Latest news with #MeadJohnson
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Some Zeeland neighbors want to block Mead Johnson expansion
ZEELAND, Mich. (WOOD) — While some property owners have gotten more than $1 million from Mead Johnson for land that the company needs to expand on East Main Street, Margie and Earl Klein aren't selling. Some neighbors say they hope the holdouts will help block the expansion, which they fear will destroy their neighborhood. The Kleins have lived since 1973 in their home about 150 yards west of the baby formula plant — at the heart of the company's controversial expansion plans. They raised two kids there. Her parents lived there in the 1920s. 'We still walk on the hardwood floors that my parents did,' Margie Klein said on Friday. In January, she answered a knock on her door. It was a stranger from Mead Johnson. 'He sat down on our couch and said, 'We want your property.' 'Really?' 'And all of this on both sides of you, and we want everything on Washington Avenue, also,'' she recalled. Mead Johnson, now owned by a United Kingdom-based company, says it needs to modernize. Its $836 million plan calls for an expansion that would mean leveling several homes on the north side of East Main Street, including the Kleins'. The company, which makes Enfamil, released renderings at a meeting this week. The plan requires the city to rezone some of the land from residential to industrial. A hearing is scheduled before the city's Planning Commission Thursday. The company is the third-biggest taxpayer in Zeeland and employs 500 people. 'Mead Johnson Nutrition takes pride in our deep roots in the Zeeland community where we have been producing some of the nation's most trusted baby formula products for more than 100 years,' the company said in a statement released on Friday. 'This investment in modernizing our operations in Zeeland reflects our commitment to sustained job creation and economic growth here in our local community, while also ensuring we maintain industry-leading quality standards and remain a trusted partner in pediatric nutrition.' 'Mead Johnson is important to the community, we want to keep them here,' City Manager Timothy Klunder said. 'We certainly don't want to see a desire where they would have to leave, but we also want then to do it in the right way.' Neighbors have planted signs and launched a website in opposition. Already, the company has bought out most of the Kleins' closest neighbors: One said he sold his home for $600,000 and must be out by July 31. Property records show the company paid $1.5 million for a house and barn a few doors away with an assessed value of less than $300,000. Two properties around the corner went for a combined $3.7 million — about 10 times their assessed value. The Kleins won't say exactly how much Mead Johnson has offered. It's somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. 'We love our place, but we don't want to sell to Mead Johnson because they are pushy and demanding,' Klein said. Asked if she was holding out for more money, she responded: 'Oh heavens, no.' 'This has nothing to do with the money,' she continued. 'It's the whole principle of the thing. We have lived here for decades. We are so involved in the city of Zeeland, chamber of commerce back in the day. We love this town.' Jonathan Funckes lives on the south side of East Main Street. His home would face the expanded factory. 'I'll be looking at Industrial 2 (zoning),' he said. 'When we bought this, this was all residential.' When Funckes moved in 16 years ago, he said, the neighborhood was mostly rentals, some marred by graffiti. 'We've all in the last dozen years really improved it and brought the neighborhood up and are doing things to improve and make it look better, only to have the city just destroy our property values,' he said. Some neighbors said they fear city leaders have already decided. 'Why would you purchase these (properties) way above tax-assessed values if you didn't have some sort of promise?' Sue VandenBeldt, who lives a few doors away. 'My concern is that the city has sold our neighborhood out. I think my big concern is that we've lost trust in our officials we elected.' As for Jonathan Funckes, 'We're going to be fighting it, but at this point I'm preparing to sell, because I've had enough.' Perhaps, he said, the best hope is the Kleins not selling. 'That's the only saving grace at this point,' he said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Business Wire
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Files Securities Class Action Against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC (OTC: RBGLY)
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ('Scott+Scott'), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC ('Reckitt' or the 'Company') (OTC: RBGLY), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, 'Defendants'). The Class Action asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares ('ADSs') between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), and were damaged thereby (the 'Class'). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(K) Fund v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-4708. Reckitt is a United Kingdom-based, global consumer goods company. To date, over 500 state and federal products liability lawsuits have been filed against Reckitt and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories ('Abbott'), claiming that they failed to adequately warn that premature infants consuming cow milk-based formulas, such as Reckitt's Enfamil and Abbott's Similac, have an increased risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis ('NEC'), a life-threatening intestinal disease that affects premature or low birth weight infants. