law

Raytheon Company filed suit against three former CFO’s who were involved in a dispute with Raytheon regarding their compensation. According to the Raytheon lawsuit, during the Class Period Raytheon repeatedly made misleading and false statements to Wall Street Investors as part of its marketing efforts and/or did not properly disclose its lack of internal controls and improper internal control relating to its financial reporting. In addition, according to the complaint, Raytheon failed to develop adequate internal controls for its defense programs. Additionally, in reliance upon these representations and in furtherance of these misleading and false statements, investors in Raytheon both directly and indirectly bear liability for material misstatements and gross misstatements in their investment in Raytheon Corporation.

Raytheon Lawsuit

 

On May 8, 2021, the United States District Court held a bench trial in Manhattan Beach, California. On this date, the court found and sustained the following suits, namely: J.R. Smith, J.P. Smith, M.J. Pates, L.J. and C.R. Ginn.

On Dec. 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the claims made by J.P. Smith, J.R. Pates and M.J. Pates.

Pursuant to its agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Raytheon signed a consent agreement with the EPA on Dec. 7, 2021.

The consent agreement provides that the corporation will not “knowingly” discharge or cause to be discharged any Subic waters for the purpose of mining for asbestos. Specifically, the company is not permitted to “use any devices in causing water to rise in or discharging from any submerged structure in the waters of Subic Bay, including any pier, dock, wharf, or floating structures.”

Additionally, the company is prohibited from “conducting any exploration for or conducting any activity in the waters of Subic Bay which may result in the release of an asbestos-containing product into the water.”

Pursuant to the complaint, the plaintiffs argue that they suffered injury as a direct result of the defendants’ violation of the provisions of the consent agreement.

Specifically, plaintiffs argue that they were exposed to a “sale, transfer, exchange, distribution, operation, or disposal of an asbestos product that contained Asbestos”. The complaint further states that the “places” at which these activities occurred include: the defendants’ warehouse in Los Angeles, the dump located in San Pedro, and the trespass area at the Los Angeles Harbor.

The complaint further states, “Plaintiffs suffered injuries as a direct result of the violations of their rights guaranteed by the Clean Water Act and Asbestos Act”. The complaint further claims that defendant-plaintiff failed to properly warn its employees and managers that they were exposed to Asbestos while they worked in their facilities.

In its answer, Raytheon contends that it was not aware that its facilities contained Asbestos and that plaintiffs did not have notice that the substance “should be avoided at all costs”.

Furthermore, the company asserts that it is not liable for any actions resulting from Asbestos exposure and that plaintiffs improperly moved forward in trying to sue it. Specifically, the complaint seeks to distinguish the Florida case above as having been “perceived as outside of the range of remedies available to protect against exposure to Asbestos.” In support of its position, Raytheon points out that there is nothing in the Florida case that directly affects employees working in its facilities. In addition, the complaint maintains that it is irrelevant whether or not a reasonable person could be expected to avoid Asbestos based on Asbestos-containing products.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *