Lawsuit Accuses Gore-Tex Maker of "Greenwashing" and Harmful Chemical Use
A law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against W.L. Gore & Associates — the manufacturers of Gore-Tex — for allegedly misleading consumers about its sustainability and environmental practices while continuing the use of products that contain harmful perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as 'forever chemicals.'Skiers will be immediately familiar with Gore-Tex, which is the waterproof and breathable fabric membrane that appears in higher-end snow jackets and pants.Products containing Gore-Tex have become the gold standard for slopeside waterproofing, but they've also drawn concern for their historical use of PFAS.These long-lasting substances break down slowly over time and, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have been found in water, air, and human blood due to their widespread industrial usage.In humans, exposure to PFAS may lead to several conditions, including negative reproductive effects, certain cancers, and interference with bodily hormones, the EPA reports.
The recognition of the PFAS problem has prompted some state bans on clothing containing the substance, and W.L. Gore & Associates now offers a PFAS-free expanded polyethylene (ePE) membrane.The ePE membrane, according to Gore-Tex Brand, also has a smaller carbon output than its predecessors (Gore-Tex Brand, via fine-print on its website, clarifies that the ePE membrane is 'made without intentionally added [PFAS]; may contain trace amounts').But Hagens Berman, the firm responsible for suing W.L. Gore & Associates, claims the ePE membrane only appears in 'next-generation' products and that the company is still using PFAS while conducting a greenwashing campaign through its marketing and hang tags.'By consistently touting its environmentally friendly products, Gore was under a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and the other Class members the true character, quality, and nature of the PFAS utilized in its products, including the environmental impact and health risks,' the Hagens Berman complaint reads.
In a statement shared with Gear Junkie, W.L. Gore & Associates wrote that it "stands behind its representations, statements and advertisements regarding our commitment to environmental responsibility as well as the performance and safety of our GORE-TEX products.'The class-action lawsuit follows another similar case involving Maryland, which, in December, sued W.L. Gore & Associates for allegedly polluting the environment around 13 of its Elkton-area facilities with PFAS.Following the Maryland lawsuit, spokesperson Donna Leinwand Leger told the Associated Press that the company was 'surprised by the Maryland Attorney General's decision to initiate legal action, particularly in light of our proactive and intensive engagement with state regulators over the past two years.'Be the first to read breaking ski news with POWDER. Subscribe to our newsletter and stay connected with the latest happenings in the world of skiing. From ski resort news to profiles of the world's best skiers, we are committed to keeping you informed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs face threat at Supreme Court — over rulings that blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) — A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' —With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why new cannabis companies face high barriers to entry
Listen and subscribe to The Big Idea on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you find your favorite podcasts. Securing financing for a small business is no easy feat, but it's even harder for those in industries where there's evolving legislation. On Yahoo Finance's The Big Idea podcast, Erin Gore, the founder of cannabis company Garden Society, detailed the extra hoops those in her industry have to jump through to build a company. 'What we don't have is access to credit, and what we don't have is services around it," Gore told podcast host Elizabeth Gore, who is also her sister-in-law. "So, like, we cannot get a 401(k) — we keep getting denied for 401(k)s for our employees because of the federal illegality of it. We can't get a line of credit for payroll. We can't access any financing services, like equipment financing or mortgages. Our personal bank accounts get shut down.' This embedded content is not available in your region. The cannabis industry was estimated to be worth $38.5 billion in 2024, and marijuana is currently legal for medical use in 39 states and for recreational use in 24 states. However, because marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I drug federally, traditional financial institutions often avoid working with cannabis companies due to the risk of federal penalties and running afoul of anti-money-laundering regulations. One piece of legislation introduced in the House of Representatives in 2023, known as the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, would offer protections to federal financial institutions that offer banking services to cannabis companies in states where it's legal. But the bill has stalled in Congress. As a result, while an industry with this much capital and growth may seem like a prime opportunity for some budding entrepreneurs, these owners face significant financial hurdles. Without usual lines of financing, Gore has had to get creative to ensure her business can continue growing. Cash flow has been essential to keeping her company afloat. She shared that a potential investor once asked her what her cash-to-cash cycle time was, meaning how quickly she saw a return after investing in a product. Gore said the cash cycle is around 160 days for Garden Society-branded products, 'on a best-case scenario.' But she found that by manufacturing cannabis products for other companies, she could have those firms pay for materials and manufacturing up front, drastically reducing that cash-to-cash cycle timeline and bolstering her profits while diversifying her company's streams of income. "I shortened my cash-to-cash cycle time, which covered my overhead," Gore said. "It allowed me to invest in my brand. I all of a sudden had different revenue channels that offset my business and put a lot of resiliency and cash flow and profitability into my business." Even with these adjustments, which increased her company's cash flow and made Garden Society one of California's biggest cannabis companies, Gore still faces significant risk without the additional protections other businesses can get. "In cannabis, you have no bankruptcy protection," she said, explaining that this became a problem when one of her distributors went out of business unexpectedly while it owed her almost half a million dollars. "I don't have credit," she explained. "I'm dependent on that cash to pay my payroll, pay my employees. I can't go to a bank and ask for help. I'm only dependent on investor contributions." With almost a decade in the industry under her belt, Gore has also spent a fair amount of time lobbying for policy changes on the local, state, and national levels. "Nobody's better suited than the business owner to build policy and build the rules," she said. "But like we always say in the industry, we're building the plane and flying it at the same time." Though she's seen some progress, there are still plenty of challenges in the industry. 'You have to be so resilient and creative and nimble,' she continued. 'And I think people underestimate how opportunistic and open to change you need to be.' Every Thursday, Elizabeth Gore discusses real-life stories and smart strategies for launching a small business on The Big Idea podcast. You can find more episodes on our video hub or watch on your preferred streaming service. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
3M Co: A company with a sound balance sheet, and mixed shareholder distributions.
