Visa to Move European Headquarters to London’s Canary Wharf 
Trump Administration to Secure Equity Stake in Pat Gelsinger’s XLight Startup 
Momenta Quietly Moves Toward Hong Kong IPO Amid Rising China-U.S. Tensions 
Michael Dell Pledges $6.25 Billion to Boost Children’s Investment Accounts Under Trump Initiative 
Asian Currencies Steady as Rupee Hits Record Low Amid Fed Rate Cut Bets 
BOJ Faces Pressure for Clarity, but Neutral Rate Estimates Likely to Stay Vague 
Sam Altman Reportedly Explored Funding for Rocket Venture in Potential Challenge to SpaceX 
IKEA Expands U.S. Manufacturing Amid Rising Tariffs and Supply Chain Strategy Shift 
Asian Currencies Edge Higher as Markets Look to Fed Rate Cut; Rupee Steadies Near Record Lows 
China’s Services Sector Posts Slowest Growth in Five Months as Demand Softens 
Debate over H-1B visas shines spotlight on US tech worker shortages 
The ghost of Robodebt – Federal Court rules billions of dollars in welfare debts must be recalculated 
Gold Prices Steady as Markets Await Key U.S. Data and Expected Fed Rate Cut 
GM Issues Recall for 2026 Chevrolet Silverado Trucks Over Missing Owner Manuals 
The pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers 
Asian Currencies Steady as Markets Await Fed Rate Decision; Indian Rupee Hits New Record Low 
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.