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors and consumers: (1) that preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk-based formula, Enfamil; (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims; and (3) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The market began to learn the truth on March 15, 2024, when, in the case captioned Watson vs. Mead Johnson Co., Case No. 21-L-1032 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2021), a jury in St. Clair County, Illinois, returned a $60 million verdict in the first NEC lawsuit to be tried to a verdict. The jury found that Mead Johnson was negligent and failed to warn the decedent's mother of the increased risk her preterm infant could develop NEC by consuming cow's milk-based formula. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.87, or nearly 14%, from a closing price of $13.31 per share on March 14, 2024, to a closing price of $11.44 per share on March 15, 2024. Then, on July 29, 2024, the market continued to learn the truth when, in the case captioned Gill v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2322-CC1251 (Mo. Circ. Ct. Jun. 23, 2023), a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, concluded that Abbott's specialized formula for premature babies led to a baby developing NEC and awarded the plaintiff $495 million. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.02, or nearly 9%, from a closing price of $11.66 per share on July 28, 2024, to a closing price of $10.64 per share on July 29, 2024. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON AUGUST 4, 2025 If you purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the 'Class' and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than August 4, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@ What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
Reuters
5 days ago
- Health
- Reuters
Thousands of lawsuits over baby formula should stay where filed, court says
CHICAGO, June 4 (Reuters) - An Illinois appeals court said on Tuesday that thousands of lawsuits claiming baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories and a Reckitt Benckiser subsidiary causes a dangerous disease in preterm infants should stay in the court where they were filed, a venue considered plaintiff friendly. The Appellate Court of Illinois' 5th District upheld, opens new tab a lower court's ruling rejecting Abbott and Mead Johnson's motions to transfer the lawsuits out of Madison County, Illinois. The decision allows the claims to move forward in what is often viewed as a plaintiff-friendly county court. Madison County is often flagged by tort reform groups as a jurisdiction known for outsize jury verdicts against corporate defendants. The appellate court, however, reversed the lower court's ruling denying the companies' separate motion to transfer or dismiss the lawsuits based on their argument that the cases were filed in an inconvenient location. The appeals court sent that ruling back to the lower court for reconsideration. A representative for Mead Johnson said in a statement that the company will continue to pursue dismissal of the cases in Madison County, many of which don't involve Mead Johnson products or injuries that occurred in the county. The representative said that plaintiffs' lawyers were trying to "coerce settlement by building a large inventory of claims, even when plaintiffs' lawyers have no intention of ever trying them,' the company said. A spokesperson for Abbott Laboratories did not respond to a request for comment. Tor Hoerman, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a statement that the ruling "reinforces the importance of corporate accountability and helps ensure that families impacted by these tragic injuries can seek justice in the appropriate forum." All of the lawsuits allege that the companies failed to warn that their specialized formulas used by newborn intensive care units in hospitals could cause necrotizing enterocolitis, a disease that almost exclusively affects premature infants and has an estimated mortality rate of more than 20%. The companies have denied the claims, saying that while breast milk protects against NEC, formula does not cause it, and that the benefits of breast milk have long been known to clinicians. In addition to state court cases in Illinois, Missouri and Pennsylvania, a federal multidistrict litigation with more than 700 cases over the claims is moving forward in Chicago, according to court records. The same Illinois appeals court is also considering a similar dispute over transferring more cases over the preterm formula that are currently pending in St. Clair County, Illinois, another court targeted by tort reformers for being plaintiff-friendly. In 2024, a jury in St. Clair County ordered Mead Johnson to pay $60 million to the mother of a premature baby who died after being fed the company's Enfamil baby formula. A few months later, a St. Louis, Missouri, jury ordered Abbott to pay $495 million in damages in another case. Both companies prevailed in the most recent trial, in October. However, the judge in that case in March ordered a new trial, finding that lawyers for the defendants had acted improperly. The case is Jupiter v. Mead Johnson and Co LLC, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, No. 230248. For the plaintiffs: Ashley Keller and Benjamin Whiting of Keller Postman; Tor Hoerman of TorHoerman Law; and David Cates of Cates Law Firm For Abbott Laboratories: Linda Coberly and Stephen D'Amore of Winston & Strawn; Thomas Kilbride and Adam Vaught of Kilbride & Vaught; and W. Jason Rankin and Emilee Bramstedt of HeplerBroom For Mead Johnson: Joel Bertocchi of Akerman; Anthony Anscombe and Darlene Alt of Steptoe & Johnson; and Donald Flack of Bartholomew, Shevlin & Flack
