• 78% of IT leaders believe senior executives do not understand
  technology and 81% are frustrated by unrealistic C-suite expectations
• 86% have recently failed to get traction on a major digital project

Go to Source

Indian agriculture is facing headwinds from government policy. The dairy industry is worried about restrictions on cattle trading. The menace of stray cattle is keeping farmers awake at night.

Indian agriculture is facing headwinds from government policy. The dairy industry is worried about restrictions on cattle trading. The menace of stray cattle is keeping farmers awake at night. Denied access to cost-lowering technology, they are acquiring it illegally, herbicide-tolerant cotton being an example. The seed industry is split. Patent holders feel their intellectual property is not safe. Agri-biotech companies have scaled down research activities or are shifting them abroad. In this interview to Vivian Fernandes of smartindianagriculture.in, Shriram Brothers—Ajay, Vikram and Ajit—express their concerns. They are, respectively, chairman & senior MD, vice-chairman & MD, and joint MD of DCM Shriram, a holding company with interests in seeds, fertiliser, sugar and heavy chemicals.

Excerpts:

There has been no crop other than cotton with genetically-modified (GM) traits approved for cultivation since 2002. The environment minister has kept approval for GM mustard in abeyance despite a recommendation in May by the regulator. Since opposition to GM crop technology cuts across political parties, don’t you think agri-biotech companies must cease research in this area?
Ajay Shriram: All have seen the advantage farmers have got (from Bt cotton). The income to farmers has more than doubled, output has more than tripled, and India is today among the largest cotton-producing countries in the world. What is happening with Bt cotton now (the emergence of pink bollworm resistance to it in Maharashtra) is an aberration. For the sake of farmers and the country’s food security, we cannot let a short-term or narrow view prevail. There are 18-20 Bt products (crops with Bt insecticidal genes) in the world. Many are of edible variety. Where is the evidence of something negative?

The Parliamentary committee headed by Renuka Chowdhury gave a report earlier this year, advising extreme caution on GM technology, despite six ICAR institutes testifying there is no evidence that Bt cotton or GM crops cause harm…
Ajay Shriram: The communication must be kept open. We must educate people better. Industry must take it up more actively with scientific proof. China has bought Syngenta (the Swiss producer of pesticides, herbicides and seeds with GM traits, in May) for $43 billion to ensure their food security. And here we are throwing out (troubling, actually) a company that has helped our farmers. And whose potential to help is a lot more. Leave alone Monsanto-type companies, we had Indian companies that have worked on mustard seed. MNC, unfortunately, is a dirty word, without any rational thinking behind it. Look at the products they are bringing in? Where have they done something negative to the country? Why is GM mustard (developed by a team of Delhi University scientists with funding from the National Dairy Development Board) which has been tested for 12-15 years being blocked?

Even if GM crops are approved, can scientists and research firms be assured of intellectual property right protection, given that the agriculture ministry has capped retail prices and trait fees, and even made an attempt to set aside patents?
Ajay Shriram: I am glad that the government stopped (in waiving patents on GM crop traits using the Essential Commodities Act in May 2016). IPR is someone’s effort, investment and brains. If you say, ‘I will control what you are going to do with it’, it is going to change the way business is done. The worry is if they (investors) lose confidence in the security of their IPRs, India will lose out. Make-in-India will get affected. On Bt cotton (seed) why can’t you let the farmer decide what is a good value (to pay)? By playing politics and pegging these things (retail prices, trait fees), it is damaging the farmer ultimately.

Within the seed industry, there is no unanimity on whether the Indian Patents Act or the Protection of Plant Varieties Act should apply to GM plant traits…
Ajay Shriram: That is why we broke away (from the National Seed Association of India). Why will anyone come to the country if they feel their intellectual property will be stolen here, or passed on without the correct value, or migrate from here to other countries? India needs to build its credibility. The government has worked to ease the way of doing business, the regulatory environment, there is competition between states, it has rescinded (unhelpful) laws. It has done so many changes and (yet) we are losing out. We are not able to understand what the farmer is gaining?

Regulatory hurdles to obtain approval for GM crops are quite high for those who follow the law. On the other hand, the technology is freely pirated as is evident from the reportedly widespread cultivation of unapproved cotton genetically-modified for herbicide-tolerance.
Vikram S Shriram: I think it will change once farmers experience the ill-effects of uncontrolled quality of the underlying hybrid. There are reports of farmers losing out on yield. While herbicide tolerance is there, the genetics is not strong or the germination is less. Ultimately, the farmer will lose out. In a matter of 2-3 years, farmers will realise a branded certified product is worth investing in.

