For all those in the dairy industry who do NOT understand that we are living in a new world....
The only place I have found this report is in an Ontario agricultural newspaper & FSnet, a food safety Internet page. Lucky, lucky dairy farmers, that this is NOT being seen in the major papers.
How they could have missed this one is any body's guess. Traceability has advanced to the point they can and did identify the VAT # the tainted batch came from. If you can't be bothered to read this article.....think again. The judge awarded $5,019,091.50, to Schneider's . Did the plant contaminate the batch or did the milk arrive that way? The article does not speak to this issue, but dairy farmers had better think about it long and hard.-CG
SCHNEIDER WINS FOOD POISONING SUIT; A JUDGE HAS AWARDED COURT COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND INTEREST TO SCHNEIDER IN ITS CASE AGAINST PARMALAT
November 14, 2006Ontario Farmer
Jim Romahn
What is open to public scrutiny is a small file containing documents and letters lawyers filed as they argued over court costs. The judge awarded costs in the case to Schneider Corp. Schneider claimed fees of $2,219,441.50 and disbursement costs of $772,067.22, but Justice Wright called the fees "absurd". Parmalat countered that the fees ought to be no more than $848,352.71 and disbursements $462,307.56. The judge set the fees at $884,518 and disbursements at $517,128.54 and tacked on $1,726,420.72 for interest. His judgement in favour of Schneider Corp. was $5,019,091.50, so the bottom line came to $8,197,158.70. At one point Schneider Corp. offered to settle for $6.8 million, but Parmalat did not accept.
That's what Schneider's lawyers said in their letter to Justice Wright to explain why the costs rose so high. They said Parmalat fought the case on every front, throwing up a myriad of possibilities for the source of salmonella bacteria that contaminated Schneider Lunchmate products that sickened thousands of Canadians, including many school children who had the snacks packed in their lunches.
Parmalat even fought inclusion of Canadian Food Inspection Agency test results right up to the beginning of the trial and it fought inclusion of provincial lab results until it finally yielded on that point five days into the trial.
Justice Wright put all of the blame on Parmalat and that's why he awarded Schneider Corp. more than $5 million, plus interest plus costs. The interest, at five per cent, accumulated from 1998, when the food poisoning occurred, to May, 2005, when Wright issued his decision. Justice Wright said Schneider Corp. made "a poor use of resources" in putting 10 lawyers, four articling students and nine law clerks on the case. Schneider's law firm was Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson. Parmalat hired Dutton, Brock.
The documents indicate Schneider's paid $5,504.63 for the appearances of 10 witnesses and $557,561.33 for experts. Parmalat's costs for witnesses, experts and legal fees are not disclosed in the court documents.
Schneider originally sued for between $7,999,000 and $8,352,000 plus an unspecified amount for defamation. Schneider's lawyers withdrew the defamation claim during the trial, but wanted to add $1.5 million to $2 million to cover increases in insurance premiums. Wright originally awarded Schneider Corp. $4,660,291.50 on May 20, but when Schneider Corp. pointed out another $300,000 for products other than its Lunchmate lines that were involved in recalls, and $58,800 for days lost from production, Wright agreed to add them for a new total judgment of $5,019,091.50 he awarded June 6.
Schneider was making two private-label products - No-name Lunch Box and Our Best Lunchkins - that were involved in recalls. No contamination was ever found in those lines. The court documents indicate that the judge decided that the salmonella that poisoned consumers came from Parmalat vat 1804 manufactured at Millbank.
Note: emphasis mine-CG
No comments:
Post a Comment