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge throws out case against Abbott Laboratories over its preterm baby formula, days before trial was set to begin in Chicago
In a win for Abbott Laboratories, a federal judge in Chicago sided with the company Friday in the case of a woman who alleged that Abbott's formula for preterm infants led to her daughter's death. The case had been scheduled to go to trial this week, and was supposed to be the first to be heard in federal court in Chicago over the issue of whether Abbott's specialized cow's milk-based formula for preterm babies causes a life-threatening intestinal disease called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). North suburban-based Abbott and formula-maker Mead Johnson are facing hundreds of lawsuits in federal court in Chicago over the issue, and Abbott is facing more than 1,400 lawsuits total in courts across the country. The case dismissed Friday was a bellwether case, meaning its outcome was meant to help determine how the hundreds of other cases in federal court in Chicago proceeded, and/or how to settle those cases. The court is still scheduled to hear three other bellwether cases about the issue, with the next trial slated to begin in August. An Abbott spokesperson declined to comment Monday. An attorney for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. In the case, Kentucky woman Ericka Mar contended that her daughter RaiLee, who was born at 28 weeks gestation in 2014, died when she was about 2 weeks old after being fed a cow's milk-based product made by Abbott. Mar alleges in her lawsuit that the formula was defective or unreasonably dangerous, that Abbott was negligent in selling it and that Abbott failed to warn health care providers and consumers of its dangers. But on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer granted Abbott's request for summary judgment and sided with the company. In her order, Pallmeyer wrote that Mar had not been able to present evidence that Abbott could have designed the formula differently to be safer, nor that her daughter's illness would have been prevented if Abbott had provided warnings about the higher risk of NEC in preterm babies who consume cow's milk-based formulas. Pallmeyer wrote that her decision in the case has 'limited direct application' to the hundreds of other cases against the formula-makers in federal court in Chicago. She wrote that it's possible plaintiffs in those other cases will be able to overcome the issues that led her to rule in favor of Abbott, depending on what evidence and testimony they provide. In a bright spot for the other cases, Pallmeyer also decided Friday to deny Abbott's request to exclude from those cases testimony from two expert witnesses on the link between cow's milk-based formulas and NEC. And she denied Abbott's motion for summary judgment in the other cases. Wells Fargo analysts said in a note Sunday that their legal consultant 'believes that it is likely that most, if not all, of the pending cases will fail on these same theories,' though it's possible different state laws might give other plaintiffs more 'breathing room,' the analysts wrote. The ruling on Friday was the latest twist in a yearslong legal battle between Abbott and families of babies who became ill after consuming the company's specialized formula for preterm infants — a battle that has potential implications for both Abbott and families with babies born very prematurely. Research has shown that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of NEC for premature infants, but that's not to say that cow's milk-based formulas cause the disease. Some premature babies who are fed only breast milk also develop NEC. Last year, three major federal agencies — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — released a statement saying, 'There is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.' Some medical professionals are concerned about the many cases against Abbott and Mead Johnson, saying juries should not be deciding questions that scientists can't even answer. They also worry that large verdicts against Abbott could lead the company to pull its cow's milk-based products for preterm infants off the market, leaving some families who depend on the products in a bind. Though neonatologists agree that mothers' breast milk should always be the first choice of nutrition for babies born very prematurely, it's not always available, and donated breast milk is not always an option. Abbott Chairman and CEO Robert Ford warned in an earnings call last year, 'If the regulatory process is disregarded, if the science is disregarded, it's going to be very difficult for any company to remain on the market with these products, taking on that indefinite liability here, at least in the United States.' The specialized formulas, which are generally given in hospitals, represent a very small portion of Abbott's overall sales. Though Mar's case was supposed to be the first one to go to trial in federal court, three other cases about the issue have already been heard in state courts. One of those cases resulted in a verdict of $60 million against Mead Johnson and another ended with a $495 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories — an outcome Abbott is appealing. In the third case, Abbott initially prevailed, with a jury deciding Abbott and Mead Johnson were not liable for a boy developing NEC after he was fed the companies' cow's milk-based products for premature infants. But in a setback for Abbott and Mead Johnson, a St. Louis judge in March granted a motion for a new trial citing 'errors and misconduct' in the original trial.