There is a demand for de-notification of the widely-used Bollgard II Bt cotton technology on the ground that it is not effective against bollworm.
Vikram Shriram: It continues to be effective against American bollworm and many other pests. So many states have said they want Bt cotton to be regulated and not to be de-notified. This happened in a recent meeting where states have stood by the benefits of BGII against many pests other than pink bollworm.

A lot is demanded of seed companies, but government departments are not playing their part in enforcing practices like planting non-Bt cotton in Bt cotton fields for bollworms to feed on so that their evolution into resistant species is delayed. There is a governance failure…
Vikram Shriram: But Gujarat has done a good job. It had a much bigger incidence of pink bollworm resistance. Government agencies, universities and seed companies educated farmers there on the right practices. They have reduced the incidence of pink bollworm resistance (in the state). So the solution lies in a coordinated, overall approach.

If the government decides that despite there being no evidence of harm caused by GM crops, it will still not approve them for cultivation because there is no political acceptance, shouldn’t the seed companies move on? Why be fixated on one technology?
Vikram Shriram: It is unfair to farmers and also to Indian seed companies. MNCs operate in various geographies where they can do R&D.
Ajay Shriram: MNCs will continue developing (the technology outside India). Indian firms can’t. Some years on, when government policy changes, they will jump in with their developed technologies, while Indian companies will be far behind. We will be promoting international companies to get a stronger foothold in India. This policy is weakening Indian companies from doing R&D. They (the policies) are actually helping MNCs.

Mahyco recently said it’s relocating its agri-biotechnology researchers to Vietnam, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Is there a similar thinking in your company too?
Vikram Shriram: We have increased our activities in the Philippines so that we do not lose out completely. The Philippines allows GM crops. We are doing research there in GM traits—drought resistance, salinity resistance, nitrogen-use efficiency, heat tolerance… These are long-term projects. We don’t want to be completely left out. But our R&D core is here; our labs and farmers are here.

Some seed companies say trait fee must be capped but not retail prices because with the uniform pricing they have no incentive to develop better hybrids.
Vikram Shriram: Neither on the trait value nor on seed value there should be any cap. The farmer will decide whether he wants to pay more for seed which gives him higher economic return.
Ajay Shriram: I think trait-value capping is absolutely wrong. We want to move to the world stage as a country open for business and what are we doing? Who is objecting? Not the farmer or the consumer, but a set of people, for what reason we do not know.
Ajit Shriram: Our soils are depleted. Carbon content is low. The usage of nitrogen is high. Good quality seed is a prime necessity for the farmer to deal with climate change.

Go to Source

British companies are at risk from protectionist measures once the UK leaves the EU, according to a study published today.

The UK is the eighth biggest victim of protectionist trading measures, research by law firm Gowling WLG shows.

Some 85 per cent of director-level workers surveyed by the law firm believe some countries are increasing their usage of protectionist measures, while two-thirds think cross-border business is becoming more difficult.

Read more: Trade committee chair seeks answers over Bombardier tariff row

More negative trade measures are expected by 81 per cent of businesses in the future. Meanwhile, one in five believe their sector is unaware and unprepared for an increase in protectionist policies.

Michael Luckman, partner and head of international strategy at Gowling WLG, said: “Business leaders we surveyed are split on whether protectionism is good for their market – this is because protectionism is complex and can be positive or negative depending on the sector and country.”

The sum of exports and imports of goods and services measured as a share of GDP for the UK is 58 per cent, according to World Bank data, making the economy less exposed than France or Germany.

However, leaving the EU will expose the UK to protectionist measures from the bloc which were previously banned under the rules of the Single Market.

The US is the country with the biggest aggregate protectionist effect on other nations, according to the analysis, followed by Russia and China.

The US has passed 1,297 measures deemed to restrict global trade since 2009, according to Global Trade Alert data.

Read more: Voice of UK banks bows out with shots at EU over clearing and protectionism

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Endo International plc (“Endo” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ENDP) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 17-cv-05114, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Endo securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Endo securities between September 28, 2015, and February 28, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 16, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and amount of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Endo International plc provides specialty healthcare solutions. The Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes pharmaceutical products and generic drugs. Endo International offers its products to the medical and healthcare industries around the globe.

On September 28, 2015, Endo announced that it had completed its $8.05 billion acquisition of Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (“Par Pharmaceutical”) from the private investment firm TPG (the “Par Pharmaceutical Acquisition”).  Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of generic drugs and operates as a subsidiary of Par Pharmaceutical.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Par Pharmaceutical had colluded with several of its industry peers to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) the competitive advantages of the Par Pharmaceutical Acquisition, which Endo touted to its shareholders as, inter alia, “a compelling opportunity to drive future double-digit growth, serve our customers and build shareholder value,” were in fact derived in part from Par Pharmaceutical’s illegal conduct and thus unsustainable; (iv) for the same reasons, the “impressive track record of delivering strong operating results” that Endo attributed to former Par Pharmaceutical executive Paul Campanelli in announcing his promotion to Endo’s CEO consisted in part of illegal conduct; (v) for the foregoing reasons, Endo’s revenues during the Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct and likewise unsustainable; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Endo’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2016, media outlets reported that U.S. prosecutors were considering filing criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Par Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices.  In an article titled “U.S. Charges in Generic-Drug Probe to Be Filed by Year-End.”

On this news, Endo’s share price fell $3.54, or 19.48%, to close at $14.63 on November 3, 2016.

On March 1, 2017, Endo filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting in full the Company’s financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2016.  Reflecting the extent to which Par Pharmaceutical’s unlawful conduct had previously inflated Endo’s revenues, the Company reported a net loss of $3.35 billion, or $15.03 per diluted share, on revenue of $4.01 billion, citing, in part, a 27% increase in cost of revenues and a decrease in gross margins from 36% in 2015 to 34% in 2016.

On this news, Endo’s share price fell $0.83, or 6.08%, to close at $12.82 on March 1, 2017.

On October 31, 2017, attorneys general from 46 states and the District of Columbia amended their antitrust case on generic drug price-fixing conspiracy against the $75 billion generic drug industry to add 18 new companies, including Endo’s wholly-owned subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.  The states allege these companies violated antitrust laws to artificially inflate the prices of the drugs by agreeing to “collectively raise and/or maintain prices for a particular generic drug,” and agreeing to divvy up the market for the drugs to reduce competition by “refusing to bid for particular customers or by providing a cover bid that they knew would not be successful.” This in effect “avoided price erosion” and “increased pricing for targeted products without triggering a ‘fight to the bottom’ among existing competitors.” 

According to the amended complaint, these companies conspired to unreasonably restrain trade, artificially inflate and reduce competition in the generic pharmaceutical industry for the markets of fifteen generic drugs: Acetazolamide, Doxycycline Hyclate Delayed Release, Doxycycline Monohydrate, Fosinopril-Hydrochlorothiazide, Glipizide-Metformin, Glyburide, Glyburide-Metformin, Leflunomide, Meprobamate, Nimodipine, Nystatin, Paromomycin, Theophylline, Verapamil and Zoledronic Acid.  As a result of the conspiracy, “[p]rices for dozens of generic drugs have risen – while some have skyrocketed, without explanation, sparking outrage from politicians, payers, and consumers across the country whose costs have doubled, tripled, or even increased 1,000% or more.” 

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Endo International plc (“Endo” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ENDP) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 17-cv-05114, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Endo securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Endo securities between September 28, 2015, and February 28, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 16, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and amount of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Endo International plc provides specialty healthcare solutions. The Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes pharmaceutical products and generic drugs. Endo International offers its products to the medical and healthcare industries around the globe.

On September 28, 2015, Endo announced that it had completed its $8.05 billion acquisition of Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (“Par Pharmaceutical”) from the private investment firm TPG (the “Par Pharmaceutical Acquisition”).  Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of generic drugs and operates as a subsidiary of Par Pharmaceutical.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Par Pharmaceutical had colluded with several of its industry peers to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) the competitive advantages of the Par Pharmaceutical Acquisition, which Endo touted to its shareholders as, inter alia, “a compelling opportunity to drive future double-digit growth, serve our customers and build shareholder value,” were in fact derived in part from Par Pharmaceutical’s illegal conduct and thus unsustainable; (iv) for the same reasons, the “impressive track record of delivering strong operating results” that Endo attributed to former Par Pharmaceutical executive Paul Campanelli in announcing his promotion to Endo’s CEO consisted in part of illegal conduct; (v) for the foregoing reasons, Endo’s revenues during the Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct and likewise unsustainable; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Endo’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2016, media outlets reported that U.S. prosecutors were considering filing criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Par Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices.  In an article titled “U.S. Charges in Generic-Drug Probe to Be Filed by Year-End.”

