Two former Eli Lilly and Co. scientists have been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing trade secrets and passing them on to a competitor in China.
The indictment, unsealed Tuesday, charges the two senior biologists with stealing nine trade secrets from 2010 to 2012 having to do with cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes research being done by Lilly.
The 20-page indictment says that Guoqing Cao and Shuyu "Dan" Li, who are both Indianapolis-area residents, passed on the proprietary Lilly information to Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. in Shanghai, one of China's largest drug companies. Jiangsu Hengrui competes with Lilly in China and recently won approval to market an injectible drug in the United States.
Both Cao and Li are Chinese nationals who earned Ph.Ds in the United States and became U.S. citizens. Both took jobs at Lilly as senior biologists. They were arrested Oct. 1.
In a statement, Lilly said, "We are appalled and very disappointed by the theft allegedly committed by these former Lilly employees. Theft of Lilly's confidential information harms Lilly by depriving the company of the value of its costly research efforts while giving unfair competitive advantage to others."
A Lilly executive who testified in court said the trade secrets that were allegedly leaked cost Lilly more than $55 million to discover over the course of 10 years.
U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett said it's unclear whether the two scientists tried to profit personally from their actions.
Flag this Question
Question 1. According to this article, what kind of case has been filed?
1-Criminal
2-Both criminal and civil.
3-Civil
Question 2. Who is the plaintiff in this case? (Be specific.)
Flag this Question
Question 3. If this case goes to a trial, what court would it be heard in?
1-The plaintiff can choose whether to file in federal court or state court.
2-Federal court
3-State court
Flag this Question
Plea deal calls for egg company to pay $6.8M fine
Associate Press June 3, 2014
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - A rural Iowa company has agreed to pay $6.8 million in fines for selling old eggs with false labels and the tainted products that caused a nationwide salmonella outbreak in 2010, according to authorities.
Quality Egg LLC, once one of the nation's largest egg producers, is expected to plead guilty Tuesday to charges of bribing a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector to approve sales of poor quality eggs, selling misbranded eggs and introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce.
The company's owner, its chief operating officer, and a plant manager are expected to plead guilty to introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, a misdemeanor. They face sentences ranging from probation to one year in jail. Owner Jack DeCoster, 79, of Turner, Maine, and his 50-year-old son Peter, of Clarion, Iowa, have agreed to pay $100,000 fines each.
Court documents add new details to the unethical and unsafe business practices at Quality Egg, which operated a network of businesses in that produced more than 1 million eggs daily. The government blamed its tainted shell eggs for a 2010 salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands and led to the unprecedented recall of 550 million eggs.
Investigators found no evidence that the DeCosters knew they were selling tainted products in 2010. But as corporate officers, they were in position to "detect, prevent and correct the sale of the contaminated eggs," the plea agreements say.
Company manager Tony Wasmund directed and approved a practice of putting false processing and expiration dates on eggs that had been in storage for several days or weeks to make them appear far fresher. Many of the eggs had been in storage for 14 to 40 days or longer.
The practice allowed Quality Egg to avoid having to sell surplus eggs for half price to a breaker facility, where they are sanitized and turned into a liquid product. Instead, the "distressed eggs" were sold to wholesalers at a higher price; only eggs that were moldy went to a breaker, Wasmund told investigators.
Wasmund and another employee also bribed a USDA inspector at least twice to approve pallets of shell eggs that did not meet minimum quality standards. In particular, the pallets had too high a percentage of eggs that were cracked, leaking, dirty or inedible. The inspector has since died of natural causes.
Question 4. According to the article, what kind of case is this?
1-Criminal
2-Civil
3-Both criminal and civil.
Question 5. Who is the plaintiff in this case? Be specific.
Question 6. Which theory best explains why the owner is responsible even though there is no proof he was aware of the alleged illegal practices?
1-Intentional tort
2-Strict liability
3-Negligence
Question 7. After pleading guilty, can the defendants appeal the case?
1-Yes
2-No
Las Vegas Sun
Man allegedly shot by co-worker for not working hard enough
By Riley Snyder
A Las Vegas man is being charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting a co-worker for not working hard enough at an auto shop where they were both employed.
Kevin Mantalvo, 48, was arrested after Metro Police officers responded to a shooting at about 11:30 a.m. Monday at a body shop in the 5100 block of Dean Martin Drive, near Tropicana Avenue.
According to witness statements in the arrest report, Mantalvo, the shop foreman, approached a co-worker and told him he was not working hard enough. The two began to fight inside the shop before Mantalvo exited the shop, retrieved a .22-caliber pistol from his car and began firing at the co-worker, who had exited the shop and was charging Mantalvo.
In the ensuing struggle, Mantalvo was shot once in the chest and the other man was shot four times in the upper body, the arrest report stated. Another co-worker transported the other man to University Medical Center, where he remains in stable condition.
Mantalvo also was transported to UMC and is in stable condition.
Metro arrested Montalvo on charges of attempted murder with a deadly weapon, battery and discharging a gun into an occupied vehicle. He is scheduled to make an appearance in court on Wednesday.
Question 8. What kind of case is this?
1-State
2-Federal
Question 9. Who is the plaintiff in this case? Be specific.
Question 10. What three things will the plaintiff have to prove to win this case?
Question 11. Describe the amount of proof the plaintiff will need to win this case.
Question 12. Should the auto shop where the defendant worked also be held liable for the crime?
1-No
2-Yes
N. Indiana Daycare Worker Guilty In Boy's Death
LAPORTE, Ind. (AP) - A northern Indiana daycare worker has pleaded guilty to reckless homicide in the death of a 5-year-old boy who accidentally hung himself on its playground.
Stephanie Johnson of Michigan City entered the plea Friday in LaPorte Circuit Court. Under a plea agreement, she will testify for prosecutors against the owner of daycare and is due to be sentenced to four years on probation.
Authorities say Johnson was inside Tricia's Playhouse in Michigan City with two other women when Amareon Williams accidentally hung himself with a jump rope at the daycare in June 2014.
The state shut down the daycare shortly after the boy died.
Question 13. Who were the plaintiffs in this case? Be specific.
Question 14. Could the daycare business also be held liable for this crime?
1-Yes
2-No
Question 15. I certify that this assignment was completed in compliance with the Honor Code for the IU Kelley School of Business - Indianapolis.
1-Yes
2-No