Chicago Tribune
05-05-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Judge throws out case against Abbott Laboratories over its preterm baby formula, days before trial was set to begin in Chicago
In a win for Abbott Laboratories, a federal judge in Chicago sided with the company Friday in the case of a woman who alleged that Abbott's formula for preterm infants led to her daughter's death. The case had been scheduled to go to trial this week, and was supposed to be the first to be heard in federal court in Chicago over the issue of whether Abbott's specialized cow's milk-based formula for preterm babies causes a life-threatening intestinal disease called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). North suburban-based Abbott and formula-maker Mead Johnson are facing hundreds of lawsuits in federal court in Chicago over the issue, and Abbott is facing more than 1,400 lawsuits total in courts across the country. The case dismissed Friday was a bellwether case, meaning its outcome was meant to help determine how the hundreds of other cases in federal court in Chicago proceeded, and/or how to settle those cases. The court is still scheduled to hear three other bellwether cases about the issue, with the next trial slated to begin in August. An Abbott spokesperson declined to comment Monday. An attorney for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. In the case, Kentucky woman Ericka Mar contended that her daughter RaiLee, who was born at 28 weeks gestation in 2014, died when she was about 2 weeks old after being fed a cow's milk-based product made by Abbott. Mar alleges in her lawsuit that the formula was defective or unreasonably dangerous, that Abbott was negligent in selling it and that Abbott failed to warn health care providers and consumers of its dangers. But on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer granted Abbott's request for summary judgment and sided with the company. In her order, Pallmeyer wrote that Mar had not been able to present evidence that Abbott could have designed the formula differently to be safer, nor that her daughter's illness would have been prevented if Abbott had provided warnings about the higher risk of NEC in preterm babies who consume cow's milk-based formulas. Pallmeyer wrote that her decision in the case has 'limited direct application' to the hundreds of other cases against the formula-makers in federal court in Chicago. She wrote that it's possible plaintiffs in those other cases will be able to overcome the issues that led her to rule in favor of Abbott, depending on what evidence and testimony they provide. In a bright spot for the other cases, Pallmeyer also decided Friday to deny Abbott's request to exclude from those cases testimony from two expert witnesses on the link between cow's milk-based formulas and NEC. And she denied Abbott's motion for summary judgment in the other cases. Wells Fargo analysts said in a note Sunday that their legal consultant 'believes that it is likely that most, if not all, of the pending cases will fail on these same theories,' though it's possible different state laws might give other plaintiffs more 'breathing room,' the analysts wrote. The ruling on Friday was the latest twist in a yearslong legal battle between Abbott and families of babies who became ill after consuming the company's specialized formula for preterm infants — a battle that has potential implications for both Abbott and families with babies born very prematurely. Research has shown that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of NEC for premature infants, but that's not to say that cow's milk-based formulas cause the disease. Some premature babies who are fed only breast milk also develop NEC. Last year, three major federal agencies — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — released a statement saying, 'There is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.' Some medical professionals are concerned about the many cases against Abbott and Mead Johnson, saying juries should not be deciding questions that scientists can't even answer. They also worry that large verdicts against Abbott could lead the company to pull its cow's milk-based products for preterm infants off the market, leaving some families who depend on the products in a bind. Though neonatologists agree that mothers' breast milk should always be the first choice of nutrition for babies born very prematurely, it's not always available, and donated breast milk is not always an option. Abbott Chairman and CEO Robert Ford warned in an earnings call last year, 'If the regulatory process is disregarded, if the science is disregarded, it's going to be very difficult for any company to remain on the market with these products, taking on that indefinite liability here, at least in the United States.' The specialized formulas, which are generally given in hospitals, represent a very small portion of Abbott's overall sales. Though Mar's case was supposed to be the first one to go to trial in federal court, three other cases about the issue have already been heard in state courts. One of those cases resulted in a verdict of $60 million against Mead Johnson and another ended with a $495 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories — an outcome Abbott is appealing. In the third case, Abbott initially prevailed, with a jury deciding Abbott and Mead Johnson were not liable for a boy developing NEC after he was fed the companies' cow's milk-based products for premature infants. But in a setback for Abbott and Mead Johnson, a St. Louis judge in March granted a motion for a new trial citing 'errors and misconduct' in the original trial.