On this news, Endo’s share price fell $3.54, or 19.48%, to close at $14.63 on November 3, 2016.

On March 1, 2017, Endo filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting in full the Company’s financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2016.  Reflecting the extent to which Par Pharmaceutical’s unlawful conduct had previously inflated Endo’s revenues, the Company reported a net loss of $3.35 billion, or $15.03 per diluted share, on revenue of $4.01 billion, citing, in part, a 27% increase in cost of revenues and a decrease in gross margins from 36% in 2015 to 34% in 2016.

On this news, Endo’s share price fell $0.83, or 6.08%, to close at $12.82 on March 1, 2017.

On October 31, 2017, attorneys general from 46 states and the District of Columbia amended their antitrust case on generic drug price-fixing conspiracy against the $75 billion generic drug industry to add 18 new companies, including Endo’s wholly-owned subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.  The states allege these companies violated antitrust laws to artificially inflate the prices of the drugs by agreeing to “collectively raise and/or maintain prices for a particular generic drug,” and agreeing to divvy up the market for the drugs to reduce competition by “refusing to bid for particular customers or by providing a cover bid that they knew would not be successful.” This in effect “avoided price erosion” and “increased pricing for targeted products without triggering a ‘fight to the bottom’ among existing competitors.” 

According to the amended complaint, these companies conspired to unreasonably restrain trade, artificially inflate and reduce competition in the generic pharmaceutical industry for the markets of fifteen generic drugs: Acetazolamide, Doxycycline Hyclate Delayed Release, Doxycycline Monohydrate, Fosinopril-Hydrochlorothiazide, Glipizide-Metformin, Glyburide, Glyburide-Metformin, Leflunomide, Meprobamate, Nimodipine, Nystatin, Paromomycin, Theophylline, Verapamil and Zoledronic Acid.  As a result of the conspiracy, “[p]rices for dozens of generic drugs have risen – while some have skyrocketed, without explanation, sparking outrage from politicians, payers, and consumers across the country whose costs have doubled, tripled, or even increased 1,000% or more.” 

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

/EIN News/ —  

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of  Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (“MUFG” or the “Company”) 
                                    MTU, -1.66%
                                           Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether MUFG and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

[Click here to join a class action]
On November 7, 2017, MUFG converted the New York state license of a bank branch in New York to a federal license, with approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”).  On November 15, 2017, citing a letter from the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) to the OCC, The Wall Street Journal reported that MUFG’s license conversion followed a report by an independent monitor that “the bank was ‘taking actions that are inconsistent with complying’ with a consent order it had agreed to in 2014 related to hiding illicit transactions involving Iran and other countries, including ‘the termination of a competent and cooperative Chief Compliance Officer’ in March and a ‘lack of transparency’ with the monitor about transaction data problems.”  In its letter to the OCC, the DFS asserted that it “was not given any reasonable opportunity to provide any input whatsoever” into MUFG’s application for a federal banking license, and that “[t]he precipitous nature of this approval . . . is without precedent and raises significant questions as to both the process and substance of the OCC’s decision.” 

On this news, MUFG’s American depositary receipt price fell $0.11, or 1.66%, to close at $6.53 on November 15, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

        CONTACT:Robert S. Willoughby  
Pomerantz LLP  
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-mitsubishi-ufj-financial-group-inc–mtu-300557234.html
SOURCE  Pomerantz LLP

Copyright (C) 2017 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Go to Source

							

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is
investigating claims on behalf of investors of Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.  (“Acorda” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: 
ACOR).   Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Acorda and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices. 

[Click
here to join a class action]

On November 15, 2017, Acorda disclosed the deaths of several patients in the Company’s
final-stage studies of tozadenant, a treatment for Parkinson’s disease.  Acorda advised investors that it had paused new
enrollment in the drug’s long-term safety studies, pending further discussion with the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board
and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

On this news, Acorda’s share price fell $11.20, or 39.72%, to close at $17.00 on November 15, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago,
Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham
L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby

Pomerantz LLP

rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-acorda-therapeutics-inc—-acor-300557227.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Go to Source

Go to Source

Go to Source