Syngenta Viptera Lawsuit Proceedings
The University of Illinois summarizes the current state of events in the lawsuits against Syngenta for alleged damages due to Chinese rejection of corn with the Viptera MIR 162 trait.
The article summarizes the legal arguments that courts have found in favor of and opposed to Syngental. Some of the arguments so far could provide precedent for future ag related cases.
"... the court ruled that as a matter of law, a manufacturer has a duty "to exercise reasonable care not to commercialize and sell its product in a way that creates a risk of widespread harm resulting from the intended use of the product by all of its customers."?
"This notion of an inter-connected market, if adopted by other courts in future cases, could be an important means to frame arguments in other disputes within the agricultural sector (e.g., input suppliers, growers, processors, transporters and retail markets)."
"Syngenta also sought to dismiss the claims of negligence by arguing that because the products were approved for sale by US regulatory agencies, the company did not owe a subsequent duty to consumers to control commercialization of the MIR 162 product. The Court clearly rejected this argument, holding that the absence of government regulation post-approval did not serve to "immunize Syngenta from any liability for wrongful acts connected to the commercialization of sale of those products.""
Read the entire one-page document for full discussion of the above points.