Investment Thesis Although the legal ramifications of 3M's production of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are unclear, the risks have been mitigated by settlements and the Solventum spinoff. The company is a materials science company that produces cutting-edge products like ceramic composites for aircraft engines, traffic signs, overhead projectors, and electronic displays using microreplication technology. Because 3M's technology is hard to copy and its proprietary secrets are tightly guarded, its prices are 10% to 30% higher than those of the competition. In addition to providing economies of scope, 3M's ability to adapt its technology into a variety of use cases lowers overall unit costs and boosts gross margins. With modest margin expansion primarily from operating leverage, 3M can grow its organic top line by 2% to 3% annually after the Solventum spinoff. Although 3M has some growth initiatives, especially in automotive electrification, the company's intrinsic value has been diminished during the tenure of its previous CEO, Mike Roman. Other key industries, like home filtration products and personal safety gear, ought to keep expanding in line with GDP. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with MMM. Notable Guru Holding Why Gurus Like 3M Least It is profoundly baffling that none of the top Gurus an exposure of even a percentage in 3M. Additionally the gurus who have the most exposure are traditional long/short hedge funds, who often times focus on the catalyst present in the immediate times these kind of hedge funds engage in sophisticated derivative trades which mandates them take a position in a stock to fully execute the trade. One possible explanation, apart from the legal battles, why deep value investors like Bill Ackman (Trades, Portfolio), Warren Buffett (Trades, Portfolio) and Joel Greenblatt (Trades, Portfolio)t themselves at an arm's length from 3M's stock could be its oblivion status of its cash flow. Over the past five years its free cash flow tanked by 90%. And this coincided with the dip in its dividend payout ratio which is down by 20% over the same period. For value investors, a smooth and organic mobility of cash from between holdings in their portfolio is the cornerstone of their investment philosophy. And for a company as big ( $75 billion market cap) and as matured (123 years old), a 90% dip in free cash flow in the past 5 years is a gigantic red flag for deep value investors. Investment Upsides Strong brands like Scotch masking and painter's tape, Filtrete air filters, and Command hanging solutions give 3M's construction and home improvement division a broad moat. With the invention of Scotch masking tape in 1925 and Scotch cellulose tape five years later, these brands have a lengthy history. 3M uses its adhesive technology in a number of products, including duct tape, hanging clips and hooks, toilet paper holders, drywall picture hangers, and fasteners for mounting tools, securing seat cushions, and holding down a broad but eroding moat, the consumer divisionwhich includes office supplies and stationeryearns high profits but is predicted to decline as the world grows more digital. With a 77% global market share for sticky notes, companies like Post-it have a strong hold on consumers' minds. Customers may trade down for less expensive options, but no single product in the consumer segment controls the majority of sales. Slow technological advancements in many of its markets are the reason for 3M's low risk of obsolescence. For instance, only slight, incremental technological advancements have been made during the more than 120 years that 3M's abrasives business has been in operation. Price is a secondary consideration behind factors like product availability, defect rate, and customer support because 3M's non-consumer products make up a small portion of a customer's overall budget but have a high associated cost of failure. But over the past five years, 3M's organic growth has significantly slowed, forcing it to rely on acquisitions, which have had varying degrees of success. Acquisitions that have fallen short of growth expectations include Capital Safety and Scott Safety, as well as M*Modal, a sizable purchase of what the company considers to be a weakly competitive company. The company may be having trouble passing on rising input costs to customers, which is why the decline in organic growth and declining gross margins are concerning. Many of 3M's products have been surpassed by rivals, who have gradually eroded its market share. Quantitative returns have also demonstrated competitive disruption, with peers' excess margins decreasing. Declining excess returns on capital are a result of 3M's large acquisitions and waning earning power. The remaining liabilities of 3M, including property damage, environmental, personal injury, and non-US-based damages, come to about $10 billion in the worst-case scenario. 