Meta Ties Executive Pay to Aggressive Stock Price Targets in Major Retention Push 
Reflection AI Eyes $25 Billion Valuation in Massive $2.5 Billion Funding Round 
Debate over H-1B visas shines spotlight on US tech worker shortages 
ECB Eyes Rate Hike Amid Iran Conflict-Driven Energy Price Surge 
Gold is meant to be a ‘safe haven’ in uncertain times. Why is it crashing amid a war? 
Finnair Orders 18 Embraer E195-E2 Jets in Landmark Fleet Overhaul 
Golden Dome Missile Defense: Anduril and Palantir Join Forces on Trump's $185B Space Shield 
Berkshire Hathaway and Tokio Marine Form Major Strategic Insurance Partnership 
Sonova Shares Slip as Hearing Aid Giant Lowers Growth Outlook and Plans Sennheiser Exit 
Henkel in Advanced Talks to Acquire Olaplex at $2 Per Share 
Nanya Technology Shares Surge 10% After $2.5 Billion Private Placement from Sandisk and Cisco 
Citi Names Eric Farina and Rob Cascarino to Lead Global Infrastructure Financing Group 
Gold Prices Climb as Middle East Ceasefire Talks Stir Market Optimism 
Time to buy local: war fuel price shocks reveal the folly of a long food supply chain 
SLMG Beverages Eyes Price Hikes Amid Rising Packaging Costs and India's Booming Soft Drink Market 
A federal judge has dismissed a 2019 lawsuit against Starbucks, filed by Balmuccino LLC, accusing the coffee giant of stealing its coffee-flavored lip balm trade secrets. The judge ruled that Balmuccino LLC waited too long to file the case in federal court.
The trade secret claim against Starbucks is over after a federal judge dismisses the lawsuit on technical grounds. The case was said to have been filed after the company launched its S'mores Frapuccino lip gloss in 2019.
According to Courthouse News Service, Starbucks was cleared because the complainant, Balmuccino LLC, waited too long to file the lawsuit in federal court. The latter sued SB for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Still, U.S. District Judge John Chun explained that the case was tossed out because of the lack of jurisdiction over Starbucks since it was filed in a state court in California.
The judge sided with Starbucks after applying Washington state law instead of the more lenient California state law. He referred to the former to answer whether Balmuccino could still go after its claims after the statute of limitations expired.
"Balmuccino draws on California's more forgiving tolling law to argue that declining to toll the statutes of limitations during the pendency of the state-court action is bad public policy," Judge Chun stated. "Balmuccino may have a point that requiring a plaintiff to concurrently file separate actions in two different jurisdictions is inefficient and laborious. Yet this is the tolling policy that Washington has apparently adopted."
He added, "Even assuming that Balmuccino reasonably asserted personal jurisdiction in California at the outset of litigation, Balmuccino was on notice that it might need to file elsewhere at least as of June 2020, prior to the expiration of the limitations periods lessens the force of its policy argument that it would be unfair or redundant to have to concurrently file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions."
In response to the dismissal of the lawsuit, Reuters reported that Eduardo Martorell, Balmuccino's lawyer, said they think the case was wrongly decided, so they will appeal the decision or re-file the suit in New York. He added that they would not stop fighting until the courts allow Balmuccino to be heard on the merits.
