not voting for it,” South Ward Councilman George Muschal said about ratifying the contracts, which were pushed through on an emergency basis bypassing the normal bidding process and City Council approval. “They’re playing games. We’re the ones who hold the purse for the money.”

North Ward Councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilson had just started to dig into the contracts and had “a lot of issues with” them.

Last month, when The Trentonian reported the $1.3 million Wade Trim contract, it asked city officials for information about a second mysterious contractor public works director Merkle Cherry mentioned in a prior interview with the newspaper.

A city spokesman blew off the newspaper’s request for information before initially incomplete documents about Banc3 were provided this week, in response to The Trentonian’s public records request.

Several pages of the Banc3 contract were missing. City Clerk Dwayne Harris acknowledged the oversight when The Trentonian contacted him and provided an additional 11 pages of documents showing the 12-month deal with Banc3 Engineering Inc. at $755,322.

City spokesman Michael Walker claimed the city didn’t earlier provide information about Banc3 because it hadn’t “finalized our negotiations. The details come out in drips and drabs because the negotiations are done in pieces.”

The Banc3 contract was signed in February.

The contracts, both of which were secured under an “exigent” exception to the Local Public Contracts Law, run through Jan. 15, 2019.

The contracts show and officials confirmed the two engineering firms are being contracted to bring in 15 workers to help stabilize TWW, which has been repeatedly cited by the state Department of Environmental Protection over qualms of staffing, operational and infrastructure.

The contracts state, “It is not expected that the contracted services or staff will replace or supersede any existing or proposed TWW or Trenton Sewer Utility staff to achieve the long-term goals.”

The DEP previously slammed the city for providing an “unacceptably incomplete” preliminary draft contract with Wade Trim.

Mayor Eric Jackson responded in a Jan. 18 letter sent to former DEP commissioner Bob Martin two days after he left office.

The city and DEP reached an agreement extending the deadline for Trenton to address TWW’s problems until June 29, 2018, or two days before Mayor Jackson is set to leave office.

A September report noted 68 TWW vacancies, or 39 percent of the utility’s staffing positions.

Some of the responsibility in addressing the staffing gaps falls to Wade Trim and Banc3.

Under the agreement with the city, Wade Trim is supposed to bring in or hire nine workers.

Some of those positions were filled within two weeks of the Jan. 15 start date of the contract and Wade Trim is still working to fill three openings, including two operator and one senior operator positions.

Cherry told The Trentonian on Wednesday that Banc3 has brought in three of the six workers it’s contracted for and is in the process of making additional hires.

Cherry didn’t know whether the employee hired by Wade Trim was from the capital city, which has had trouble attracting qualified candidates to the water department.

In 2014, the city lifted a residency requirement for certain workers aimed at filling TWW positions.

The public works director acknowledged the city isn’t “vetting” the workers brought in by Wade Trim or Banc3 because those responsibilities fall on the companies.

The contracts shows a breakdown of what Wade Trim and Banc3 are charging in “fees” for the positions. Wade Trim is charging the city a monthly fee of $109,355 for the nine workers. The fees range, which adds up to the contract total of $1,312,269, from $9,949 for each assistant operator to $19,101 for the chief pump operator. Banc3 lists two operators each at $141,081, two assistant operators each at $127,428 and two water repairers each at $109,152.

Cherry said those “fees” are “in the neighborhood” of what the city would have to pay to hire workers in those positions.

Wade Trim’s online job postings reviewed by The Trentonian included duty descriptions and a list of qualifications but not salary ranges.

The listings stated candidates must have high school diplomas or GEDs, driver’s licenses and water supply operator certificates but prior experience wasn’t necessarily required.

The listings stated “basic math, chemistry, and mechanical skills, along with basic computer skills are required” while experience with lab testing and water and wastewater treatment plant experience were “highly desirable.”

Another thing that was “highly desirable” but not legally required was for Cherukuri, the Banc3 president, to disclose any political contributions he made.

Because the contract awarded to his company didn’t go through the normal bidding process, he was required to sign a political disclosure form.

Under the contributor name section of the form, he wrote “none” and put “N/A” in the dollar amount section, for not applicable, swearing he had not made political contributions to Mayor Eric Jackson or anyone else.

However, the disclosure form stated he was only required to disclose contributions exceeding $300 made “during the 12 months prior to the award of the contract.”

That left him legal wiggle room to omit a $200 contribution to Hamilton Mayor Kelly Yaede in April 2013, according to the state Election Law Enforcement Commission database.

Cherry and a city spokesman said they weren’t aware of any of the political contributions made by Cherukuri, who didn’t respond to a message left for him at his office.

Go to Source

FileTrail Offers e-Book for Law Firms Aiming to Automate Information Governance

FileTrail Offers e-Book for Law Firms Aiming to Automate Information Governance – World News Report – EIN News

Trusted News Since 1995

A service for global professionals
·
Wednesday, February 14, 2018

·
431,916,197
Articles


·
3+ Million Readers

News Monitoring and Press Release Distribution Tools

News Topics

Newsletters

Press Releases

Events & Conferences

RSS Feeds

Other Services

Questions?

Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp. Announces Prior Engagement of Investor Relations Firms

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb 14, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp. (tsx.v:CBW) (the “Company”) announces that it previously retained each of IRTH Communications, LLC ()IRTH”), Skanderbeg Capital Advisors Inc. ()Skanderbeg”) and Winning Media LLC ()Winning Media”) to provide investor relations services to the Company.

IRTH

IRTH was retained by the Company in October, 2017 to provide investor relations and communication services to the Company. IRTH, based in Santa Monica, California, is a leading provider of investor relations, financial communications, and strategic consulting services. IRTH provides a full suite of investor relations services utilizing modern technologies coupled with long lasting relationships and relationship building processes to help develop and maintain interest from an issuer’s shareholder base.

IRTH was retained by the Company for an initial term of 12 months expiring in October, 2018, with an automatic 12 month renewal unless the Company gives notice of its intention to terminate the agreement on the expiration of the initial term. IRTH is paid a monthly fee of USD$7,500 plus an annual set up fee of USD$100,000. An additional USD$100,000 set up fee will be payable if the Company renews the agreement.

The Company and IRTH act at arm’s length. To the knowledge of the Company, IRTH has no present interest, directly or indirectly, in the Company or its securities.

Skanderbeg

As previously announced by the Company, Skanderbeg was retained by the Company in May, 2017. Skanderbeg is a boutique merchant bank and capital advisor firm with expertise in capital raising, marketing, market awareness and investor relations. Pursuant to the terms of the engagement, Skanderbeg assists the Company with communications, public relations strategies and building relationships within the financial community.

Skanderbeg was retained by the Company for a term of 12 months, expiring in May, 2018, in consideration for the payment of a cash fee of CAD$100,000. In addition, the Company has issued Skanderbeg an aggregate of 200,000 options to purchase an equal number of common shares of the Company at exercise prices ranging from CAD$1.00 to CAD$2.23 per share. The options are exercisable for a period of 10 years from the date of grant and, in accordance with the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange, 25% of the options will vest each quarter from the date of grant.

The Company and Skanderbeg act at arm’s length. To the knowledge of the Company, other than the options noted above, Skanderbeg currently owns or controls approximately 33,150 common shares of the Company and has no other present interest, directly or indirectly, in the Company or its securities.

Winning Media

Winning Media was retained by the Company in September, 2017 to provide digital marketing consulting services to the Company. Winning Media, based in Houston, Texas, provides specialized marketing and branding design services.

Winning Media was retained by the Company on a month to month basis on a non-fixed fee basis. The Company’s engagement stipulated an initial marketing project at a cost of CAD$10,000. All additional projects will be determined on an individual basis and invoices are to be rendered to the Company on a project-by-project basis.

The Company and Winning Media act at arm’s length. To the knowledge of the Company, Winning Media has no present interest, directly or indirectly, in the Company or its securities.

Aside from the option issuances noted above, all fees for investor relations services provided by these firms have been, and will continue to be, paid from the Company’s cash on hand. Each of these agreements remains subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD

“Chuck Rifici” Chairman & CEO

About Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp. (tsx.v:CBW)

Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp. is a collective of entrepreneurs with a passion for the cannabis industry past, present and future. Our mandate is to facilitate growth for our partners by providing them with financial support and sharing our collective industry experience. Our partners all have different visions, voices and brand values, and all share a common goal–to build a world-class industry based on ethics, diversity, quality and innovation.

Stay Connected:
For more information about investing in Cannabis Wheaton, please visit: http://www.wheatonincome.com or contact our investor relations team at: 800.980.1314 or IR@wheatonincome.com. Follow up on Twitter @WheatonIncome.

Media Contact:
Sarah Bain, VP External Affairs
Email: sarah@cannabiswheaton.com
Phone: 613.230.5869

Forward-Looking Information
This news release contains certain “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities law. Forward-looking information is frequently characterized by words such as “plan”, “continue”, “expect”, “project”, “intend”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “potential”, “proposed” and other similar words, or information that certain events or conditions “may” or “will” occur. This information is only a prediction. Various assumptions were used in drawing the conclusions or making the projections contained in the forward-looking information throughout this news release. Forward-looking information includes, but is not limited to: regulatory or political change, the ability to generate revenue through the streaming agreements, the ability to obtain the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange for the investor relations agreements described herein, requirements to obtain additional financing, timeliness of government approvals for granting of permits and licences, including licences to cultivate and sell cannabis, completion of the facilities, where applicable, actual operating performance of the facilities, competition and other risks affecting the Company in particular and the cannabis industry generally. Forward-looking information is based on the opinions and estimates of management at the date the information is made, and is subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information. The Company is under no obligation, and expressly disclaims any intention or obligation, to update or revise any forward -looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as expressly required by applicable law.

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Copyright (C) 2018 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go to Source