3M would still easily surpass its hurdle rate and generate low-double-digit returns in such a scenario. In the worst-case situation, though, 3M's legal obligations might outweigh its assessment of the company's equity worth. Due to its cost advantage and intangible assets, 3M's transportation safety division, which is well-known for producing reflective road signage, has a narrow moat. The division's products are essential to maintaining driver safety, and 3M's size and pooled technology help to sustain its technological superiority and cost advantage. The division's products divert attention from price by saving customers more money than the product itself costs. According to a 2016 study by the US Department of Transportation, for every $1 invested in a sign upgrade program, $53 in lower crash costs were to the safety and industrial segment, which has historically produced high-teens returns on invested capital, the transportation and electronics segment sells a larger percentage of its products directly to consumers. With an average return on invested capital in the mid to high 20s, 3M's consumer segment is the company's only wide-moat segment and yields the highest returns. Because of its powerful brands and cost advantage from economies of scale and scope, the home, health, and auto care division deserves a wide moat rating. Another benefit for leading consumer brands is that they continue to dominate both digital and physical retail shelf space. Intrinsic Valuation Based on the time value of money and a positive assessment of 3M's long-term margin and revenue growth prospects, the company's intrinsic value stands at $93.82 per share making it significantly overvalued. In comparison to its peers in the US multi-industrial category, the company is valued at 13 times 2025 adjusted EPS, which represents a substantial discount. The contradiction could be explained by the stagnant free cashflow generated by 3M past few years. This was primarily due to the increased Capex investments and unchanged dividend payouts past few years which has hurt their free cash flow generation. And the GF valuation puts a great weightage to free cash flow generation, as it should. However, the consistently improving operating margin makes a strong argument why 3M's stock trades at such a low P/E. Over the long run, 3M's top line is anticipated to grow organically by 2%3% due to share buybacks, operating leverage margin improvements, and efficiency gains.3M is confident in its liquidity position to fund its dividend and no longer needs to take on additional debt, despite the company's unimpressive growth profile and legal uncertainties. The company broke its 64-year dividend growth streak to pay for its legal settlements, and in the worst-case scenario, it is expected to face nearly $10 billion more in PFAS-related legal the company continues to reduce its portfolio, 3M's more confident investments, like automotive electrification, should pay off. It is anticipated that the company's core businessespersonal protective equipment (PPE), industrial adhesives, automotive, and home improvement productswill continue to contribute and, in their opinion, grow more quickly than the GDP. Growing employee health and safety laws as well as increased manufacturing and construction activity in developing nations are driving the PPE market. Investment Downsides Because of the uncertainty surrounding potential future litigation pertaining to PFAS, a group of approximately 15,000 chemicals, 3M has been assigned a Very High Uncertainty Rating. More than 98% of Americans' blood and the water supplies in the US and Europe contain PFAS. Even though 3M intends to stop producing PFAS by 2025, it might continue to use PFAS-containing supplies after that year. Personal injuries, which could be substantial given the link between PFAS and high cholesterol, thyroid disorders, childhood developmental problems, and an elevated risk of cancer, are not taken into consideration in current settlements. According to a study by Obsekov, Kahn, and Trasande, the annual health costs in the US alone linked to PFAS exposure have an upper bound of $62.6 billion and a lower bound of $5.5 billion. Although estimating 3M's legal risks is extremely uncertain, both of the current settlements can be absorbed by the balance sheet. Since 1970, 3M has developed a risky practice of stifling negative research, which calls into question the company's culture and possible hidden hazards. Portfolio Management Over the past 20 years, 3M's R&D expenditures have stayed consistent at about 6% of sales, but the company's return on investment has fluctuated. 3M continues to prioritize above-average spending on product innovation, as evidenced by peer R&D spending, which averages about 3.5% of sales. The business has occasionally made acquisitions with subpar outcomes, but it could do better by taking advantage of the fragmented nature of many markets. Since 3M's healthcare division had the lowest return on investment and the fewest manufacturing synergies with other divisions, it was a smart decision to spin it off. In an effort to improve operational efficiency, the company has also taken a variety of actions, such as mass layoffs and a reduction in the footprint of its corporate and manufacturing buildings. The fair value estimate has decreased as a result of 3M's 1.8% annual share count reduction over the past 20 years. Because end markets are mature and there are significant legal uncertainties, 3M's revised dividend payout ratio of about 40% is appropriate. With 3M's remaining 20% stake and a $7.7 billion "midnight" dividend from Solventum, 3M should have enough cash on hand to cover its legal obligations and pay its updated dividend. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
